Is it possible to be a consumer in the West and NOT support unethical business practices??

Question

For example, I am a self-confessed chocoholic, especially Cadburys, but I hate the fact that they exploit the countries supplying the cocoa. I used to shop at Gap, but discovered years ago that they use child labour - and were recently found to still be employing children. I have just watched a documentary about Coca cola and found out it had ties with Nazi Germany, employed questionable practices with regard to hiring of ethnic minorities, also has ties with child labour and so on. And due to the vicious, murderous nature of the diamond industry, I will never wear diamonds again.

I never intended to be a kaftan-wearing, tree-hugging "ethical consumer", but it looks LIKELY that almost every big corporation out there is, at best, horribly exploiting somebody much weaker than themselves. At worst, it is killing them.

ANyone out there feel where I am coming from? Can I go out and buy a packet of chewing gum without funding some oppressive, violent regime?

John inMelb, i gotta respond:

Firstly to your suggestion that my question is patronising, not only do i disagree strongly but I also think that for you to speak on behalf of these people and say that ethical consumerism is patronising is., well, patronising in itself. Let the people concerned tell me that they dont want fairer trade practices, its not really your place to tell me that. From what I see on the TV, many third world countries welcome efforts to impose fairer trade practices on large western corporations.

Secondly and more importantly, the idea that we are somehow helping the exploited parties by continuing to patronise these big businesses is ludicrous. That kinda like solving the problem of bullying at school by expelling the victims. It admittedly means that the victims no longer get bullied, but at the victims expense. And it gives the bullies additional power, something they do not need.

By continuing to blindly fund these corporations, you are part of the problem, not the solution. Dont try to make yourself feel better by concluding that the ONLY way you can help those exploited (and by the way, this question was not just about child labour but about businesses with blood on their hands) is by continuing to spend your money. WHy dont you lobby your government, apply pressure to ensure that there are procedures in place which will penalise corporations who fund oppressive regimes? Why dont you campaign for your government to employ a fair trade scheme for businesses, so that children in Africa can go to school instead of slaving for hours everyday harvesting cocoa for a pittance so that we in the West can have cheap chocolate??

Johninmelb
Like most people, I get my information from a wide range of media sources.
The TV and the media in general is where ALL of us get our information about what is going on in the world. If TV/radio/press are not credible sources of information for news on exploited 3rd world countries (because they are too "generalised") then they arent credible for ANY information.

I did deal with your comments about capitalism - for issues like child labour i proposed ways of putting pressure on big business so that they cant just railroad over people. Those are just fro the top of my head. You seem like a smart man, if you sat down for 5 mins you could come up with some ideas yourself.

I understand that we will always have people earning less than others but its down those of us with a conscience to lead from the front and force these companies to adjust their behaviour, not just roll over and play dead and line their pockets further!!

The existence of the Fairtrade Organisation tells me a) that this is far from being an exercise in futility which is what you seem to be suggesting and b) that there are plenty of people who feel the same way i do, and the way you apparently used to.

You inferred that I was dealing with the effect rather than the cause of 3rd world exploitation - how so? I suggested lobbying your government.

Answer 1

There are lots of options for ethical trade, BUT:

- beware of weak badges. The Fair Trade logo (looks a bit like a ying/yang/penguin collision) is the strongest.

- Russian proverb: the perfect is the enemy of the good. Seek "fairer trade"; don't believe that any sort of Shangri-la perfection is available to you

- be a realist. Commerce, markets, etc, have been the main reason that humanity has had anything to eat ever since the agricultural revolution. Capitalism has been described as a great servant and a dreadful master. Use it where it works; constrain it where it doesn't.

- choose your battles. It is better to fight one battle well than to be spread across a thousand different fronts.

Maybe there's an activist or an entrepeneur in you - what will your speciality be? For Anita Roddick, it was cosmetics. For Juliet Davenport, it is renewable energy. Neither of them had to hug every tree in the park to make a big difference. If they'd tried to do that, they'd have achieved substantially less.

Answer 2

No, you can't. But the thing is, you need to realise that the world is ruled by capitalism and free enterprise - which although not a perfect system is the best anyone has so far come up with. Because of this, market forces ultimately lead to the prevalance of efficiently producing, profit-maximising companies. These use the cheapest available labour, raw materials, etc.

With the world as it is, your attitude (sorry) is patronising. You assume these companies 'exploit' these workers by making a judgement based on your own standards. As it happens, the 'exploited' workers are actually humans as intelligent and resourceful as you, and they make choices where they can based on their best interests. So they work for Gap or Nike because to them, in their environment, this is a better choice than the alternatives they have open to them. For children who are in these jobs, this decision is the same - although (in the best case scenario) made for them by their parents.

The responsibility for these people being faced with such employment choices does not belong to the companies who hire them. It belongs to the economic environment in which they are born, and this in turn can be attributed to the current distribution of scarce resources on the planet.

So. Come up with a better economic system, or remove the holier-than-thou western blinkers from your eyes and realise that the best thing you can do for the marginalised (in your view) people outside the west is buy the products that provide employment for them. Not on your terms perhaps, but on terms they have chosen from the options available to them.

Edit: Thanks for your further comments - I have great respect for your idealism. You don't actually address the points I made about the nature of capitalism, but never mind.

Without wanting to be antagonistic, I would suggest that if your judgements are based (at least in part) on what you've seen on television, these views will often be generalised.

I used to share your idealogy, but since then I have travelled extensively in the third world and seen what life is like for these people.

When you boycott the products that use their labour and the companies that employ them, and you do so without providing any viable alternative suggestion (in a free market such as we have ethical trading will always be undermined by a lower cost alternative as long as some countries are poorer than others), you are taking opportunity from them; and you are taking, ultimately, food from their mouths.

Deal with that how you will. I would suggest focussing on the cause rather than the effect.

Edit: I am happy to respond to your further comments later when I get home from work (pressed for time right now), but for an economist view - admittedly just one - a quick search in google for "third world view on 'sweat shops'" gave the attached article. If you don't want to troll through the whole thing the abstract and conclusion are probably enough to get the idea.

Final edit: You know, this question has made me think a LOT. I'm going to post my own question to get a wider viewpoint. Maybe it IS just a case of getting sufficient momentum going in an ethical trading movement to bring about a fairer distribution of the world's resources. Hmm.

Answer 3

Probably not and it is not your fault. Any more than it would be your fault if somebody decided to assault you. It is the fault of big business and the governments which permit business to operate without proper controls and guidelines.

Answer 4

I am beginning to think that in one way or another we are always supporting unethical business practises.