Is the world living up to your interests as a conscious consumer?
The inequality that effects us all.
The oxford dictionary defines the word consumerism as “The
protection or promotion of the interests of consumers” and “The preoccupation
of society with the acquisition of consumer goods.” [i]
I find it interesting that the word ‘protection’ is used in reference to a consumer’s
interests in the first definition. Hold onto this thought for a moment, it’s
one I want to come back to as I think we can explore it further.
My first thought when reading this definition was ‘well yes, this
makes sense of the reality I see and know.’ I saw the images on the news of
hundreds of people camping out in front of the Apple store to get the new i-phone, I've seen and heard the advertisements telling me to buy certain products
because they will in someway make my life better, and then there are those few people
I know who seem to always be buying and accumulating way more then they actually need. Our
society really is preoccupied with acquiring goods and advertising seems happy
to promote the so called interests of those who acquire them. I can’t help but
feel, however, that it is either a self-interested consumer or the large corporations
selling consumer products that have their interests, welfare, comfort, and ‘happiness’
protected. I’m a consumer of products and services, yet when I look at the
types of consumer interests being promoted, I can’t help but feel that my
interests are, for the most part, somehow forgotten or neglected. Why should
advertising or our modern lifestyles in the west dictate what my interests
should be? Maybe you can relate? Either my understanding of the term
consumerism is incorrect, or our world is not living up to the very definition it
has given the word. Either way, I am in no doubt that the reality of the
culture and society I live in are at odds with my interests as a consumer. And
here’s why:
As a consumer I am concerned about and interested in the
following:
- that the product or service I receive or purchase will not cause
harm to me or others, be that physical or psychological.
- that the product or service I receive or purchase will deliver
on the promise it was advertised to.
- that the products I purchase were made by people who were paid
fair wages, and were able to work in comfortable and safe working conditions.
- that the product or service I receive or purchase was sold to me
at a realistic and reasonable price.
- that the products I purchase were made by people who had freely
chosen to undertake the work required to create the product.
- that no one should have intentionally suffered in the making of
the product I purchase.
What makes me certain that these interests are not being protected
and promoted? Let’s take an example. I buy a cotton t-shirt from a well known
retail store. Seems innocent enough, a lovely new design, nice colour, fits
well, no faults that the eye can see, and it was at a bargain price! Perfect
purchase! Right?
After reading the company’s website, I discovered that they do not
source organically grown cotton. Cotton grown with synthetic pesticides has
proven to not only be damaging to the environment but also to the farmers who come into contact with them. Safia Minney, founder of People Tree, an
internationally renowned fairtrade fashion label wrote:
“These pesticides [used on cotton farms] harm the farmers and their families. Many of the chemicals used in cotton farming are acutely toxic. Around 10 per cent of all chemical pesticides are 22 per cent of all insecticides used worldwide are sprayed on cotton crops. Cotton growers typically use many of the most hazardous pesticides on the market, many of which are organophosphates originally developed as toxic nerve agents during World War Two. At least three pesticides used on cotton are in the ‘dirty dozen’ – so dangerous that 120 countries agreed at a UNEP conference in 2001 to ban them, though so far this hasn’t happened. The World Health Organisation estimates that three million people are poisoned by pesticides every year, most of them in developing countries.”[ii]
Not only are harmful chemicals used in crop production, but also
in harvesting and manufacturing. Freelance writer Cathy Sherman writes:
“The chemicals used in cotton production don't end with cultivation. As an aid in harvesting, herbicides are used to defoliate the plants, making picking easier. Producing a textile from the plants involves more chemicals in the process of bleaching, sizing, dying, straightening, shrink reduction, stain and odor resistance...[and more]. ...Some of the softeners and detergents leave a residue that will not totally be removed from the final product. Chemicals often used for finishing include formaldehyde, caustic soda, sulfuric acid, bromines, urea resins, sulfonamides, halogens, and bromines. Some imported clothes are now impregnated with long-lasting disinfectants which are very hard to remove, and whose smell gives them away. These and the other chemical residues affect people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities. Also, people have developed allergic reactions, such as hives, to formaldehyde through skin contact with solutions on durable-press clothing.”[iii]
Clearly, my
interests as a consumer are not being protected here. Not only have the farmers
of the very cotton used to make my t-shirt been exposed to dangers, but also
the product itself could have unforseen harmful effects on my health. The
protection and promotion of my interest and concern that the product I consume
will not cause harm to me or others has in this instance failed to occur.
