Are socially responsible brands really helping?

[RoseGoesToYale]

Many companies and marketers are becoming aware that young people prefer brands that have a positive reputation for engaging in social responsibility, as this article points out. Whether it's "sustainably sourced", or "buying this product saves bees!", or "made from recycled polyester", even things like veganism, fair trade, and organic, young people are eating it up. My dad's generation... wasn't even on their radar. Nobody cared what was in Pond's cold cream or where their vegetables came from, as long as it made no one sick and was affordable.

 

But how far does it really go? When a company tells us their product saves the bees, we have to take them at their word. There's no way for all the consumers to physically see how the product is stopping bees from dying, even if the company tells us what their process is. The only way to know for certain is if investigative journalism goes in there to verify if what the company says is true. What I'm wondering is... to what extent do companies tell the truth about social responsibility, and if it's less than scrupulous, why has my generation been so sucked in by it? And could this obsession be financially hurting my generation by convincing us we need to spend more in the name of social justice while companies aren't holding up their end of the bargain?

 

For the example of veganism, vegans have to trust that the fruits and veggies they purchase, as well as alternative sources of protein, are sustainably produced and actually helping the environment and animals rather than harming them or having no effect, otherwise what would be the point? Veganism is very difficult to pull off in maintaining adequate nutrient intake, and making mistakes can adversely affect one's health. What if the trendy hipster restaurant selling vegan lattes and cookies purchased their ingredients from unsustainable sources? It's not like the restaurant would be legally obligated to say so, not in the US at least, and even the restaurant may not know exactly if the food goes through a middleman.

[Scottthespy]

Like you say, there's really no way to tell without some reliable investigative journalism. There are some cases, for instance, a caffe selling 'vegan lattes' then having a person with lactose intolerance coming in and getting a bad reaction if they were lying and using normal dairy, where you could have a case for suing, and if a company makes specific enough claims and they turn out to be false, sometimes you can try to pull a 'false advertising' claim on them, but for the most part we're at the mercy of the companies, and can only hope that the threat of the boycotting and flaming they'll get if they're found to be lying will keep shady companies from lying. Each company has to be taken as a separate case, you really can't generalize and say how likely it is for one company to be lying based on the actions of another, so all you can really do is look into whatever literature exists on them.

 

Statistically, there are going to be some companies that are completely straight up, totally honest, and some that outright lie, and others who sort of fudge the truth. So I'd say overall, yes, there are some companies who are doing good.

[RakshaTheCat]

If company claims something that can't really be checked, it is most likely a scam.

[FindingTheta]

Purchasing products that brand themselves as "socially responsible" are a way of making consumers feel good about making a difference without challenging the underlying problems the status quo are responsible for that's currently destroying our planet and geopolitically destabilizing the nations within the southern hemisphere. Our system places the responsibility of "saving" the planet onto the individual consumer rather than allowing for collective action that is needed to make the systemic changes required to avert a potential mass extinction event. Should a collective movement occur, you'll see corporate media, lobbyists, and lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle try to discredit the movement, while on the ground you'll see Law Enforcement Officers and opposing political groups insert themselves into these movements and become agent provocateurs that try to break up these movements. If a movement is successful, it will be absorbed into the current system and commodified to the point of meaninglessness, like the marketing you just described in your original post.

 

Individual actions won't change anything, you cannot trust companies to do the right thing, meaningful systemic change doesn't come from a system responsible for the problems described above.

 

 

[Zagadka]

I think it helps a little bit in getting people talking, even if the companies are usually just looking for money and have actual business practices that are completely the opposite of their progressive marketing.

 

Having a public discussion about "socially responsible" issues is worth it. The first step to change is public perception. The environmental movement has gained steadily since the 70s and simple littering campaigns.

 

No one should let that convince them to give these companies money, though.

[MoraDollie]

This reminds me of all the companies that claim "this helps prevent breast cancer!"....when in reality, majority of them pocket 80% (or more) of the money and hardly any (IF ANY) actually goes to breast cancer related issues. Unfortunately, greedy CEOs love to take advantage of those who are vulnerable, ignorant, and those who are desperate (and/or terrified). While October goes pink, people also forget that October is also domestic violence awareness month, which is by far an epidemic in the USA (but no one wants to talk about because it's a "family problem" as well as the fact that "it's not sexy" like the notion that breast cancer is, just because it deals with boobs). 

