/usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/secE5.html

<html>
<head>

<title>E.5 Can ethical consumerism stop the ecological crisis?</title>

</head>
<body>

<h1>E.5 Can ethical consumerism stop the ecological crisis?</h1>

<p>
No. At best, it can have a limited impact in reducing environmental 
degradation and so postpone the ecological crisis. At worse, it could 
accelerate that crisis by creating new markets and thus increasing growth. 
</p><p>
Before discussing why and just so there is no misunderstanding, we must
stress that anarchists fully recognise that using recycled or renewable 
raw materials, reducing consumption and buying "ecologically friendly" 
products and technologies <b>are</b> very important. As such, we would be the 
last to denounce such a thing. But such measures are of very limited use 
as solutions to the ecological problems we face. At best they can only 
delay, not prevent, capitalism's ultimate destruction of the planet's 
ecological base.
</p><p>
Green consumerism is often the only thing capitalism has to offer in the
face of mounting ecological destruction. Usually it boils down to nothing
more than slick advertising campaigns by big corporate polluters to hype
band-aid measures such as using a few recycled materials or contributing
money to a wildlife fund, which are showcased as "concern for the
environment" while off camera the pollution and devouring of non-renewable
resources goes on. They also engage in "greenwashing", in which companies
lavishly fund PR campaigns to paint themselves "green" without altering 
their current polluting practices! 
</p><p>
This means that apparently "green" companies and products actually
are not. Many firms hire expensive Public Relations firms and produce 
advertisements to paint a false image of themselves as being ecologically 
friendly (i.e. perform "greenwashing"). This indicates a weakness of
market economies -- they hinder (even distort) the flow of information
required for consumers to make informed decisions. The market does not 
provide enough information for consumers to determine whether a product 
<b>is</b> actually green or not -- it just gives them a price supplemented
by (often deliberately misleading) advertising designed to manipulate
the consumer and present an appropriate corporate image. Consumers 
have to rely on other sources, many of which are minority journals 
and organisations and so difficult to find, to provide them with 
the accurate information required to countermand the power and 
persuasion of advertising and the work of PR experts. This helps
explain why, for example, <i>"large agribusiness firms are now attempting,
like Soviet commissars, to stifle criticism of their policies"</i> by
means of <i>"veggie libel laws."</i> These laws, which in 2001 had been 
passed in 13 American states (<i>"backed by agribusiness"</i>) <i>"make it 
illegal to criticise agricultural commodities in a manner inconsistent
with 'reasonable' scientific evidence. The whole concept of 'veggie
libel' laws is probably unconstitutional; nevertheless, these laws
remain on the books."</i> [Eric Schlosser, <b>Fast Food Nation</b>, p. 266]
</p><p>
We should not discount the impact of PR experts in shaping the way
people see the world or decide to consume. A lot of resources are 
poured into corporate Public Relations in order to present a green 
image. <i>"In the perverse world of corporate public relations,"</i> note
critics John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, <i>"propagandising and 
lobbying <b>against</b> environmental protection is called 'environmental' 
or 'green' PR. 'Greenwashing' is a more accurate pejorative now 
commonly used to describe the ways that polluters employ deceptive 
PR to falsely paint themselves an environmentally responsible public 
image . . . Today a virulent, pro-industry, <b>anti</b>-environmentalism 
is on the rise . . . PR experts . . . are waging and winning a war 
against environmentalists on behalf of corporate clients in the 
chemical, energy, food, automobile, forestry and mining industries."</i> 
A significant amount of cash is spent (an estimated $1 billion a 
year by the mid-1990s) <i>"on the services of anti-environmental PR 
professionals and on 'greenwashing' their corporate image."</i> [<b>Toxic 
Sludge is Good for You!</b>, p. 125] See the chapter called <i>"Silencing 
Spring"</i> in Stauber's and Rampton's book <b>Toxic Sludge is Good for 
You!</b> for a good summary of this use of PR firms.
