 |
 |
|
|
|
| Discussion forum | Núm. 28 - desember 2000 | ||
 |
|||
Summary
Editorial The immense power of the consumer We all have immense power when we go shopping and when we decide to buy a product or a service. We decide what shop to buy in -a local shop or a large store-, we choose the brand and we make some companies more successful than others. There are lots of factors involved in the act of buying, such as the price, whether we trust the product, what the brand tells us by advertising or by word of mouth and the attitude of the salesperson who often recommends one product or another. In services like finance, the personal service we receive as customers is also very important. These are some of the factors that are usually involved when we take a decision. For some time now, another factor has also been involved. This is the behaviour of the company that makes the product. In many countries, usually rich and developed, the decision to buy one product or another is also conditioned by the information that we have on the environmental and social practices of the companies that make the brands that we find on the market. Do they respect the environment? Do they exploit children? Do they give part of their profits to social initiatives? Do they treat their workers fairly? Do they discriminate against women? Consumers are getting more and more interested in knowing if their personal values contradict the practices of the companies that they choose. This is called critical consumption (also fair or responsible). This phenomenon is getting stronger and stronger in the context of the global economy and in a world interconnected by information and communication technologies. Multinational companies establish their production centres in those areas of the planet where the costs are lowest and environmental legislation is most permissive. Consumers can get very detailed information on the activities of companies. This is possible thanks to the existence of social movements that send this information to the public. This forces companies to pay great attention to their behaviour and also make a social and environmental commitment to the society that enables them to make a profit. This review process of company-consumer-society relations is dealt with in this issue of the magazine Medi ambient. Tecnologia i cultura to which we have given the title "Globalisation, companies and critical consumption". Ramon Guardia, chairman of the company Valores y Marketing, introduces us to social marketing and reflects on companies' social responsibility. The journalist and writer Daniel Wagman deals with the contradictions of a society geared to consumption and argues that we can live better with less. Eduard Cantos, member of the non-governmental organisation SETEM, looks at recent anti-globalisation movements, the behaviour of some multinational companies and gives a detailed explanation of the great success of the Clean Clothes Campaign. Montse Peirón, distinguished member of the Centre for Research and Information on Consumption (CRIC), gives a detailed explanation of what is understood by critical consumption. Arcadi Oliveres, an expert on world economy, deals in the interview with the changes and new trends accompanying economic globalisation. Finally, the lawyer, Ignasi Doñate, looks at the legislative aspects of a subject in which the public has ever greater power to change things. Lluís
Reales
Social
responsibility of corporations. Duty or convenience?
President of Valores y Marketing (Values and Marketing), Associate Professor of the School of Communication Sciences in the University of Navarra and of the Master's Programme in Organisation Communications Management of the University of Barcelona. Founding member of the Intermón Foundation and Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Pere Tarrés Foundation. Socially-responsible corporate marketing helps companies improve their competitiveness while using shared values to co-operate in causes having a social benefit. This new way of relating can benefit both parties -companies and non-profit-making agencies- and, therefore, all of society. The fact that companies offer services and products of increasingly higher quality is no longer a guarantee of success. In recent years, brands have been subjected to increasing pressure from their competitors and, consequently, consumers are becoming less and less faithful to brands. They are more informed and more demanding. There has been a change in society's values, which translates into a greater awareness of social problems, and companies that want to connect with consumers must be aware of this new situation. Socially-responsible corporate marketing, which began in Catalonia recently, gives companies the opportunity to get involved in improving people's quality of life and in sharing values with their customers and collaborators. Definition, Origin and Background of Socially-Responsible Corporate Marketing Socially-responsible corporate marketing, as defined by Philip Kotler, is based on the following concept: "Activities developed by a company or sector for the purpose of obtaining consumer commitment to a particular type of socially responsible behaviour, while at the same time directly favouring company interests in regard to market position and image." Socially-responsible corporate marketing is a new way for companies to relate to each other, to their collaborators and to their customers. In practice, a new model is established for relationships among companies and/or corporations and non-profit-making agencies, and the result is a new situation in which brands do not impose their values on consumers, but rather adapt themselves to the social interests of the public. It has been demonstrated in Catalonia in recent years, that when a company collaborates in a social cause, the company benefits, as does the non-profit-making agency and, consequently, society as a whole. The idea is to have companies return to society the benefits they have received from it. This is not a matter of purely philanthropic actions, but of searching for mutual benefits for companies and society, beyond the benefits or satisfaction that can come from products or services in themselves. Actions included in socially-responsible corporate marketing can be summed up in the following points:
In summary, we can state that a good socially-responsible corporate marketing programme is built on three basic pillars:
Socially-responsible corporate marketing began in the United States in the eighties with various corporations and companies, which for years had had their own foundations for philanthropic actions. They found that by themselves they were unable to achieve the objective of improving their relationships with society. An example of this was made obvious with the Exxon Foundation, following the accident of the Exxon Valdes oil tanker. However, a more successful example was American Express, a company whose vice-president at the time was Jerry Wells, one of the precursors of socially-responsible corporate marketing. In 1982, Wells managed to have a percentage of each payment made with the American Express card go to restoring the Statue of Liberty in New York City, quite obviously one of the symbols of the United States. This restoration was done as part of the bicentennial celebrations commemorating the founding of the American nation. The result was a magnificent response from the public and, therefore, this initiative can be considered the beginning of a new form of business communication that was christened at that time as "marketing with a cause". A short time later, some of the large American business groups, and later others throughout the world, such as IBM or AT&T drove this tendency even farther, leading it towards socially-responsible corporate marketing. The results of socially-responsible corporate marketing are not just visible in social, urban, cultural or educational improvements, but they also represent improvement in the company's market position. This was the case with the American ice cream company Ben & Jerry's, which obtained a market share similar to that of their closest competitor by applying a strategy of social marketing. One of the initiatives that received the greatest recognition and support on the part of the public was hiring the homeless to work in their establishments. This action provided Ben & Jerry's with significant earnings, while increasing the popularity and image of the company, which was identified by consumers as an unconventional company with a social conscience. The importance that socially-responsible corporate marketing is taking on is clearly illustrated in a study carried out in the United States in 1994 and published in the magazine Business Week, which highlighted the fact that 66 % of consumers felt that companies should contribute to social causes. The same study set this percentage five years later at 76%, and found that 31 % of consumers considered a deciding factor in the purchasing process under conditions of equal price and quality to be the fact that a brand participated in social programmes in a responsible way. A positive and desirable side effect of socially-responsible corporate marketing is the fact that modifications are often produced in the ethical attitudes of companies. Recently, Carlos Losada, director general of the ESADE School of Business Administration, made a statement for the presentation of a book published by this institution to the effect that Spanish companies investing in Central and South America must be required to perform with the same ethical behaviour as they would when investing in companies in Spain. As a result of companies becoming involved in the world of patronage and supporting social causes either directly or through foundations, and as society becomes socially aware, some multinational companies have had to modify their human resource policies in production plants in the Third World and developing countries, where they did not respect minimum standards of dignity on the job, such as complying with working hours, days off, working conditions and the use of school-age minors. Socially-responsible corporate marketing is guaranteed to continue, because it has been proven not to be a fashion or passing trend, but to be a response to a marked evolution in the habits and demands of public opinion. In the last decade, activities generated by companies involved in this type of strategy made over a billion dollars annually worldwide. The greatest growth took place between 1993 and 1996, with an increase of 151 %. Socially-responsible corporate marketing reached our home quickly, and several companies in our country are now using socially-responsible corporate marketing as a method for promotion, and their number is increasing almost exponentially. Not many years ago, only a few companies considered social patronage to be an activity that provided a high yield in corporate strategies, but the new method applied using socially-responsible corporate marketing has been proven to obtain very good results. Socially-Responsible Corporate Marketing and Its Evolution in Catalonia A study published
in the newspaper El País in 1994 highlighted the high level of consumer
awareness in collaborating with social causes. The study offered figures
such as, for example, 51 % of the population said they collaborated directly,
through donations or personal contributions, to non-profit-making organisations.