 

If the product actually donates 40% or more of its total profits from said item they're selling (or service), yes, it's a fantastic thing. Keep in mind those they donate to as well (research institutes, drug companies that are working on making drugs to make cancer easier to deal with, etc.). Hell, even 15% or 25% can be good if the person they're donating to is an exceptionally good company or institution that they're donating to. 

[RakshaTheCat]

24 minutes ago, FindingTheta said:

Individual actions won't change anything, you cannot trust companies to do the right thing, meaningful systemic change doesn't come from a system responsible for the problems described above.

I like your post, all doom and gloom, definitely my kind of thing 😺

Do you think anything can be done about any of it, or all is lost already?

[FindingTheta]

Just now, Marcin said:

I like your post, all doom and gloom, definitely my kind of thing 😺

Do you think anything can be done about any of it, or all is lost already?

Give me the dark honest assessment to a dishonest saccharine appraisal

 

Even though we cannot avert anthropogenic climate change, we can at least mitigate the worst of it, but we've got little time to do it. The question isn't so much what can be done about it, but are we willing to band together collectively and force the status quo into taking corrective action. Our government doesn't belong to us, it belongs to whoever has the most money "free speech" (e.g. MNCs, the financial sector, the MIC, etc.); our government serves their interests and we need to end that arrangement. If we accomplish this, then we can start implementing policies that translate into meaningful action.

 

Meaningful change begins from the bottom-up, and we have more power by far united in purpose than anything the powers that be can bring to bear. The problems has been identified, and we have the means for a solution, so this is actually an optimistic appraisal. Hell, I wouldn't be an activist if I though we couldn't turn it around 😛, though I am "cynically optimistic", and I point my dark poisoned ice pick of doom and gloom at the systems and power structures that deserve it 😉

[RakshaTheCat]

14 minutes ago, FindingTheta said:

Hell, I wouldn't be an activist if I though we couldn't turn it around 😛, though I am "cynically optimistic", and I point my dark poisoned ice pick of doom and gloom at the systems and power structures that deserve it 😉

Now I'm curious about your activism, what do you do? Hmm, I probably should ask you somewhere else though, since that would be a bit OT here... Maybe PM? 😺

[Tanwen]

In the UK (and Europe) there are strict criteria for foods to be labelled 'Organic' - the producers are audited to ensure they comply with the criteria which must be met. The food may not taste any better, nor have more vitamins etc than from other sources, but the producers are aware of impacts on the environment. Same with the 'Rainforest Allince' produce - look for the 'Green Frog' logo https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/business/solutions/certification/

 

If everyone (or many) did their 'little bit', then over time it may become the 'norm' - just because the task seems overwhleming is no reason not to at least try.

 

PS: Try reading 'Silent Spring' by Rachel Carson. First published in 1962 but still relevant.

 

[Guest]

I think many of those earth friendly companies are just cutting costs and marketing this into planet saving moves.

 

When I see a company boast that their packaging uses 60% more recycled particles I see just that. 

 

Or that your offices use LED lights. I see a government grant seeking company that likely got money back from the act. 

 

A company legit doing this, would be as transparent as possible. 

 

I see it like believing that pure orange juice you're drinking from a big brand isn't just sitting in silos for months and injected with flavor packs and color prior to production. 

 

It's so easy to circumvent regulatory bodies. 

[andreas1033]

You should judge them, on the way that most charities, only give such a small percentage to what ever cause if any, that people assume they do.

 

Lots of charities are run by intel agencies, to gain funds, for what ever purposes.

 

So its the same, for companies that pretend to care, most do not, but they know most likely they are not going to be investigated for it.

[Tanwen]

The Soil Association (who award accreditation to organic farmers in the UK) and the Raiforest Alliance will remove accreditation if growers do not comply with the requirements of certification.
If you have any doubts, then do some research - it's much easier now than it was in the 60's, 70's or 80's.Refuse to buy products produced by companies which are careless with the environment. I refuse to buy anything produced by Nestle becuse of their profilgate use of water. I may only be one person and not matter very much - but if I influence only one other person; and they influence others then hopefully it will have a domino effect.

Rachel Carson was one person - and she kick started an entire movement

[Anthracite_Impreza]

The vast majority of people can't afford this fancy stuff, so yes, it's pointless and mainly for the middle class to feel better about themselves.