</p><p>
Even apparently ecologically friendly firms like "The Body Shop"
can present a false image of what they do. For example, journalist
Jon Entine investigated that company in 1994 and discovered that
only a minuscule fraction of its ingredients came from <b>Trade Not
Aid</b> (a program claimed to aid developing countries). Entine also
discovered that the company also used many outdated, off-the-shelf
product formulas filled with non-renewable petrochemicals as well
as animal tested ingredients. When Entine contacted the company he
received libel threats and it hired a PR company to combat his
story. [Stauber and Rampton, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, pp. 74-5] This 
highlights the dangers of looking to consumerism to solve 
ecological problems. As Entine argued:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The Body Shop is a corporation with the privileges and power
in society as all others. Like other corporations it makes
products that are unsustainable, encourages consumerism,
uses non-renewable materials, hires giant PR and law firms,
and exaggerates its environment policies. If we are to become
a sustainable society, it is crucial that we have institutions
. . . that are truly sustainable. The Body Shop has deceived
the public by trying to make us think that they are a lot
further down the road to sustainability than they really are.
We should . . . no longer . . . lionise the Body Shop and
others who claim to be something they are not."</i> [quoted by
Stauber and Rampton, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 76]
</blockquote></p><p>
Even ignoring the distorting influence of advertising and 
corporate-paid PR, the fundamental issue remains of whether
consumerism can actually fundamentally influence how business
works. One environmental journalist puts the arguments well in
his excellent book on "Fast Food" (from the industrialisation 
of farming, to the monopolisation of food processing, to the 
standardisation of food consumption it). As he puts corporations 
will <i>"sell free-range, organic, grass-fed hamburgers if you 
demand it. They will sell whatever sells at a profit."</i> [Eric 
Schlosser, <b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 269] He complements this position by 
suggesting various regulations and some role for trade unions. 
</p><p>
Which, of course, is true. It is equally true that we are not 
forced to buy any specific product, which is why companies spend 
so much in convincing us to buy their products. Yet even ignoring 
the influence of advertising, it is unlikely that using the market 
will make capitalism nicer. Sadly, the market rewards the anti-social 
activities that Schlosser and other environmentalists chronicle. As 
he himself notes, the <i>"low price of a fast food hamburger does not 
reflect its real cost . . . The profits of the fast food chains have 
been made possible by the losses imposed on the rest of society."</i> 
[<b>Op. Cit.</b>, p. 261] This means that the idea that by using the market 
we can "reform" capitalism is flawed simply because even "good" 
companies have to make a profit and so will be tempted to cut 
costs, inflict them on third parties (such as workers, consumers
and the planet). The most obvious form of such externalities is 
pollution. Such anti-social and anti-ecological behaviour makes 
perfect business sense as prices fall when costs are passed on 
to others in the form of externalities. Thus firms which employ 
debt-slaves in sweatshops while polluting the atmosphere in a 
third-world dictatorship will have lower costs and so prices than 
those employing unionised workers under eco-friendly regulations. 
</p><p>
The amazing thing is that being concerned about such issues is 
considered as a flaw in economics. In fact, seeking the lowest
price and ignoring the social and ecological impact of a product
is <i>"considered virtuousness"</i> by the market and by economists for,
as green economist E. F. Schumacher, pointed out <i>"[i]f a buyer 
refused a good bargain because he suspected that the cheapness of
the goods in question stemmed from exploitation or other despicable
practices (except theft), he would be open to criticism of behaving
'uneconomically' which is viewed as nothing less than a fall from
grace. Economists and others are wont to treat such eccentric 
behaviour with derision if not indignation. The religion of 
economics has its own code of ethics, and the First Commandment 
is to behave 'economically.'"</i> [<b>Small is Beautiful</b>, p. 30] And,
of course, such a consumer would face numerous competitors who
will happily take advantage of such activities.
</p><p>
Then there is the issue of how the market system hides much more 
information than it gives (a factor we will return to in 
<a href="secI1.html#seci12">section I.1.2</a>).
Under the price system, customers have no way of knowing the ecological 
(or social) impact of the products they buy. All they have is a price
and that simply does not indicate how the product was produced and what
costs were internalised in the final price and which were externalised.
