Wednesday, April 15th, 2009...1:20 pm

Ethical Shopping: Buying is the New Boycotting

Jump to Comments

Editor’s note: Today, I was excited to be able to publish a piece on the PopTech blog about my passion, ethical shopping. It gave me a great excuse to polish up some of that “permanent content” I’ve been promising for this site, so consider this the starting point for something of an “ethical shopping manifesto.” Please let me know where you’d like to see more info — we’ll keep building it together!

***

Admittedly, being a green consumer is hard.

In the first place, we’re making an effort to consume less overall. We green-minded shoppers are approaching purchases with the ever-important question of need versus want. “Could we do without it?”

Then, when we do need to buy, there is no universal formula that defines a “green purchase.” Not only are each product’s inputs relative, but our own individual needs are, too. There can be as many shades of green as there are shades of individuality — because that’s what your own “green” is all about. You, and your values.

Fortunately for us, green shopping is nothing if not a democracy.

Every dollar is a vote
When we think of each dollar we spend as a vote, we can’t help but consider each purchase we make differently. Businesses and products become candidates we’re voting on. They usually know this better than we do, vying for our votes through advertising or price point or any number of other differentiators.

The timing of our present economic status doesn’t hurt a bit. “During economically depressed periods, people are far more aware of the power of their dollars,” says Lawrence Glickman, author of the upcoming book Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism in America. When we hear of more businesses closing than usual, the importance of where we spend our dollars becomes more important than ever. It’s up to us who will make it and who won’t.

Let’s make it count: Vote for, not against
When we use our dollars as power, our traditional inclination has been to boycott. Even before the Revolutionary War, our earliest Americans refused to buy British imports. When we boycott, we’ve identified who we want to lose. But even when we’re not buying from brands on our blacklists, we’re still buying something. How much thought are we putting into the alternatives that are actually getting our votes? How much stronger the result when we’ve chosen the winners over the losers, and not the other way around.

In this democracy, the more the merrier. There’s room for many winners, and winning will come on different levels for different reasons. This relativity, of course, can be the tricky part. Attempting to balance our varying green concerns can be confusing — but it all comes down to what’s most important to YOU. Though those priorities will often have to do with environmental concerns, sometimes they won’t. Have kids in school? Buy from brands that support education. Have a heart for Africa? Choose brands that support industry there. And on and on. In some cases, we’ll choose between the options on the shelf in front of us, and in others, we’ll go out of our way to find and support a brand that shares our values. Either way — what are yours?

Social Consciousness
I list this first because it often doesn’t make the list at all. To shop ethically doesn’t end at supporting the use of green practices — it includes supporting any causes that are meaningful to you. Breast cancer research, battered women’s shelters, empowering third-world entrepreneurs — if it moves you, buy from brands that support it.

Independent Business
A relatively new campaign, The 3/50 Project advocates for spending $50 a month at your three favorite independently owned businesses. “If half the employed population spent $50 each month in locally owned independent businesses, it would generate more than $42.6 billion in revenue,” the site reads. And, “For every $100 spent in locally owned independent stores, $68 returns to the community. If you spend that in a national chain, only $43 stays here.”

Reused and Repurposed
What items require that no raw material or resource be expended for you to own them? Those that were previously owned, having expended their energy on behalf of their first owner, not you. Most thrift stores are operated by organizations that support community causes, such as Goodwill, which benefits people with disadvantages.

Labor Rights
This topic can be surprisingly touchy. Labor issues are a personal passion of mine and were the number-one reason I became interested in ethical consumption in the first place. I believe strongly in transparency about the use of fair labor, but I’m also sympathetic to manufacturing in underdeveloped countries where sweatshop-grade factory jobs are better than their alternatives, and to the fact that the documentation process for fair labor certifications is simply not feasible in some underdeveloped areas. (Grey areas like this are why my own ethical shopping values have become more ecumenical than ever.)

Quality versus Quantity
I love how Howies, a UK clothing company, puts it. “Every product we make has passed the ‘rocking chair test.’ … So when we are old and grey and sitting in our rocking chairs, we can look back on the company we created with a smile.” The brand advocates for higher quality items that last. This principle results in a more timeless design aesthetic, as we’ve seen recently even in couture runway collections.

Green Materials
With even organic jeans hitting Wal-Mart this year, green materials are one of the easiest components to find and identify. As we’ve become more educated about our options, brands are more excited to not only incorporate them but to talk about them, from organic raw materials to recycled content and beyond. Consider not only the impact these items have directly on you (e.g., nontoxic cleaning products), but also the amount of resource that went into creating them (labor, energy, transportation, etc.). According to Annie Lennox’s The Story of Stuff, 99 percent of what we bring home from the store is thrown away within six months of purchase, including products and packaging.

Transportation
Air freight uses significantly more energy than either ground (for continental) or ocean (for global) transport. For us online shoppers, this means that Ground shipping is almost always a greener option than Overnight. Some recent companies have created more efficient models for their delivery of goods, even cutting out the need for stocking retail stores or warehouses. Nau, one of the greenest clothing companies around, keeps a minimal stock in its store locations, offering shoppers a discount when they place their orders through an in-store kiosk, to be delivered to their homes a few days later. Nimli, an online-only eco fashion boutique, requires that each brand it carries ship directly to the customer.

Need versus Want
Back to where we started — with the question that inevitably influences all the rest. In many cases, cultural norms get in the way of answering this question for us. Quaker author Richard Foster wrote in the 1970s, “Where planned obsolescence leaves off, psychological obsolescence takes over. We are made to feel ashamed to wear clothes or drive cars until they are worn out.” As our green shopping skills mature, so will our answers to this question.