[Tanwen]

I'm not middle class - come from a long lne of penniless peasants, and grew up on a council estate;  but I read Carson's book while working in a library in the late 60s. It had a profound effect on  me - reading it again has been heartbreaking in the realisation that so little has been achieved. No-one is investigating the cumulative, combined effects of the poisons with which we still douse our crops, the answer to pest resistance to pesticides it to increase the amount used per hectare, find new combinations or new chemicals. In a year or two, insects develop resistance and the whole cycle begins again.

Human lifespan is considerably llonger that those of insects, we simply don't have the time for resistant strains (of humans) to evolve

[PaganBugAce]

3 hours ago, Tanwen said:

I'm not middle class - come from a long lne of penniless peasants, and grew up on a council estate;  but I read Carson's book while working in a library in the late 60s. It had a profound effect on  me - reading it again has been heartbreaking in the realisation that so little has been achieved. No-one is investigating the cumulative, combined effects of the poisons with which we still douse our crops, the answer to pest resistance to pesticides it to increase the amount used per hectare, find new combinations or new chemicals. In a year or two, insects develop resistance and the whole cycle begins again.

Human lifespan is considerably llonger that those of insects, we simply don't have the time for resistant strains (of humans) to evolve

That's what I want to do if I ever get a chance to study that. I think it's very important but the problem with this kind of research and why many are unwilling to do it is due to funding. I wish that the rich folks actually invest in things like biodiveristy research because evolution requires consistant monitoring year after year for more than a decade. Sometimes I don't understand why people are not willing to fund the ways we need to find this information so desperately. I think the culture that we're suppose to be the best species or the epitome of evoultion is total BS and should be an even stronger reason for protecting and conserving other species.

[FindingTheta]

21 hours ago, Marcin said:

Now I'm curious about your activism, what do you do? Hmm, I probably should ask you somewhere else though, since that would be a bit OT here... Maybe PM? 😺

It's fine; it's on-topic, and it's an example of what I'm talking about in my earlier posts.

 

 One focus of my activism that I do focuses on connecting community gardens together so places that lack affordable nutritious food (i.e. "food deserts") can have a means of growing within the community. I oftentimes see people becoming more connected to their food their neighbors, and are more aware of the environmental issues that we face, and I've seen this play out in extremely positive ways where city planning decisions in areas such as public transportation were heavily influenced by the community. 

 

This is why I say those of us on the bottom have more power than lobbyists and corporations, and if there is to be any meaningful change it has to be done collectively from the bottom up, rather than wait on some benevolent billionaire to "rescue" us from the system that person benefits from.

[RakshaTheCat]

1 hour ago, FindingTheta said:

This is why I say those of us on the bottom have more power than lobbyists and corporations, and if there is to be any meaningful change it has to be done collectively from the bottom up, rather than wait on some benevolent billionaire to "rescue" us from the system that person benefits from.

Glad it works for you, although, hmm, will it actually have potential for more global change? Rich communities of house owners changing city plans to have better public transport is cool, but will it be able to help on global scale?

[FindingTheta]

methane vs. co2

25 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Glad it works for you, although, hmm, will it actually have potential for more global change? Rich communities of house owners changing city plans to have better public transport is cool, but will it be able to help on global scale?

Rich? Oh no the communities I'm referring to aren't affluent; the rich communities in my city are working against public transportation, rent control, tuition-free education at universities, low-income housing, and community gardens. I'm talking about austere communities influencing city planning.

 

Local politics finds its way into national politics and lawmaking, and through that mechanism you have the potential to address problems on a global scale. This has a greater chance to affect meaningful change precisely because we taken the problem of trying to save the planet off the individual and placed it on the power structures that are responsible for destroying the planet to begin with.

 

Buying biodegradable "eco-friendly" products from "socially-responsible" companies merely treats the symptoms of the disease with detrimental side effects when the goal ought to be to find a cure. When consumption increases so does our waste, and we end up having to build more landfills or dumping our trash on developing nations (or both) which creates enormous amounts of methane (a gas that is 30x more potent than CO2 in terms of trapping heat). We still have to extract raw materials used for these "green" products, and materials such as plastic cannot be recycled indefinitely, and most of the plastic we consume gets thrown into landfills anyways, so all that is left is the feeling that a difference is made without actually having made a difference.

[gisiebob]

I do not believe capitalism has the ability to fix the problems of capitalism and it's lineage, but I have no idea how to move away from it.

[FindingTheta]

2 minutes ago, gisiebob said:

I do not believe capitalism has the ability to fix the problems of capitalism and it's lineage, but I have no idea how to move away from it.