A clear symptom of the maturity of our country in social matters was the
fact that we became leaders of the European Union in collaborating with
Rwanda, something that has been repeated on later occasions with other
catastrophes that have called on western solidarity in various parts of
the world. This made manifest the huge possibilities that socially-responsible
marketing had in Catalonia and in the rest of Spain, which over time has
been ratified.
In 1995, in conjunction with the Department of Sales Management of the Institute for Higher Business Studies (IESE), Valores y Marketing (market leader in the company's sector) did the first study on socially-responsible corporate marketing in Spain and its importance within business management. Results showed that 43.8 % of companies that applied this type of action did so to demonstrate social responsibility and commitment, and that 27.1 % did so to improve the brand's image. Therefore, over 70 % of the companies declare that socially-responsible corporate marketing complies with the dual objective of identification with consumer feelings and improving product perception. Another noteworthy result was that 43.8 % of the companies recognised that this form of communication offered very high results, while 37.5 % of the companies thought that the results obtained were average, and only 18.8 % said the level was low. In order to have a socially-responsible corporate marketing campaign function successfully, it is essential that the relationship between the company and the agency to which it is offering support be a close one of mutual trust. In this sense, only 9.4 % of the companies consulted stated that there were problems with this relationship, while the rest were satisfied or very satisfied. Finally, 93.8 % of the companies guaranteed their intention to continue participating and to increase their actions of socially-responsible corporate marketing. From the results of this study, the conclusion reached is that this model of action works as a tool for enhancing faithfulness and fulfils the objective of increasing the good image of the company and its social responsibility as well as creating a differential value for the brand. Furthermore, actions must be taken by the entire company, including collaborators, and the maximum internal profit must be obtained from each action. Therefore, we are looking at a new business orientation, and not just an instrument for immediate promotion. This same study we are discussing, which was done jointly by IESE and Valores y Marketing, identified in 1995 in Spain 75 companies that in some way or another carried out socially-responsible corporate marketing, and there was a significant presence of these companies with headquarters in Catalonia. All of these actions then meant approximately a little more than two billion pesetas. By 1999, these figures had grown exponentially. Up to 700 companies had an investment budget that was twice as large, twenty billion pesetas, excluding the social work of the savings banks and official institutions, which have had a very active role in Catalonia. This evolution
has come about due to the evolution in the values of consumers, who increasingly
feel that the attitude of a company towards social and economic realities
can mark the differentiating factor of a brand or corporation. It is becoming
more and more important that brands connect with consumer values while,
consequently, consumers are no longer considering the brand and the values
it transmits as the only point of reference. Behind this evolution in values
and position faced by brands, as we showed in previous paragraphs, there
is without doubt a growing social awareness of the reality surrounding
consumers, who now demand that companies play a more active role socially.
Socially-responsible corporate marketing actions, unlike other business initiatives, cannot be one-shot deals. If they were, they would not benefit society nor would they be profitable for the company behind them in regard to customer fidelity. This was understood, for example, by one of the first Spanish companies to launch socially-responsible corporate marketing, which was the television production company Zeppelin TV. Thanks to the enthusiasm of its Managing Director, José Velasco, it created in 1995 the Inocente-Inocente Foundation, which to date has been behind more than 35 projects with contributions from this production company programme audience of over 600 million pesetas. This action has not only been socially beneficial, but it has also contributed to creating a differential value in certain television programmes that goes beyond the struggle to keep viewers or to remain in the programming. It must be kept in mind that socially-responsible corporate marketing and the resulting patronage of companies and business groups is taking on special importance in social actions. Until the late 90's, most associations in Catalonia depended on balancing their budgets and, to a great extent, they still do, thanks to economic contributions and the infrastructures and means provided by the public administration at local level -through both the Catalan Local Co-operation Fund (Fons Català de Cooperació Local) - and provincial councils and the Government of Catalonia. In recent years, these contributions have made up a minor percentage of the global expenditure of these groups, so agencies that depend basically on the public administration find themselves faced with serious difficulties for the near future, and will have to think about new models in the search for resources. The situation for agencies, social groups and non-governmental organisations that need greater economic and material means will be aggravated by the disappearance of military service, because the young people doing their substitute social service [Prestació Social Substitutòria (PSS)] in this kind of agency represented a pool of volunteers that was essential to maintaining these organisations' activities. The Role of Agencies and Administrations Analysis of the data from the Project for Comparative Study of the Non-Profit Sector carried out by Johns Hopkins University in 1995 in twenty-one countries throughout the world makes manifest the fact that mean income from the tertiary sector breaks down as follows. 48 % comes from quotas or payment for services, 41 % from the public sector and 11 % from philanthropy (individuals, companies and foundations). The latter percentage, although it would be well over 20 % today, shows how far socially-responsible corporate marketing still has to go, and the extent to which the non-profit-making sector still depends on public funding. The predominant model to date, however, is changing. There is a new model for relationships of shared values where agencies, Administrations and companies relate to each other and where people are the centre of the action. In this new model for relationships, the Administration should not stop financing projects nor distance itself from the process, but just the opposite. Budget items earmarked for these matters must grow at least until they reach the famous 0.7% of global expenditure (while avoiding tergiversations such as earmarking this percentage, but on direct income, or other forms of subterfuge). These investments are in harmony with social demand. According to the company Tabula, 76 % of the public support this political and budgetary measure, as well as the real need to avoid, for example, ghettos in our cities and to pave the way for social integration of newcomers, offer a dignified old age to the increasing number of old people who live alone, or invest in training or business projects in other countries. What the Administration must do in all areas is abandon its predominant, hierarchical position and political leading role and allow this role to pass progressively on to companies and agencies. The Administration must leave behind the role of supervisor and exchange it for one of fostering and promotion. Fostering and promotion in two directions:
This interaction between Administration and private company is not always joint and in agreement, as in the case of the ADO plan mentioned above. On other occasions there is only a coinciding of objectives between both sectors, as is the case, for example, in the effort towards socially integrating the physically and mentally handicapped through work to do away with architectural barriers carried out by the public Administration, and hiring people with handicaps in private companies. The changes we have discussed that are occurring in civil society (made up of citizens, private institutions and companies) have caused an increase in the need for non-profit-making agencies to go beyond financing, and to understand and apply principles of development. Increasingly, companies need the associations, which means there are new challenges for the associations to meet in order to become integrated into the business world and fulfil its demands. Associations are no longer poor institutions receiving life annuities. They are increasingly evaluated using demanding criteria that take into account financial aspects, effect in the community and the ability to coincide with the interests of those making donations. This new framework for relationships has meant changes not only in business mentalities, but also in the way non-governmental organisations and agencies act. They now have more professional management, more accurate and audited financial management, more transparency in appointing executive positions, and the organisations themselves have adopted diagrams and structures that are similar to those used in business. Therefore, agencies must take into account the following factors if they wish to advance in their interaction with the business world and become beneficiaries of the general resources in socially-responsible corporate marketing:
So the road is now open to mutually beneficial collaboration between companies and institutions, because both parties - profit minded companies and non-profit-making institutions - equally need the support of people in order to fulfil their respective missions. Obviously these missions will never be the souame, but they can clearly coincide in the field of shared values with the objective of improving the behavir of citizens (consumers, employees, users and collaborators) toward a certain subject of social interest.o
Limits
of the consumer society
Let's start off with two conclusions. The first and foremost is that the challenge to the future of human society depends on achieving a radical reduction in our consumption and its impact. The second, but no less important, is that it is almost impossible for us to imagine how to do so. Furthermore, the different initiatives offering alternatives to consumption are scorned or ridiculed. "Back-to-Basics" hippies returning to the fields, well-to-do yuppies downshifting in the States, green stores that are testimonial when not downright fraudulent, responsible consumers who pay luxury prices for their coffee, in the end, call up the same refrain: it's utopian to offer an alternative to our consumer society. Nevertheless, the search for utopia is one of the most important sources of progress in human society. Except that, in this case, the proposal made is not utopian, but is a matter of common sense. In fact, it is utopian to think that our current consumer society can continue to exist for much longer. It is manifestly unsustainable and, even though no clear, global alternative to the current situation can be made out, it is essential that we begin searching for one. The limits to our unbridled race for material abundance is manifested with great clarity in three broad, central crises: the ecological crisis, the North-South crisis and the social and personal crisis caused by this way of life, which gives rise to a growing imbalance among most individuals. Let's begin with the first problem. The environmental crisis manifests itself in two aspects. On the one hand, there is the matter of despoiling natural resources, and on the other, the production of increasingly greater amounts of waste and pollution that, to a great extent, are not assimilable by nature. By land, by sea and by air, we are using up non-renewable resources, reducing the biomass, causing 50,000 animal species to disappear each year, dangerously reducing biodiversity, poisoning water and contributing, in effect, to desertification, global warming, depletion of the ozone layer, changes in the weather, etc. No matter how you look at it, all these questions constitute a serious problem, but the main danger may be that any one of them could give rise to a general collapse in biosystems, given the complex and profound relationships that bind them together. It is not difficult to see that the main cause of despoiling and pollution of the Earth is our inordinate consumption of resources and subsequent production of waste. An economy that continually demands new markets seems to be incompatible with the natural balance, because the easiest way to expand markets is to encourage a throwaway society, creating the need to accumulate more and more products, travel ever farther and faster... In effect, to consume each day more than the day before. If we do not achieve a radical reduction in consumption, we will soon use up important natural resources. And that will happen only if we don't first drown ourselves in the poison we so insistently produce. The second-biggest contradiction in our consumer society is that, although we were promised that its benefits would progressively be extended to a greater number of the planet's inhabitants, just the opposite is happening. It is becoming increasingly clear that the levels of consumption reached by the more favored population is the reason for the growing poverty suffered by a significant percentage of our kind. The situation is dramatic. In this world, millions of people die of hunger each year. The calculation made is clear. If natural resources are limited and 20% of the population consumes 80% of them, there is not much left for the other 80% of humanity that is doomed to destitution. One example shows that in order to cover their demand for food, the Dutch need a territory four times greater than that occupied by their own country. Obviously, the Dutch eat well at the cost of many people who live in the Third World, whose lands produce food destined for export. The same occurs with energy -a citizen of North America consumes more power in one day than one Ethiopian consumes in a year- as with any other natural resource. The worst part is that this abysmal gap, far from being reduced, is increasing. If the difference between the incomes of the richest 20% of the world and the poorest 20% was 30 to 1 in 1960, the rate has now increased to 60 to 1. On the other hand, even if it were possible to have all the inhabitants of Earth participate in the great banquet of consumption, we must be aware that this new situation would only serve to accelerate the aforementioned process of destroying nature. The unfair distribution of the earth's resources can be totally rejected not only from an ethical point of view (an little-considered value today due to the difficulty in marketing it) but also due to a matter of pure common sense. Imbalance and inequality are causing increasingly virulent conflicts. No matter how much we would like to build a Fort Europe, no matter how closely Americans guard their border with Mexico, wars will be coming closer and closer. Of course, there are also voices bringing up the need to drastically reduce the world's population ("We must eliminate 350,000 people each day in order to save our species from danger", sentenced Jacques Yves Cousteau). Yet in this case the most logical action would be to eliminate the richest 20% since, as we have seen, we are the ones producing the greatest impact on the earth. The third argument in favor of considering it utopian to believe that everything is going smoothly is somewhat ironic. Most of us, the main beneficiaries of this model of consumption, are finding that we have not achieved true happiness, but rather the contrary. In order to try and understand this contradiction, we must examine what we consider to be truly important to us. Food, housing, clothing… it is obvious that certain tangible goods are vital to us. Yet apart from these, a basic part of our needs has a great deal to do with emotions and feelings. To love and be loved, to feel like we belong, to participate and be respected, to develop creativity, appreciate beauty, enjoy sex, friendship, safety, to laugh and have fun. There are many things we need that have nothing to do with money, possession and consumption, but with personal relationships. In our societies, however, there are ever-increasing obstacles to and deficiencies in satisfying this type of need included in the scope of intimacy, so we turn to substitutes offered us by the world of consumption. We buy experiences, we search for personal affirmation through money and possessions and, almost without realizing it, we find ourselves in a demented, vicious circle. Advertising clearly reflects this dynamic. Ads push us to believe that a car is capable of reconciling two lovers after a quarrel, that a can of beans will make us feel the warmth of the homecooking we miss or that a brand of beer will help us pick up the prettiest girl in the bar. Objects are presented as symbols, giving them almost magical powers to satisfy our need to relate to each other. The satisfaction these substitutes can provide is more than questionable. And it is not a matter simply of being too much, but of being in the way. At this time, they have become significant obstacles to our relationships with one another. "Basic human
needs are finite, few and classifiable. They are the same in all cultures
and in all historical periods. What changes, through time and cultures,
is the way or the media used to satisfy these needs." These are the words
of the economist Manfred Max-Neef, according to whom we have confused need
with "satisfiers" and, at our moment in history, we identify these satisfiers
almost exclusively with products that can be obtained in the marketplace.
