That’s why I think environmental and social activists ought to devote more, not less time, to changing consumer behavior. The food we eat, the cars we drive, the size of the houses we build and buy and other choices we make have significant global environmental consequences – particularly because Americans are, on a per capita basis, among the biggest polluters on the planet. [See my 2010 blog post, Can behavioral economics help save the planet?]
More importantly, conscious consumers can reward companies that are responsible and punish those that are not. Over time, this has changed and will continue to change corporate behavior.
I could offer dozens of examples to prove that point, but I’ll put forward just three.
No. 1: Last fall, Starbucks, a corporate-responsibility leader, formed a partnership with the Opportunity Finance Network, a national network of community development financial institutions, to provide financing for small businesses, housing and nonprofits and thereby help create jobs. [See my October 2011 blog post, Starbucks: We are indivisible] I’m partial to this program because it was the brainchild of two of my friends, Ben Packard of Starbucks and Mark Pinsky of the Opportunity Finance Network, and so I noticed the other day that Starbucks has been selling coffee beans under the Indivisible brand to raise more money.
I emailed Mark to ask him how the fundraising is going. He replied: "We’ve raised more than $11.5 million to date, which multiplies into more than $80 million in new financing, more than 3,700 jobs created and retained, and more than 650,000 wristbands out there somewhere."
That’s real change, driven by consumer behavior and led by a company and a CEO, Howard Shultz, who understand that the power of business can be deployed to do good.
No. 2: I’ve been doing some reporting lately about aquaculture and the efforts by environmental groups working with industry to develop standards and certification systems to separate those fish farmers who operate more sustainably from those who do not. Rigorous new standards for popular species like shrimp and salmon are being rolled out by a group called the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.
Standards, certifications and eco-labels have their drawbacks, of course, but they can be a power lever to change corporate behavior. The Forest Stewardship Council rewards the better timber operations and the Marine Stewardship Council certifies responsible fisheries. They do so because they get backing from big retailers like Staples and Office Depot for paper products and Unilever and Walmart for wild-caught fish. These retailers, in turn, reflect what they believe to be the expectations of consumers that they “do the right thing.”
Imagine what an even more energized consumer culture could accomplish.
No. 3: Enormous political effort has been expended to increase fuel-efficiency standards. Automakers agreed to increase average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light trucks by 2025. (It’s actually more complicated than that, and we can argue another time about whether fuel-economy standards make sense). None of that would be necessary, really, if people chose on their own to buy small, fuel-efficient, hybrid or electric cars. The automakers would, very rapidly, adjust to meet consumer demands; the entire culture and outlook of the industry would change.
Or, better yet, what if more people chose take buses or trains? Or walked or biked to work? [Here's a great story about biking "highways" in Copenhagen, where about half of the people already bike to work.]
Now, just to be clear, I’m not arguing that personal choices can take the place of political action. But the choice between behavior change and activism is not an either/or. It’s a both/and. People who bike to work are more likely to lobby for bike lanes.
But, please, let’s not underestimate the power of shopping — or better yet, not shopping — to change the world. Corporations are not abstract, evil entities, disconnected from the rest of us. They’re a reflection of who we are and what we do.
This post was reprinted from with permission from the author.
There's more to this story. I
There's more to this story. I think Annie doesn't give enough credit to the role that consumers can play and Marc gives too much credit. The answer may be somewhere in between. In a society where we all need to purchase stuff to meet our needs we need to know what to purchase, when not to purchase in the first place, and what to do with the stuff we buy. In other words, when consumers bring the stuff home, they need to use and dispose of it responsibly. They need to turn the water off when they brush with the Tom's of Maine and turn the Energy Star lights off when they leave the room, among many other forms of responsible behaviors.
And then come election day, they need to put their citizen caps on and vote with their votes. I really like that addition to this conversation.
So I think most of us agree
So I think most of us agree that people "need to 'vote' with their dollars AND vote with their votes". And I agree with what Annie Leonard is implying - that too many (both green shoppers, and those that preach to them) focus too much just on the what we do with our wallets, and not enough with what we do with our time and the other opportunities we have to make a difference. And I say that as one who's been in the thick of green business/consumer education for 16 years.
Even though the very raison d’etre of Equal Exchange is to make change possible through shopping, and even though we’ve been doing it for 25 years, and we’re constantly proselytizing to shoppers and anyone who will listen, not even we think shopping is enough. In other words responsible shopping (& the business activity to makes such shopping possible) is a "necessary" but not by itself a "sufficient" condition to creating the changes that are needed.
Further, as Marc wrote there is no tension or trade-off here between shopping and other change-making behaviors. It’s definitely a classic “both-and” situation. More over the two are entirely compatible.
For example, it is through consumer education and shopping choices where many people are introduced to, and educated about, important issues that later influence their political positions, choices, and affiliations. Also, it is my sense that there sometimes exist a desirable, upward, positive feedback loop between green entrepreneurs & business leaders (like Gary Hirshberg or Ray Anderson), early adopter green shoppers/investors, activists and, only later, gov’t policies.
In short I think sometimes (maybe often) new approaches/concepts (eg green energy, human rights) are tackled first at the small scale and in the private sector. Later, after the commercial viability has been demonstrated, larger firms and brands get on board. They then put their marketing and lobbying muscle behind the idea, and only after a significant % of the population or industry sector are on board do regulators &/or elected officials translate some of these ideas (like removing antibiotic abuse from factory farms) into new policies or laws.
And that is only one of the ways 'shopping activism' helps to spur or reinforce political activism.
Could you please elaborate on
Could you please elaborate on the point you are making? From watching the video and reading your article, I think you and Leonard are making the same point: Buying "green" products is a good place to start; but large, systems level changes to address environmental and social problems require political action.
In particular, I'd like you to elaborate on the statement "for the most part, we get the corporations that we deserve. Those that meet the needs of people thrive. Those that fail to satisfy will wither away." Why do we have environmental and social problems and need political action to address them if organizations that meet the needs of people are thriving and those that fail are withering away?
I think a part two to this article would help clarify the point you are trying to make and how it differs from Annie Leonards.
You can scratch the last
You can scratch the last comment (delete if you'd like). I didn't realize you had a second page to the article and I see you did in fact elaborate. Thanks.
Terribly weak article This is
Terribly weak article
This is an extremely weak article that does not deserve to be on GreenBizz. Your arguments are more tired and obvious than the one you criticize. How exactly is this magic consumer enlightenment going to happen? Your examples speak to minor tinkering around the edges while most consumers are not engaged.
With all due respect to you
With all due respect to you Marc for I know you have been in this arena for a while but to say that Annie Leonard has it "exactly backwards" is, well, "exactly backwards". While I agree that our consumer choices can make a difference, we cannot (as your article title states) save the earth by buying stuff (even if from companies that claim to be green). All products have an impact and I believe our power is strongest when we we stop purchasing. They need to make a better margin on less stuff being sold. It is the only sustainable model.