When capitalists gleefully state that the melting Artic is revealing more oil deposits, or when a presidential candidate says it's too late to save the planet, so we need to settle on higher ground, or when fossil fuel companies fuel anthropogenic climate change denial through media campaigning, it's becomes painfully clear that to effectively address climate change we need to end capitalism.

 

Moving away from capitalism when our societies see the end of the world as being a more viable option than ending capitalism is going to be a greater feat than the moonshot.

[RakshaTheCat]

6 minutes ago, FindingTheta said:

Moving away from capitalism when our societies see the end of the world as being a more viable option than ending capitalism is going to be a greater feat than the moonshot.

Sure, but what to put in its place?

I've read a book recently  "How Will Capitalism End?" by Wolfgang Streeck, and according to him, it's already kinda ending, but nothing to replace it with so far...

[Laughing Willow]

36 minutes ago, FindingTheta said:

When capitalists gleefully state that the melting Artic is revealing more oil deposits, or when a presidential candidate says it's too late to save the planet, so we need to settle on higher ground, or when fossil fuel companies fuel anthropogenic climate change denial through media campaigning, it's becomes painfully clear that to effectively address climate change we need to end capitalism.

 

Moving away from capitalism when our societies see the end of the world as being a more viable option than ending capitalism is going to be a greater feat than the moonshot.

I've been reading through the comments here, and I have to say I'm a bit confused as to what the alternative proposition is. If it's the complete abandonment of free market practices, then I'm sorry to inform you that there is no such thing as a purely centrally planned economy (socialist). Just as there is no purely free market economy (capitalist), they simply don't exist. But if you'd like to look at it on a case by case basis, the closest thing to an economy with no capitalism would be either North Korea, or any country durring a time of serious war, WWI or II, for instance. And I think we can all agree, neither of those alternatives are very attractive. 

 

Simply put, capitalism is not the root of these problems -and I agree, they are most CERTAINLY problems which require immediate attention and drastic action- corrupted and self serving leaders are. Now that can be government figures, national or local, left center or right wing, business CEO's, hell, even grassroots figures have been the item of corruption allegations and power mongering. The problem is people with the ability to amass power being given leeway to continue hoarding it in a way which further secures their positions at the expense of that which they view as irrelevant.

 

Essentially, the more people there are to control the more power available to accumulate. So what countries are the biggest contributors to ecological degredation and perpetrators social injustices? China, the US, India, and Russia. The countries of the world with the biggest populations and/or domestic resource reserves. Among those countries you have capitalist, centrist, and socialist ideologies as the governing economic policies. These are not problems unique to capitalism, because if they were then Singapore, the city state with the closest thing in the world to a purely capitalist economic system, would be the one the world is angry at. 

[FindingTheta]

19 minutes ago, Marcin said:

Sure, but what to put in its place?

I've read a book recently  "How Will Capitalism End?" by Wolfgang Streeck, and according to him, it's already kinda ending, but nothing to replace it with so far...

Capitalism either latches onto an existing state or it creates it's own pseudogovernment. Company towns are an example of this. Capitalism isn't ending, it's evolving into something more totalitarian since more power is being concentrated in the hands of a few (we're seeing large MNC's merging, and smaller companies being bought out by the former).  We are seeing this shift being expressed in our current government in the U.S., which is being used to build a hegemony in which corporations can more easily do business.

 

It's never as simple as replacing capitalism since there's a great deal we need to address before we ask that question. But I do know that we need to understand our toxic relationship with the current system and decide on how best to distribute power in order to solve the catastrophic problems we currently face, then commit to direct action.

[RakshaTheCat]

26 minutes ago, FindingTheta said:

Capitalism either latches onto an existing state or it creates it's own pseudogovernment. Company towns are an example of this. Capitalism isn't ending, it's evolving into something more totalitarian since more power is being concentrated in the hands of a few (we're seeing large MNC's merging, and smaller companies being bought out by the former).  We are seeing this shift being expressed in our current government in the U.S., which is being used to build a hegemony in which corporations can more easily do business.

This is exactly what he is arguing in that book. He just calls it `ending`, because when eventually only one huge company is left after all those mergers, there won't be much capitalism left, just totalitarianism like you've mentioned yourself.

 

Quote

It's never as simple as replacing capitalism since there's a great deal we need to address before we ask that question. But I do know that we need to understand our toxic relationship with the current system and decide on how best to distribute power in order to solve the catastrophic problems we currently face, then commit to direct action.