Of course, finding where your favorite brands stand on these issues will take some research. Sites like Big Green Purse and Greenopia provide a great starting point, and online eco boutiques like Ethical Style and Fashion Conscious actually categorize items by their incorporation of green practices. When you’re ready to take your activism to the next level, let your words speak as loudly as your pocketbooks by writing emails to companies, telling them why you do and don’t buy from them.

9 Comments

  • Bravo. Great article. Glad to see that Greenopia came in handy for you : )

  • Just to be a little polemical: are the notions of being “green” and a “consumer” actually not antithetical? It seems to me that boycotting, and using things until they are worn out (Foster) are much greener practices than shopping for ethical goods. At the same time, however, that would be detrimental for underdeveloped countries in search of expanding their markets and growth levels – normally regarded as a positive thing. So there seem to be too different ideas here: one is being green; the other is helping expand ethical trade. I’m not sure I see how they fit well together. I am open to a counter though!

  • This maybe appears like i’m being a little argumentative (I am) – but I’m very open to comeback! The idea of relative greeness (“shades of green”) seems a bit postmodern to me. The fact is that there are finite measurements of certain negative green effects – e.g. an airliner transporting clothes uses X amount of fuel, which produces X amount of CO2 etc. I realise people have different needs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that greenness can vary accordingly. This kind of idea I think easily slips into relative morality, rendering the idea of green meaningless. (I should note that relative morality is a massive ethical problem anyway, defying standard rules and finite parameters – way outside my brain capacity!) I just think that maybe it would be better to get towards some common notion of greenness that people can apply universally, or at least have some benchmark by which to judge their actions/purchases. A greenness open to interpretation seems a dangerous idea, subject to manipulation, exploitation and (Fashion forbid!) subervisive, profiteering advertising.

  • awesome writing. thanks for sharing!

  • Aw Jamie — so glad you joined in!! Thanks for joining in on the (how did you put it?) “public fray that is online blogging commentary.” :) At first blush…

    I’m glad you called me out on the term “green consumer”! A rough one, that is. But aside from the semantics, here’s where I’m coming from: Yes, buying nothing at all would be our greenest option. Buy nothing, consume nothing. I hope that I always make that point clear — particularly in posing the question of NEED versus WANT. But, in reality, there will come times when we need to buy new things. (Believe me, I have quite a conscience about it, but there are times I just have to.) So when we’ve established the need for something new, we should have somewhere to turn, right? And I don’t want to have to sacrifice design. When I need a formal dress, a pair of yoga pants or a pair of shoes, I want to know where I can get something that suits my style.

    Also to the need-versus-want point — I certainly don’t mean for these ideas to apply only to fashion. Sure, fashion is superfluous — but groceries aren’t! It’s just as important, if not more so, to vote with those dollars we’re all spending on a daily basis. (One more metaphor — as I’ve said before, it’s like the argument of teaching sex ed to teenagers — abstinence-only is a great idea, but most are going to do it and need to know where to get a condom, right?)

    Your distinction between “green” and “expanding ethical trade” is really interesting — I’m open to a really broad definition of “green,” and to me, expanding trade fits in. The much bigger question to me is how we determine WHEN we’re expanding trade, particularly when a “fair trade” label isn’t involved, like we’ve discussed. (I’m still planning to share that conversation of ours here on this blog sometime! It’s opened my eyes so much. And I’ve become a huge fan of Collier, myself!)

    As for the common notion of green — be still my heart! But HOW? If you have suggestions, please share! My mind goes straight to product labeling — but back when I wished aloud for a time when garment labeling would be as strict as food labeling, you made the excellent point of labels actually diverting money from countries of “the bottom billion,” in Collier’s words. The closest I’ve seen so far is this “call for a green constitution” from Max Gladwell, http://www.maxgladwell.com/2009/04/call-green-constitutional-convention/. It’s a big proposal, but an exciting one. What do you think?

  • Wow, what a great post!

    (I know where you think I’m going with this, per our conversation earlier tonight, but I actually do have something to say!)

    I’ve always been an environmentalist, albeit a lazy one, until recently.

    When I began working at CFCA (www.cfcausa.org), I was overwhelmed by the magnitude of what this organization was doing. Sponsors across the U.S. sending $30 a month to someone in need in a developing nation, and this money was buying food, education and clothing. For a month!

    My job really opened my eyes to the question you mention: Do I really need this? Many times the answer has been, “No.” I believe this has helped me improve myself in a number of ways, not the least of which is an overall simplification of my life as a consumer.

    I love the notion of “dollars spent as a vote.” If I take only one thing away from this post it would be that. Not only does that dollar’s value increase significantly, but I think it also help raise a conscious awareness of what we buy and from whom we buy (read: support) it.

    And finally, the term “green” has always bothered me a little. Hooray for the fact that it is easy to educate people about environmental consciousness by using this term. Boo because it is rigid. I would say that by some standards I am “green.” But, by other standards, I might be a lighter shade of green. To simplify what you and Jamie are talking about: I truly believe that consumers are never just one shade of green. The choices, both good and bad, that consumers make can move them around the green color spectrum. It seems only fair that if nature can produce many shades of green, consumers can shop in those same shades.

  • Amazing post! I feel the same way about the ‘shades of green’. Plus I think shades are necessary, as one cannot change one’s habits immediately, so having shades to go by definitely helps.

    I try to be more green buying vintage instead of new, but I do feel guilty about the shipping. I guess they ship new items to the stores anyway, so it’s not a huge difference, but still…

  • Wow – great post.

    The shades of green is a great metaphor. I think trying to get everyone to work towards shading green is where its at.

  • [...] big believers in the dollar vote — that every dollar we spend is a vote cast for the kind of world we want to live [...]

Leave a Reply