Such information, unsurprisingly, is usually supplied <b>outside</b> the market 
by ecological activists, unions, customer groups and so on. Then there
is the misinformation provided by the companies themselves in their adverts
and PR campaigns. The skilfully created media images of advertising can 
easily swamp the efforts of these voluntary groups to inform the public 
of the facts of the social and environmental costs of certain products. 
Besides, any company has the threat of court action to silence their 
critics as the cost in money, resources, energy and time to fight for free 
speech in court is an effective means to keep the public ignorant about 
the dark side of capitalism.
</p><p>
This works the other way too. Simply put, a company has no idea whether 
you not buying a product is based on ethical consumption decisions or 
whether it is due to simple dislike of the product. Unless there is an 
organised consumer boycott, i.e. a collective campaign, then the company 
really has no idea that it is being penalised for its anti-ecological 
and/or anti-social actions. Equally, corporations are so interlinked 
that it can make boycotts ineffective. For example, unless you happened 
to read the business section on the day McDonalds bought a sizeable share 
in Pret-a-Manger you would have no idea that going there instead of McDonalds 
would be swelling the formers profits.
</p><p>
Ultimately, the price mechanism does not provide enough information for the 
customer to make an informed decision about the impact of their purchase 
and, by reducing prices, actively rewards the behaviour Schlosser condemns. 
After all, what is now "organic" production was just the normal means of 
doing it. The pressures of the market, the price mechanism so often 
suggested as a tool for change, ensured the industrialisation of farming 
which so many now rightly condemn. By reducing costs, market demand 
increased for the cheaper products and these drove the other, more 
ecologically and socially sound, practices out of business.
</p><p>
Which feeds into the issue of effective demand and income limitations. 
The most obvious problem is that the market is <b>not</b> a consumer democracy 
as some people have more votes than others (in fact, the world's richest 
people have more "votes" than the poorest billions, combined!). Those 
with the most "votes" (i.e. money) will hardly be interested in changing 
the economic system which placed them in that position. Similarly, those
with the least "votes" will be more willing to buy ecologically destructive
products simply to make ends meet rather than any real desire to do so. 
In addition, one individual's decision <b>not</b> to buy something will 
easily be swamped by others seeking the best deal, i.e. the lowest prices, 
due to economic necessity or ignorance. Money (quantity) counts in the market, 
not values (quality).
</p><p>
Then there is the matter of sourcing of secondary products. After 
all, most products we consume are made up of a multitude of other 
goods and it is difficult, if not impossible, to know where these 
component parts come from. Thus we have no real way of knowing 
whether your latest computer has parts produced in sweatshops 
in third-world countries nor would a decision not to buy it be 
communicated that far back down the market chain (in fact, the company 
would not even know that you were even <b>thinking</b> about buying a
product unless you used non-market means to inform them and then
they may simply dismiss an individual as a crank).
</p><p>
So the notion that consumerism can be turned to pressurising companies 
is deeply flawed. This is <b>not</b> to suggest that we become unconcerned 
about how we spend our money. Far from it. Buying greener products
rather than the standard one does have an impact. It just means
being aware of the limitations of green consumerism, particularly
as a means of changing the world. Rather, we must look to changing
how goods are produced. This applies, of course, to shareholder
democracy as well. Buying shares in a firm rarely results in an
majority at the annual meetings nor, even if it did, does it 
allow an effective say in the day-to-day decisions management 
makes.
</p><p>
Thus green consumerism is hindered by the nature of the market -- 
how the market reduces everything to price and so hides the
information required to make truly informed decisions on what
to consume. Moreover, it is capable of being used to further 
ecological damage by the use of PR to paint a false picture of 
the companies and their environmental activities. In this way,
the general public think things are improving while the underlying
problems remain (and, perhaps, get worse). Even assuming companies 
are honest and do minimise their environmental damage they cannot 
face the fundamental cause of the ecological crisis in the 
"grow-or-die" principle of capitalism ("green" firms need 
to make profits, accumulate capital and grow bigger), nor do 
they address the pernicious role of advertising or the lack of 
public control over production and investment under capitalism. 
Hence it is a totally inadequate solution.