The company’s slogan where I bought the t-shirt is ‘offering the
latest products at everyday low prices’. This promise seems to live up to
expectations, with their clothing range indeed being at very low prices. Normally
we wouldn't stop to ask why we are
being handed such a good deal, but I couldn't help and pause to wonder how I could be paying something that should probably have cost more then its retail price
to actually make. This brings me to the point of my other consumer interests.
The numerous clothing factory fires and collapses that occurred in
Bangladesh between 2012 and 2013 were a stark reminder of the unethical
conditions in which many of our consumer goods, particularly textiles, are made.
The company where I bought my t-shirt was one of the organisations that sourced
its clothing from Rana Plaza, the factory that collapsed killing 1,138 workers,
and injuring 2,000[iv]. Little
was done to ensure that working conditions were safe. What’s more, workers in
these factories are paid around $30 a month and work 12 hour days[v].
Is this why my t-shirt was so cheap? Most of the workers are also girls, and some
are as young as 9 years old.
Since the public outcry that followed the devastating factory
incidents, some organisations have begun to make changes. The company where I
brought my t-shirt was one of many to sign The
Accord on the Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, an international
union accord that hopes to regulate the safety of Bangladesh factories. This
company has also recently developed an Ethical Sourcing Code that details their
ethical standards and promises to ensure all their suppliers adhere to the
code. This is a great start, but why this 45 year old organisation only now
decides to grow a conscious is disappointing. Could they not have had an
ethical standard before so many
people had to die? But alas, at least they are finally showing some efforts to
change, and in a gesture of greater transparency have also listed the names and
addresses of each of their manufacturing and production sites around the world.
Before the outcry that followed the devastation in Bangladesh there
was little being done to promote or protect my interest as a consumer (let
alone the interests of the actual workers!) in this example. And there are many
other organisations that have and are continuing to operate in a similar way,
promoting their products in ways that protect their interests as high
profit-makers and casually ignoring the things that matter to the vast majority
of conscious consumers. Advertising plays an ominous role in this story, also
ensuring any ‘unwanted’ information about products is covered up or ignored so
that we may continue to consume with a supposedly ‘clear’ conscious. Society seems
so ‘preoccupied with the acquisition of goods’ that it forgets to take into
account the true interests of the consumer. Thankfully, though, change is happening,
be it slowly. But more can and should be done to continue to transform our
trading world so that the interests of producers in the entire supply chain, as
well as consumers are being protected and promoted. We still want to buy nice things and acquire
products that are useful and effective, but we don’t want to do it at the
expense of others, and why should we? Instead of all gaining, our current
system only allows for few to gain. This is an inequality that can and must be changed.
The more voices that speak out, the more people willing to show their support
to authentic ethical and fair trading organisations, and the more people willing
to ask the bigger supply chains to protect our consumer interests, the greater
our chance to make a difference.
If these are issues that matter to you, I urge you, join the conversation.
Be part of the movement for change and equality. The momentum for change has
started, let’s be the generation that doesn't let it drop but sees it through
to the end.
[ii] Minney S 2011, Naked Fashion, The New Sustainability Fashion
Revolution, pg 22, New International Publications, Oxford.
[iii] Sherman C 2008, ‘Do You Know
What Toxic Chemicals Lurk in Your Clothing?’, Natural News, <http://www.naturalnews.com/022803_cotton_chemicals_organic.html#>.
No comments:
Post a Comment