Again, how to understand it better and spread that knowledge efficiently? Currently, everyone seems to be taken hostage by capitalism. I mean, people can have idealistic views and all, but in the end, they are forced to `melt the Arctic and cut the rain-forest` just to `earn the living`...

[Sally]

I don't  think that such small efforts do anything but possibly cause consumers to feel better about themselves.  At this point, the trajectory of most nations in the world as far as social justice is down -- white nationalism is overtaking Europe and the US, and other areas are turning toward mixtures of dictatorships and capitalism.  As far as the environment is concerned, the battle against global warming is lost, because of the aforementioned dictatorships and capitalism.  Individuals in the West may buy electric cars but that won't stop the melting of the glaciers and the consequent rise of the seas; individuals and groups in the West may work toward trying to sustain some sort of life for poor people, but as is evident in the US, we are fighting a losing battle there also.   

[gisiebob]

37 minutes ago, Laughing Willow said:

Spoiler

I've been reading through the comments here, and I have to say I'm a bit confused as to what the alternative proposition is. If it's the complete abandonment of free market practices, then I'm sorry to inform you that there is no such thing as a purely centrally planned economy (socialist). Just as there is no purely free market economy (capitalist), they simply don't exist. But if you'd like to look at it on a case by case basis, the closest thing to an economy with no capitalism would be either North Korea, or any country durring a time of serious war, WWI or II, for instance. And I think we can all agree, neither of those alternatives are very attractive. 

 

Simply put, capitalism is not the root of these problems -and I agree, they are most CERTAINLY problems which require immediate attention and drastic action- corrupted and self serving leaders are. Now that can be government figures, national or local, left center or right wing, business CEO's, hell, even grassroots figures have been the item of corruption allegations and power mongering. The problem is people with the ability to amass power being given leeway to continue hoarding it in a way which further secures their positions at the expense of that which they view as irrelevant.

 

Essentially, the more people there are to control the more power available to accumulate. So what countries are the biggest contributors to ecological degredation and perpetrators social injustices? China, the US, India, and Russia. The countries of the world with the biggest populations and/or domestic resource reserves. Among those countries you have capitalist, centrist, and socialist ideologies as the governing economic policies. These are not problems unique to capitalism, because if they were then Singapore, the city state with the closest thing in the world to a purely capitalist economic system, would be the one the world is angry at. 

 

 

 

(spoliered just for size, didn't have a specific part I wanted to respond to)

 

you seem shackled by a false dichotomy. working from a percent socialism/percent capitalism perspective doesn't seem to get us away from the gods we made that are killing us.

[Laughing Willow]

6 minutes ago, gisiebob said:

 

(spoliered just for size, didn't have a specific part I wanted to respond to)

 

you seem shackled by a false dichotomy. working from a percent socialism/percent capitalism perspective doesn't seem to get us away from the gods we made that are killing us.

I personally am not overly attached to the polarized system between left and right, no. But the modern understanding of economics is conceptualized on a series of different spectrums which intersect to create the different systems in place around the world. However, I do recognize there is a value to discussing what the extreme positions on either side of the spectrum are, as extremes are easier to recognize and therefore easier to discuss. And that is what we're doing here, we are discussing the effects of the defining aspect of the free market extreme: capitalism. 

 

A proposal of doing away with capitalism would thus naturally require the abandonment of free market practices and the universal adoption of Central planning, or the abandonment of both altogether. Those are the only options which completely remove capitalism from the economic system. And since that is the closest thing I see to a proposal here, that is the preface I address.

[gisiebob]

3 minutes ago, Laughing Willow said:

I personally am not overly attached to the polarized system between left and right, no. But the modern understanding of economics is conceptualized on a series of different spectrums which intersect to create the different systems in place around the world. However, I do recognize there is a value to discussing what the extreme positions on either side of the spectrum are, as extremes are easier to recognize and therefore easier to discuss. And that is what we're doing here, we are discussing the effects of the defining aspect of the free market extreme: capitalism. 

 

A proposal of doing away with capitalism would thus naturally require the abandonment of free market practices and the universal adoption of Central planning, or the abandonment of both altogether. Those are the only options which completely remove capitalism from the economic system. And since that is the closest thing I see to a proposal here, that is the preface I address.

within the mechanics of modern economics, absolutely.

[FindingTheta]

9 hours ago, Marcin said:

Quote

 

Again, how to understand it better and spread that knowledge efficiently?

You'll have to direct that question to experts in mass media, sociology, and psychology. What I do is a small part of a needed larger solution, and this question is far beyond my ability to answer.