</p><p>
As green Sharon Beder notes, green marketing aims at <i>"increasing
consumption, not reducing it. Many firms [seek] to capitalise on
new markets created by rising environmental consciousness"</i> with
such trends prompting <i>"a surge of advertisements and labels 
claiming environmental benefits. Green imagery was used to sell
products, and caring for the environment became a marketing 
strategy"</i> and was a <i>"way of redirecting a willingness to spend
less into a willingness to buy green products."</i> This means that
firms can <i>"expand their market share to include consumers that
want green products. Since manufacturers still make environmentally
damaging products and retailers still sell non-green products on
shelves next to green ones, it is evident that green marketing
is merely a way of expanding sales. If they were genuinely 
concerned to protect the environment they would replace the
unsound products with sound ones, not just augment their existing
lines."</i> Moreover, green marketing <i>"does not necessarily mean
green products, but false and misleading claims can be hard for
consumers to detect"</i> while the <i>"most cynical marketers simply
use environmental imagery to conjure up the impression that
a product is good for the environment without making any real
claims at all."</i> Ultimately, green consumerism <i>"reduces people
to consumers. Their power to influence society is reduced to 
their purchasing power."</i> It <i>"does not deal with issues such as
economic growth on a finite planet, the power of transnational
corporations, and the way power is structured in our society."</i>
[<b>Global Spin</b>, pp. 176-80]
</p><p>
Andrew Watson sums up green consumerism very eloquently as follows: 
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"green consumerism, which is largely a cynical attempt to maintain profit
margins, does not challenge capital's eco-cidal accumulation, but actually
facilitates it by opening a new market. All products, no matter how
'green', cause some pollution, use some resources and energy, and cause
some ecological disturbance. This would not matter in a society in which
production was rationally planned, but in an exponentially expanding
economy, production, however 'green', would eventually destroy the Earth's
environment. Ozone-friendly aerosols, for example, still use other
harmful chemicals; create pollution in their manufacture, use and
disposal; and use large amounts of resources and energy. Of course, up to
now, the green pretensions of most companies have been exposed largely as
presenting an acceptably green image, with little or no substance. The
market is presented as the saviour of the environment. Environmental
concern is commodified and transformed into ideological support for
capitalism. Instead of raising awareness of the causes of the ecological
crisis, green consumerism mystifies them. The solution is presented as an
individual act rather than as the collective action of individuals
struggling for social change. The corporations laugh all the way to the
bank."</i> [<b>From Green to Red</b>, pp. 9-10]
</blockquote></p><p>
"Ethical" consumerism, like "ethical" investment, is still based on 
profit making, the extraction of surplus value from others. This is 
hardly "ethical," as it cannot challenge the inequality in exchange 
and power that lies at the heart of capitalism nor the authoritarian 
social relationships it creates. Therefore it cannot really undermine 
the ecologically destructive nature of capitalism.
</p><p>
In addition, since capitalism is a world system, companies can produce and
sell their non-green and dangerous goods elsewhere. Many of the products
and practices banned or boycotted in developed countries are sold and used
in developing ones. For example, Agent Orange (used as to defoliate
forests during the Vietnam War by the US) is used as an herbicide in the
Third World, as is DDT. Agent Orange contains one of the most toxic
compounds known to humanity and was responsible for thousands of deformed
children in Vietnam. Ciba-Geigy continued to sell Enterovioform (a drug
which caused blindness and paralysis in at least 10,000 Japanese users of
it) in those countries that permitted it to do so. Many companies have 
moved to developing countries to escape the stricter pollution and labour 
laws in the developed countries.
</p><p>
Neither does green consumerism question why it should be the ruling elites
within capitalism that decide what to produce and how to produce it. 
Since these elites are driven by profit considerations, if it is profitable
to pollute, pollution will occur. Moreover, green consumerism does not
challenge the (essential) capitalist principle of consumption for the sake
of consumption, nor can it come to terms with the fact that "demand" is
created, to a large degree, by "suppliers," specifically by advertising
agencies that use a host of techniques to manipulate public tastes, as
well as using their financial clout to ensure that "negative" (i.e.
truthful) stories about companies' environmental records do not surface in
the mainstream media.