The unhappiness generated by the consumer society is manifest, and it is giving rise to increasingly destructive (and self-destructive) phenomena. We are seeing how loneliness increases along with lack of solidarity, mental imbalance, various addictions, hostility, violence and antisocial behavior, while ethics and values disappear. All that remains is the cult to individual success, which is usually measured in terms of economic wealth. Having seen this, perhaps it is not so utopian to search for alternatives, despite the fact that it is certainly tremendously difficult. Our model of consumption is not just another manifestation (or result) of our economy, our political system or our culture, it is actually becoming the determining factor that molds the economy, politics and culture, even the physical shape of our very surroundings. The structures of dominating economic power -and, consequently, those of the media and politics- base their survival on this model of consumption and growth, using all means to convince us of their goodness or to crush those who would try to break the dynamic imposed on us. And because we are the product of our time, we have taken so much to heart the values (or rather, the lack of values), desires and models of our modern consumer society that it is difficult for us to imagine another way of producing, exchanging or consuming, never mind relating to and feeling about each other. This is why it could be more important to introduce changes in the way we relate to things, to money, to ourselves and to each other. Changes that would allow us to feel something new, that would help us to imagine what the next step should be. Of course, some questions related to possible alternatives are quite clear. What we must do first is reduce our consumption and the monetarisation that affects our lives. This option is vital from an environmental point of view, and it can also help reduce to some extent the huge inequality between North and South. We are not trying to say that a simple reduction in our levels of consumption will bring us happiness, no. But it can serve to provoke us, to teach us and help us be a bit more aware of what is important in life. On the other hand, it could be very valuable to encourage experiences that help us discover that the best way of satisfying personal needs is collectively, through mutual dependence and help. Consumer cooperatives, groups of shared property and services, barter associations, leisure based on participation and activity rather than passive spectatorship. All these proposals can contribute to breaking up the infernal dynamic of consumer society while helping us to build our personal relationships, the source of life's greatest satisfactions. Turning this dynamic around requires individual will and action, but that is not all. It is good when people decide to do without their cars, but it is essential that, at the same time, we organize ourselves around grabbing back public space from the claws of the machine that increasingly dominates our territory with the unconditional backing of governments and economic powers. We also need to start up collective actions that serve to counterbalance the very structure of our cities, the biased and one-dimensional language of cultural media, the values that each and every one of us, to one extent or another, has assimilated. The alternative is difficult, maybe even impossible, but it is absolutely necessary. Criteria to help plan reductions in consumption To begin with, perhaps it is best to delve deeply into the conviction that it is necessary and desirable to learn to "live better with less". Not only because our current model is unsustainable, but also because the search itself can be a very liberating experience. If the problem of consumption is reduced to our heading towards serious environmental crises and growing and immoral social inequalities while we build an impressive quality of life for a privileged minority, it would be equally impossible to search for a way to change it other than the proposal offered by Mr. Cousteau in the quote above. It is difficult for us to initiate profound social change based only on a fear of some future collapse of natural cycles (although fear is a good thing), or on the feeling of guilt because of the misery our consumption causes millions of people (although it is good to be aware of our responsibilities and of the consequences of our actions). But if we recognize that the search for alternatives can be a source of growing improvement in the quality of our lives -and of our relationships with other people-, the change becomes a positive process of creation, not of abnegation and sacrifice. And satisfaction would come, not some far off day in which we might live in a more humane society, but from participating in the search for alternatives. Another necessary criterion for putting into practice the idea of living better with less is obtaining in-depth knowledge of what we consume and how we consume it. Becoming more aware of what is produced, how it is produced and what resources are used, how things are distributed and used and what is done with them when they are no longer useful doesn't just help us to consider specific alternatives, but has a liberating value in itself. One of the peculiar features of current society is the extreme division that exists between our lives as producers and as consumers, and one of its effects is the feeling that we are increasingly independent from the work of other people (and of nature) in satisfying our material needs. Ironically, never in the history of humanity have we been so dependent as individuals on so many other people. This false sense of independence or self-sufficiency is a significant negative factor in considering others and our relationships with them. At the same time, as consumers, we feel like passive subjects in a process over which we have no control, except in choosing between brand X and brand Y. That is why being aware of the implications of our consumption and consequently assuming responsibility for it can be very positive for us. In this sense, a very interesting exercise is to take a self-survey of our consumption and to try to note down everything we acquire over a period of time. From the analysis of this questionnaire, many questions follow which, in turn, can indicate many paths for us to take in reducing consumption.
A second level of analysis of our consumption can lead us to enormous fields of action for reducing it. What impact does our consumption have on the environment, on inequality, on society and space? What alternatives having less of an impact exist for satisfying our need? When discussing consumption, we tend to look at the product or item itself, without considering the resources, energy, waste and processes used to produce and distribute it. However, there can be a world of differences with just one item. Just compare the consumption of one strawberry grown in our own garden with that of a strawberry imported from South Africa, for example. The former requires rainwater, maybe a little fertilizer made from our scraps of food and a bit of work. In the second case, chemical fertilizers are consumed, as are herbicides and pesticides, energy for greenhouses and heavy machinery, for moving water for irrigating... And then there is more energy for refrigeration chambers, transport by truck and airplane, raw materials for packing and packaging, and the manual work required is quite possibly paid almost at slave wages. In both cases we appear to have consumed the same goods: one strawberry. However, in the second case, we have consumed a significant amount of energy and raw materials, and we have produced different types of waste. These amounts are not minor. Industrial farming uses power equivalent to six liters of gasoline and thousands of liters of water to produce one kilo of pork. According to a study done in the US, 99% of original materials used in production or incorporated into items manufactured in that country end up as waste six weeks after they are acquired. Nevertheless, there are ways of producing, appropriate technologies, types of products, processes, distribution networks and types of use that signify tremendous reductions in the consumption of resources and their impact. It is not easy
to see what impact the production of the various goods we are offered has,
so it becomes more and more important to determine the life cycle of what
we consume, which includes initiatives that force manufacturers to provide
transparent information in this regard. It is also true that all products
have various impacts, so comparing them is sometimes like comparing apples
to oranges. Is it better to use a biodegradable soap that was transported
2,000 kilometers in a plastic container, or a more harmful soap that was
manufactured locally and presented in a package that is easily recycled?
The important thing is to assume responsibility for selection and to always
try to look for alternatives that reduce the impact.
There is a widespread belief that an alternative model of consumption means spending more money, and is therefore a type of luxury that only a few well-to-do people can afford. Although it is true that some low-impact products are more expensive (such as less aggressive cleaning products or ecologically grown food), in general, the alternatives are much more economical. Public transportation as opposed to cars, reducing the consumption of meat, low-consumption appliances that let you save money in the long run, buying in bulk... The idea that
low-impact consumption alternatives are expensive is encouraged by another
significant and interesting myth, which is the efficiency of large-scale
production, which is intense in capital and energy expenses and is organized
in worldwide exchange networks. The apparent advantages to this mode of
production are basically due not to efficiency, but to the diverse fiscal
advantages and direct and indirect subsidies companies receive, to their
greater access to financing and to not including in their costs the indirect
costs generated by their activity. However, production on a large scale
implies growing monopolies of advertising and communications channels favoring
the image of their products (in the US, 75% of television advertising corresponds
to the 100 largest advertising companies).