</p><p>
Because ethical consumerism is based <b>wholly</b> on market solutions to the
ecological crisis, it is incapable even of recognising a key <b>root</b> cause 
of that crisis, namely the atomising nature of capitalism and the social
relationships it creates. Atomised individuals ("soloists") cannot change
the world, and "voting" on the market hardly reduces their atomisation.
As Murray Bookchin argues, <i>"[t]ragically, these millions [of "soloists"]
have surrendered their social power, indeed, their very personalities, to
politicians and bureaucrats who live in a nexus of obedience and command
in which they are normally expected to play subordinate roles. <b>Yet this
is precisely the immediate cause of the ecological crisis of our time</b> --
a cause that has its historic roots in the market society that engulfs us."</i>
[<b>Toward an Ecological Society</b>, p. 81] This means that fighting ecological
destruction today must be a <b>social</b> movement rather than one of individual
consumption decisions or personalistic transformation. These can go on
without questioning the ecocidal drive of capitalism which <i>"will insidiously 
simplify the biosphere (making due allowances for 'wilderness' reserves and 
theme parks), steadily reduce the organic to the inorganic and the complex 
to the simple, and convert soil into sand -- all at the expense of the 
biosphere's integrity and viability. The state will still be an ever-present 
means for keeping oppressed people at bay and will 'manage' whatever crises 
emerge as best it can. Ultimately, society will tend to become more and more 
authoritarian, public life will atrophy."</i> [Bookchin, <i>"The Future of the 
Ecology Movement,"</i> pp. 1-20, <b>Which Way for the Ecology Movement?</b>, p. 14]
</p><p>
All this is not to suggest that individual decisions on what to consume 
are irrelevant, far from it. Nor are consumer boycotts a waste of time. 
If organised into mass movements and linked to workplace struggle they 
can be very effective. It is simply to point out that individual actions,
important as they are, are no solution to <b>social</b> problems. Thus
Bookchin:
</p><p><blockquote><i>
"The fact is that we are confronted by a thoroughly irrational social
system, not simply by predatory individuals who can be won over to
ecological ideas by moral arguments, psychotherapy, or even the 
challenges of a troubled public to their products and behaviour
. . . One can only commend the individuals who by virtue of their 
consumption habits, recycling activities. and appeals for a new
sensibility undertake public activities to stop ecological 
degradation. Each surely does his or her part. But it will require
a much greater effort -- and organised, clearly conscious, and
forward-looking political <b>movement</b> -- to meet the basic challenges
posed by our aggressively <b>anti</b>-ecological society.
</p><p>
"Yes, we as individuals should change our lifestyles as much as 
possible, but it is the utmost short-sightedness to believe that
that is all or even primarily what we have to do. We need to 
restructure the entire society, even as we engage in lifestyle 
changes and single-issue struggles against pollution, nuclear
power plants, the excessive use of fossil fuels, the destruction
of soil, and so forth. We must have a coherent analysis of the
deep-seated hierarchical relationships and systems of domination,
as well as class relationships and economic exploitation, that
degrade people as well as the environment."</i> [<i>"The Ecological 
Crisis, Socialism, and the need to remake society,"</i> pp. 1-10, 
<b>Society and Nature</b>, vol. 2, no. 3, p. 4]
</blockquote></p><p>
Using the capitalist market to combat the effects produced by that same 
market is no alternative. Until capitalism and the state are dismantled, 
solutions like ethical consumerism will be about as effective as fighting 
a forest fire with a water pistol. Such solutions are doomed to failure 
because they promote individual responses to social problems, problems 
that by their very nature require collective action, and deal only with 
the symptoms, rather than focusing on the cause of the problem in the 
first place. Real change comes from collective struggle, not individual 
decisions within the market place which cannot combat the cancerous growth
principle of the capitalist economy. As such, ethical consumerism does not 
break from the logic of capitalism and so is doomed to failure.
</p>

</body>
</html>
anarchism 14.0-2 / usr / share / doc / anarchism / html / secE5.html