The economy of scale is hugely important in increasing efficiency, reducing certain impacts and costs. The high cost of some low-impact products is due to their deficient marketing channels. Nevertheless, relatively small economies of scale can hugely increase their competitiveness against products and processes of the transnational megacompanies, but with much less impact. Let's make one last consideration in regard to the cost of products having a lower impact. Many of the goods and items offered to us at very low prices on the global market are based on fierce exploitation, such as workers, many of them children, having 16-hour workdays in subhuman conditions and for a few dollars. That is why it seems important to make the decision to pay more for what we consume if this means that those producing it can live with more dignity. Fair trade networks are based on this principle, and offer increasingly more products with a low blood content. Another important criterion in reducing the impact of our consumption is to use our own work or initiative instead of buying products or services. For example, build a piece of furniture instead of buying it, prepare a meal using fresh products instead of frozen or precooked ones. It is amazing to take a count of the number of different types of motors we have in our houses and in our surroundings to substitute physical effort by using electric power. Apart from the fact that much of the time or effort saved is more than suspect, using our own effort satisfies an important need for physical activity (it is ironic to note how we spend time and money in gyms while spending money on devices that save us effort at home) and also lets us develop our capacity for being self-sufficient, which is a relevant criterion when planning a more balanced life. Finally, we must talk about a whole set of initiatives that let us reduce our consumption and its impacts, set within the framework of cooperation and collaboration with other people when satisfying our needs. These include, amongst others, networks for borrowing and for sharing goods and services, exchange and barter groups and collective acquisition or consumer cooperatives. This last section is interesting because, apart from helping to reduce our consumption and its impacts, it has an enormous added value by placing us in a dynamic in which we can learn a great deal about our relationship to others, how to build mutually-dependent, trusting relationships, how to share property, possessions and responsibilities, how to learn that our needs are not satisfied by objects or money, but by people. Previously we analyzed how there are more and more deficiencies in satisfying many of our basic, intangible needs. The initiatives for reducing consumption that are based on greater cooperation with other people can contribute a great deal to satisfying the need to participate, exercise creativity, be respected, enjoy friendships, etc. On the other hand, one of the great limitations to planning how to live better with less is the internalization of the values, symbols and habits of the consumer society, a process affecting even the most conscientious non-consumers. Basic objectives include discovering and encouraging other values, habits and symbols, and this can only be done as part of a collective process of mutual provocation, discussion and action. At the same time, initiatives of cooperation improve the opportunities we have to take on one of the great tasks of the movement to reduce consumption, which is to act on the institutions whose existence depends on constant and increasing squandering of resources. Individual initiatives to reduce one's own consumption and its impact are fundamental, but not sufficient. One can decide to not use the car, but at the same time it is necessary to fight to reduce the power of the automobile and petroleum industries, which at this time disproportionately dominate all political decisions on transportation in our society, determining even the physical layout of our surroundings. This influence on our surroundings is not just negative in terms of pollution and environmental aggression, quality of life in our societies, the environment and the sociability of our cities, but it also generates an environment that makes it even more necessary to depend on the car for mobility. This power extends as well to the media, which have permitted and encouraged the myth of the car as a deeply rooted status symbol. Development
of a counterbalance to the huge economic, cultural, political and media
power of the megacompanies that increasingly dominate the economy, politics
and culture (the 500 largest companies in the world control over 25% of
the world's economy) is a fundamental part of achieving the objective of
a sustainable (and democratic) society. This requires collective action;
therefore, the experience of organizations of cooperation that develop
in order to reduce consumption is a good base from which to take on this
challenge.
Political action is also important in another sphere, because there are many types of non-individual consumption, such as the expenses, investments and consumption made by the State and other institutions of society. This is the case with roads, health and education systems, etc., in which we participate as users. It is important to have criteria for reducing consumption introduced in all these areas, and, in some cases, such as military spending, it is legitimate to plan more than a radical reduction in their consumption of energy, space and raw materials. Planning alternatives to our current consumer society is therefore going to require individual will, decision and changes, collective action in the political arena and start-up initiatives of production, distribution and use of service goods that are guided by criteria that are very different from current criteria. The end goal could be to fight for an alternative that is radically different from the current one, yet initiation does not necessarily mean making a radical individual break. It is fundamental to look at this challenge as a learning process of construction and creativity, which in itself can be a source of satisfactions. What is important is to begin.
Socially
responsible consumption
Spurred on by dizzy technological transformation, globalisation is currently galloping -unbridled for some- through a new international scenario, unleashing profound social change. Along the way, some win, some lose and others, simply, are not affected by it. A large sector of the population point to multinational companies as the indisputable winners of globalisation. They are seen as wielding immense economic power which, on occasion, gives them such political power as to threaten governments, especially those of weak economy. And who are the losers, those excluded from the so-called benefits of globalisation? They are none other than the women that slog away for peanuts, sewing in the "sweat shops" in the free zones of far-flung countries, the immigrants that work in clandestine workshops close to where we live. In short, the poorest, in the South and North of the planet. Seattle, Davos, Prague: social movements "declare war" on the multinationals Over the last year, the government summits of multilateral bodies of a commercial nature, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and a financial nature, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the meetings of the most powerful and influential countries and men in the world, such as the group of the seven richest countries (G7) or the Davos Forum, have been joined by an equal number of alternative summits, promoted by trade unions, environmental defence groups, Non-Government Development Organisations (NGDO) or Fair Trade movements that demand more balanced trade between North and South. The social movements have made their protests at the doors of official summits, with massive demonstrations, - and it must be emphasised, generally non-violent, despite the image given by some media-, and expressing their proposals before a development model that accentuates the differences between rich and poor on a world-wide level. The demands made in Seattle, Prague or Davos were various, and in some cases they possibly even contradicted each other. But they all had a common denominator: the dissatisfaction with the evolution of trade and finance on a world-wide level. The denial of a system that puts economics before people, the environment or the consumer's right to information. Likewise, all were of the opinion that, over the last few years, the trade and financial system had reinforced the position of the richest countries and the multinationals in their crusade to open up the markets and deregulate. All of this, to the detriment of the national development policies of the poorer countries. The NGDOs, whose mission is to relieve poverty and defend the interests of the poor countries and their populations, feel obliged to take a stand. Not to do so would mean not wanting to face up to the causes of subdevelopment-or if you prefer uneven development- and make do with being the "firefighters" of the negative effects of globalisation. The social responsibility of business In this - globalising- process, national governments wane in size and competencies, whilst the large multinationals grow uncontrolled. An example: the turnover of the four largest companies in the world (General Motors, Ford, Exxon and Royal Dutch/Shell) is currently greater than the GDP of the whole of Africa. Thus, transnational companies, through constant mergers, frequently stand up to and contradict national and international laws on the free market and free competition. In the face of this gradual intimidation of the public sector to the benefit of the private sector, society appears as the third great actor in the scene. That is why we should not be surprised if society starts to expect companies not only to make profits or create jobs, but also to prove their commitment to certain social values. They are expected, in short, to be citizen companies, with ethical conduct helping to build a better society. Hence the concept of corporate social responsibility. A responsibility with several layers over the core business (what to do, for whom, with whom and how). These are related to their policy of human resources (working conditions, equal opportunities, training,...); with their production (respect for the environment and others); with their commercial relationship (relationship with other socially responsible organisations, for example, with subcontractors in the Third World that respect the workers' fundamental rights); or with their communications (particularly in those aspects related to transparency). Furthermore, the concept of social responsibility has other important implications regarding who to answer to. Thus, whilst traditionally it was understood that the company was answerable first to its shareholders, it is now understood that the company must answer to an increasing number of publics, aside from the shareholders. That is, to clients, suppliers, workers, local organisations, the media, etc. (the so-called stake-holders). In the recent survey The Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility carried out at the request of The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum and The Conference Board of approximately 25,000 people in 23 countries in the five continents, over half of those polled said that they followed closely the social conduct of companies. In this respect, they said they took into account aspects such as transparency, honesty (lack of corruption), fair treatment of employees, respect for health and safety measures, environmental protection and not using child labour in their production processes. In this respect, the report concludes that an average of 40% of those polled world-wide (the proportion varied greatly, however, depending on the level of economic development of the country) had considered punishing a company in the last year, for their lack of responsible conduct. One in five consumers said they had spoken to friends and relatives in the last year about the conduct of certain companies, and the same number had refused to buy a product or criticised a company when they thought their behaviour dishonest. In the face of this change of heart by the - well-off - consumers in rich countries, where they -we- are becoming aware of the social and ecological consequences of our consumption, the companies that produce and distribute consumer goods are becoming increasingly sensitive to the demands of these new responsible consumers, in a market based on publicity that constantly renews the way the consumer identifies with the products. It would appear then that a trend is becoming consolidated in which social responsibility is becoming an unavoidable aspect for the company's favourable image in the eyes of the consumer and, probably, for their business success. In another recent study by The Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum, entitled The Responsible Century, 71% of the 100 opinion leaders polled in Germany, France and the United Kingdom, define corporate social responsibility as "a form of leadership beyond the short term". Codes of conduct: ethics or cosmetics? Over the last few years, there has been increasing evidence of reprehensible practice in social and environmental matters on the part of certain multinationals. An example is the accusation against Royal Dutch/Shell of conspiring with the Nigerian government in the repression of the Ogoni population and the execution of one of their leaders; the poisoning, in 1986, of 100 workers in a banana plant in Costa Rica through the ingestion of the pesticide aldicarb made by the French multinational Rhone Poulenc; or the discovery, in the early nineties, that part of the production of Levi Strauss jeans was made by Chinese prisoners. Such events cast doubt on the conduct and, consequently, the image of these companies. Thus, consumers begin to mistrust business empires which periodically, and substantially, increase their profits. When scandals such as these become public, the companies react and, often, make changes. One is, usually, the assumption of voluntary codes of good conduct to show their respect for the rights of people and the environment. In the clothing sector, American companies were the first to adopt these codes of conduct. Since 1991, the year in which Levi Strauss first adopted a series of internal guidelines to check and improve labour practices amongst their suppliers world-wide, the number of companies adopting these codes has increased considerably. In 1995, 5% had a code, amongst which are the best known world-wide. Important makes and European clothing distributor chains have also recently adopted this type of measure. In recent years, a leading company, such the multinational sportswear company Nike, has been inundated by protests in the United States and Europe as it became increasingly obvious that their code of conduct, was not only not fully complied with but that the workers in many of the companies they subcontract in the Third World did not even know about it. For this reason, companies like Nike are having to face the key issue: the external, independent control of its codes. For this, nowadays, is the central issue for the fair traders: on the one hand, continuing to reveal those operations that, empty of content, are simple image cleaning strategies, and on the other, demanding that codes of conduct be subjected to efficient and transparent control that can be verified by qualified and independent organisms. External control of codes: a key aspect Many initiatives have been developed over the last few years to give codes of conduct credibility. They are, furthermore, being promoted from different areas: from the business sector itself, NGOs and, to a lesser extent, from government and non-government organisms. Some companies are taking a very active part in this respect, promoting a series of measures at different levels. Let's take a look. The first measure is the supervision of the code of conduct by a body within the company itself. Such is the case of the clothes store C&A, which created SOCAM for this purpose within its own group. On another level, is the hiring of a consultancy firm, as did Nike, requesting the services of consultancy firms such as Ernst & Young or Price, Waterhouse, Cooper. A third level, is to entrust supervision to auditors accredited by an external organism. Such is the case of the CEPAA (Council on Economic Priorities Accreditation Agency), which has established the SA8000 standard (SA for Social Accountability), a series of standards of a social nature that should be used in audits by companies certified for such purposes by the CEPAA. This series of external supervision initiatives, although they may be considered a good sign, are still, in the opinion of many NGDOs, incomplete and insufficient. Thus, the first mechanism lacks independence as it forms part of the business group itself. In the second and third cases, the objection is that large firms of auditors lack experience in carrying out social audits. Audits which should detect problems such as impediments to free association and collective bargaining or the breaking of laws on wages and overtime. Frequently, the auditors' sources of information are managers or supervisors and, when the workers are consulted, their opinions are not treated in confidence. Therefore, inspections are usually superficial and are carried out behind the backs of the local social actors involved (unions, human rights organisations, etc.). In short, consumer organisation and human and environmental rights defence networks regard with a mixture of mistrust and hope the latest steps taken by multinationals, directed at making their codes of conduct more reliable. There are still many doubts as to the external supervision mechanisms set forth and whether they will facilitate not only greater information and transparency in regard to the social and environmental aspects of production, but also, and we must not forget this, whether they will improve conditions, in labour and environmental matters and in aspects of health and safety, in centres of production in the Southern Hemisphere and Eastern Europe. Spanish companies have yet to follow suit The concept of corporate social responsibility has still not taken root in Spanish companies, despite the fact that, according to The Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility, 29% of Spaniards are of the opinion that the role of large companies in Society is to "favour higher ethical standards and contribute to the building of a better society", whilst 22% understands, more conventionally, that the role of businesses is to "make profits, pay tax, create jobs and comply with legislation". It can be seen, then, in contrast with Central European and American companies, that multinationals with Spanish capital are way behind regarding their policies of social responsibility, which are neither clearly defined nor formalised in a code of conduct or similar. Thus, there is no public information (in their annual reports, leaflets or advertising, etc.) on the matter. It would appear that they do not believe social responsibility to be relevant in their corporate policy, they probably think the subject does not particularly worry their clients. Frequently, business owners in Spain mistake policies of social responsibility for social marketing strategies or simply for making a donation now and again to some non-profit-making organisation. In many economically developed countries, Spain amongst them, social networks have grown up that include different social groups concerned about the evolution of international trade. They have reflected on the role they should play, as citizens and as consumers, in the new international social context. As consumers, they believe they can pressure those companies that do not act ethically. Below, we will take a close look at a campaign to raise awareness and of condemnation -the Clean Clothes Campaign- as an example of the type of alliances that can be established to act on a particular sector: the clothing industry. A joint effort which involves both the consumers in the -rich- countries that buy clothes and the producers of those clothes in poor countries. Clean Clothes Campaign (I): clean clothes of injustice Today, a worker in the clothing trade (who would more than likely be a woman, as it is estimated that over 80% of the workforce in this sector are women) anywhere in the world is in a sector with very little job security. Frequently, particularly in Third World countries, there are no trade unions, there is exploitation of child labour, considerable sexual discrimination and ridiculously low wages. In this context, the Clean Clothes Campaign is fighting to improve working conditions in the clothing and sportswear industry. The Clean Clothes Campaign began in the Netherlands in 1990. At the time, famous labels did not take into account the conditions in which the garments they sold were manufactured. But we have come a long way since then. Now there are clean clothes campaigns in ten countries in Western Europe. Now it is more difficult to find traders that evade this responsibility. The campaign members are in regular contact with organisations in several countries, including those where the clothes are made and, in this way, they work together like a network to attract attention to the matter of workers' rights in the clothing industry. Clean Clothes Campaigns are, in each country, coalitions of social organisations of different types. In Spain, 60 development, social, trade union and consumer organisations are involved and co-ordinated by the NGDO SETEM. Clean Clothes Campaign (II): pressure businesses Due to the fact that the main demand of the Clean Clothes Campaign is that producers and distributors fulfil their responsibility to ensure that the clothes are made in decent conditions, it is important to find out just what this campaign understands by decent working conditions. They are defined in the basic conventions of the International Work Organisation (IWO) as: freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, no discrimination, no hard labour or slavery, a minimum working age of 15, health and safety measures, a maximum 48-hour working week and a maximum of 12 voluntary extra hours and the right to a decent wage. The Clean Clothes Campaign developed a code at European level, called the Code of Practice for the clothing industry including sportswear where the aforementioned principles are developed in detail. The Clean Clothes Campaign requests that producers adopt the standards set forth in the code of work practices, that they comply with these standards and that they set up a system by which to carry out continuous monitoring of such compliance. It also requests that companies agree to an external system of verification that ensures that the clothes they sell are made in adequate working conditions. Clean Clothes Campaign (III): mobilise for more responsible consumption Above all, the Clean Clothes Campaign is a consumer campaign. Its force comes from the consumer's power. One way to mobilise them is by sending postcards to companies asking them what their working conditions are like. In most European countries, over 100,000 consumers have become involved through the sending of such cards. These protest-cards are not sent to incite boycotts or to stop production in Third World countries, but to pressure producers and distributors to use their influence to improve working conditions and assume their responsibility in social matters. Clean Clothes Campaign (IV): build up solidarity The Clean Clothes Campaign works to develop links with organisations in the country where clothes are produced (mainly South East Asia, Central America and Eastern European countries). This is done through exchange programmes. For example, in 1997, a research project and an exchange programme with NGOs and trade unions in Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Poland and Romania). Acts of solidarity also take the form of international seminars. For instance, the International Workshop of Independent Observation of Codes of Conduct, developed in Belgium in May 1998, where the participants, mainly from countries where clothing factories are established, explored the possibilities and limitations for NGOs and local trade unions to become involved in applying and verifying the observation process. The network system of urgent action is another means of striking up links of international solidarity. The Clean Clothes Campaign frequently receives requests for support from workers making clothes for multinational companies. These requests are taken, checked and the initial information added in reference to the case in question using our local contacts in that country. Later a call for action is made on the network. By using this system, the members of the Clean Clothes Campaign are mobilised effectively to react to the requests for complaints when workers' rights are violated. Clean Clothes Campaign (V): promote legal opportunities The Clean Clothes Campaign also seeks legal opportunities to correct the precarious working conditions in the clothing industry. In 1998, the Clean Clothes Campaign held an International Forum in Brussels in which claims were filed before the Peoples' Permanent Tribunal against seven large clothing firms (Adidas, C&A, Disney, H&M, Levi Strauss, Nike and Otto Versand). These cases included the evidence of workers and investigators telling of the working conditions in the factories manufacturing articles for these makes. One of the aims of this initiative was a two-level legal approach: the responsibility of the clothes distributors and producers at each stage of production; and the consumer's right to be informed of the working conditions in which the clothes they buy are made. In this last respect, it should be pointed out that one long-term aim of the Clean Clothes Campaign is the creation, with the support of public institutions, of a social certificate to enable the consumer to identify those companies with a policy of social responsibility or, although it would appear more difficult in practice, the creation of a sort of social label to allow such identification on the product itself. In any case, it must be pointed out that the aim is not to achieve this social certificate "at any price" or, rather, with no guarantee of reliability, there is no avoiding the difficulty involved in the certification of variables which are extrinsic or not inherent to the product. Final considerations First of all: the current globalisation of production and liberalisation of trade offer opportunities for all countries, on paper at least. At the same time, these processes intensify the complexity and challenges interdependence implies, worsening the risks of instability and marginalisation of the world's poorer countries and peoples. Although some are beginning to reap the benefits, others, on the other hand, are not so well-placed to make the most of these opportunities. A process takes place which for the poorest among us means marginalisation. A process in which some win and others lose. Secondly: in the last few years, the role of NGDOs as international actors has become increasingly important, and in some respects has gained relevance, in a world which is increasingly interconnected and economically more asymmetrical. In this context, the boom of the NGDOs could be considered a response to these ever more obvious inequalities and to the passivity of governments. In any case, it should be pointed out that, even today, their capacity to influence international actors -public and private- with decision-making power, is still slight. Thirdly: social movements should have an increasing effect on their role as interpellators before the commercial policies set by the governments we vote for, or the reprehensible practices of the multinational companies we buy from. With this, they should try to bring about a structural change in North-South trade relations, which should, necessarily, include a change of attitude in rich countries and, therefore, the consumers themselves. This change, necessary to our way of thinking, is not easily explained, because it is uncomfortable. We must ask ourselves whether we are willing to go all the way in practising responsible consumption. To adopt a decisive attitude in the face of the waste and social inequalities of consumption. No one can have failed to notice that what we are proposing is no easy task.o
What
is critical consumption
It is said that "critical consumption" is when, on choosing between the different brands on the market we use as a criterion, in addition to the usual ones, the nature of the different manufacturers, opting for one or the other depending on whether their conduct seems correct or not. The nature and conduct of companies refers particularly to social and environmental questions: working conditions, the activity's socio-economic impact, profit sharing, interaction with the political powers, the environmental impact of the factory and production processes, the raw materials used, waste management, and so on. The incorporation of these new parameters to purchasing criteria has also been called "ethical consumption" or "responsible consumption". In this article we will use the term "critical consumption", which is perhaps the least ambiguous. Justifications of critical consumption Why would a consumer question the conduct of manufacturers before choosing a product of a particular brand? The answer is: because he wants to know where his money is going. Let's imagine a consumer concerned about environmental problems who wants to do something to help, so he buys notebooks made from recycled paper and bleached without the use of chlorine. If one day he learns that the manufacturer is, in fact, one of the worst depredators of forests in the world, or that they dump toxic waste from their plants into the river indiscriminately, our consumer will feel cheated, and realise that in buying their products he has actually given support to activities that go against his principles. This is upsetting for the consumer, it hurts his dignity. Now let's imagine a consumer who thinks the best a company can do is make large profits, and so he is a shareholder of a certain company that complies with this criterion and buys their products. If he discovers that the company has passed up the chance to make a profitable investment because they have considered, for example, the harm it could do to a town, he will feel the same as the "ecologist" consumer we mentioned before. So, we can say that a "critical consumer" is someone who includes in his concept of dignity the fact that his actions be consistent with his principles, and who is willing to try and fulfil this in every area of his life, particularly in what he does with his money. For these people, critical consumption is essential insofar as it enables them to maintain dignity when shopping. This would be the justification of critical consumption on an individual level. There is a justification on a social level too, that comes from the enormous influence that economic power has currently over political power (currently, and probably throughout history, democratic or not, at least in Europe, in the last 20 or 30 years, but the tendency has become more and more pronounced). This means that political power makes its decisions -regarding economic activities to be developed, land-use and resource management, tasks to be entrusted to the states, those entrusted to the citizens and... in short, the decisions as to which social model should be built, that affect the lives of the whole population- not in accordance with the will of the majority, but following the guidelines established by the economically more powerful minority. And who makes up this minority? Those agents to whom we citizens give the most money: in the current economic system, those from whom we buy the most (in the medieval system, for example, the richest were those who hit the hardest, or frightened the most, at harvest time). Thus, there is a direct link, very direct, between each citizen and the real power, that is, economic power: consumption. From this, it is deduced that the citizens' participation in the building of the social model can be seen mostly through consumption: "votes" in shops carry more weight than those in the ballot box. Thus, the citizens or groups who believe that the social model should be a reflection of the majority will, should also be "critical consumers": they need the nature and conduct of companies to be well known, to be able to give support to those that act in accordance with their principles, and refuse it to those that don't. This is the social justification of critical consumption. From the above explanations, one can see where the term "responsible consumption" comes from: businesses carry out their activities thanks to the consumers' financial contributions, and, therefore, they are jointly responsible. The consumer, therefore, needs to know what these activities are to be able to assume responsibility for them. Such a formulation may be uncomfortable, on the one hand because assuming responsibility is not always a settled matter in one's private life, and, on the other, because, when we speak of unethical business conduct, this makes the consumer feel "guilty", which he sees as unfair, or excessive: he sees business activities as something that is a long way from his daily, private, purchases; he feels it is an exaggeration to maintain that there is a direct link between the two. There is though. Of course it is difficult to admit it when it is "diluted" amongst thousands of other consumers who buy the same things. But you cannot conclude from that that there is no individual link, quite the contrary: every single one of the thousands of millions of individual links exists. However, what is a mistake is to accept the fact as a burden of guilt; it is better to look at it as the key to intervene in the system according to one's own personal criteria (providing we want to of course). The "ecologist" consumer we mentioned earlier on should not feel guilty about all the notebooks he has bought, he only did what his conscience dictated. On the contrary, once he becomes aware of the chance to know about the companies' real behaviour towards the environment, he will want to use it to keep his consumption more in line with his criteria (the same goes, obviously, for the "capitalist" consumer, or any other type). That is the idea reflected in this slogan, which has been around in critical consumption for some time now: consumers are part of the problem, and, therefore, part of the solution. The "bad news" would be to hear that we are not part of the problem, because then we would not be part of the solution either. How can we carry out critical consumption? When we go shopping, we usually find a selection of brands to choose from, for any product. Each applies his own criteria, as he sees fit, to rule some out. At a given time, we may wish to make our choice according to the principle of critical consumption; at the moment we need to know the nature and conduct of the companies that own the brands we are considering buying. Having this information is, decidedly, very unusual. The first thing we need to know is who the owners are. There is usually a reference to some company or other on the label, but it is often difficult to tell if it is the owner, the manufacturer or simply the distributor. This information, is extremely unreliable, due to constant mergers, buy-outs and sales between companies. Also, supposing we knew which are the companies whose conduct we wish to weigh up, what usually happens is that we do not have the necessary data to do it properly. This is normal, if we bear in mind that in Spain the critical consumption movement is only just emerging. On the other hand, in other countries where it has been in existence for several years, there are publications dedicated to informing about it. Such is the case, for example, of Multinational Monitor, Shopping for a Better World or Corporate Watch (this last on the Internet) in the United States (where the first critical consumer initiatives emerged), Ethical Consumer in Great Britain or Altreconomia in Italy. The success of some of these publications shows that there are citizens interested in having the information necessary to carry out critical consumption (Ethical Consumer magazine has a circulation of almost 6,000 copies, and is read by an estimated 15,000 people). In Spain, the Centre de Recerca i Informació en Consum (Centre for Consumer Research and Information) aims to provide consumers with the information they lack. Although it has no publication as yet, it has produced several books containing studies on specific production sectors. It is worth bearing in mind at this point that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give information objectively. The mere fact of speaking of some things and not others, is a decision that the informer takes subjectively (and, evidently, it is impossible to be completely thorough). This is a limitation of critical consumption, that does not disqualify it, however: it only limits it. Some of the organisations dedicated to informing for critical consumption guide the public towards certain norms of consumption explicitly, whilst others give facts. Information for critical consumption can be as tendentious as any other; in any case, the consumer is the subject who decides when standing in front of the shelves in the supermarket. Some feed from a single source, others seek to compare with other data, others carry out their own research, others want to find out the ideological principles of the informing organisations in an attempt to "decode" the information, or to decide who to rule out and who to trust... Critical consumers are as open to manipulation as the next man. In the absence of sources of information for critical consumption that we can consult, there are several initiatives we can take on a personal level to find out the facts we want. The easiest one is to read the labels, to see whether the companies related to the product are mentioned, where it is made, the materials used, or whether it gives a customer services address to contact for further information. This is also useful to become aware of what it usually says on labels, and find out what is missing. From then on, we may feel it is important to ask manufacturers to include certain information, or to ask the Administration to guarantee it. The other initiative we can take easily is to ask shopkeepers for information. Most of the time, they will not have the answers, but they will know the consumer is interested in knowing them. If this happens often enough, they may pass on the questions to the wholesalers, and so on, so that little by little it may become normal practice for shopkeepers to find out more about what they sell. In fact, this is the other aspect in which Spain lags far behind other countries. For whatever reason, it is not our habit to find out much a part from the price, but in other parts of the world this is not the case. For example, let's imagine that we find some kitchen rolls that say "ecological" on that wrapper, but there is nothing to justify the description. Ask the shopkeeper to justify it: in this country the chances of him being able to do so are practically zero; in Germany, it is practically impossible that he won't be able to explain it (in fact, in Germany you rarely find a wrapper that does not justify it in the first place). Do ethical companies exist? How to find them What is an "ethical company"? We think the most correct answer comes from common sense: an ethical company is one that reasonably respects people and, as far as possible, the environment. Consumers looking for ethical companies may find themselves limited by a lack of plausible consumption alternatives. Let's take a case as an example which has been on everyone's lips, and even made the news: the case of Nike trainers. Through certain social actions (such as the Clean Clothes Campaign) and television reports, the public has become aware that the working conditions in which these sports shoes are made are extremely inadequate: endless working days, a pittance in wages, ridiculously high production quotas, physical and psychological abuse of workers (mostly women), child labour... There are many people who do not wish to contribute to this, and ask: "what brand can I buy that does not have all this going on in the background?". The answer is: "possibly none". All big brand companies have the same policy of subcontracting production to sweat shops in "underdeveloped" countries (the same happens in many other sector, however); the working conditions are always the same. There are some local companies that manufacture here in conditions that are undoubtedly better, but they do not offer the same range of footwear (for walking, for running on different surfaces, for professional athletes, etc.). One might ask oneself, then, what the point is in knowing all about production conditions, if they won't all be the same in the end and, therefore, there is actually no choice. The feeling that there are no alternatives culminates logically in an attitude of "well if I'm only going to find out that they are all the same, I don't want to know" (another attitude could be that of trying to take some action to change the situation, but that is beyond the average consumer; it corresponds to social activism, which is not what we are dealing with). Certainly, in
some productive sectors the uniformity of the type of offer is clear (another
obvious case could be communication services, electricity, etc.). The tendency
to concentrate production in few hands, in many sectors, and the fact that
few hands also group activities from different sectors, is undeniable.
Thus, what can be seen as the most spot-on, authentic, genuine realisation
of capitalism, or as some say, its "final victory", is paradoxically very
close to communism, as it was implemented in the 20th century: control
of the productive system in very few hands. The difference between the
two cases lies in the fact that under communism the hands that controlled
were "State" (to call them "public" would be a betrayal of the true sense
of the word) and in the current case they are private. However, when all
is said and done, this is a purely superficial difference, as both cases
share one really important characteristic: the hands that control are beyond
any public control (now we can use the term).
Today's critical consumers, then, will still find several alternatives. Take a look around: we know many industries, companies, workshops... of all types. There are small ones, large ones, middle-sized ones; modest ones, ambitious ones, aggressive ones; some make large profits, others get into debt, others get by; some have a desire to serve, and some seek, above all, to make the most of good market opportunities; it's pleasant to work in some of them, in others less so; some pollute a lot, others hardly at all, some try not to do it; some are slapdash, others rigorous... In short, there are as many types as there are people. Claiming that "companies are only out to make money, and they don't care who they hurt in the process" is as mistaken as maintaining that people only do things for the money, a statement which is obviously false. It is not true that there is no such thing as an ethical company. What is true is that they are harder to see, as happens on a personal level. The companies that devote a lot of resources to constant advertising through the media and making their presence constantly felt in society by aggressive means, have a desire for power (otherwise they would not seek satisfaction in invading and, in a way, "possessing" many private lives). Let's concentrate for a moment on the personal sphere and look at it from a psychological point of view, which tells us that people who need to appear powerful are really very insecure; they put on a mask of superiority so that those around them don't "give away" their shortcomings. Lacking their own resources, the tools they resort to to be able to face situations are deceit, secrecy, arbitrariness or violence; in short, lack of respect, that enables them to attain that superiority or power, whilst pushing them inevitably to commit injustices. These people are more visible, due to their need to stand out. In contrast, people who are secure, who know themselves to be honest, do not need to prove anything: the surroundings endow them with authority for themselves, they have no need to prove they are superior. If they |
