{"id":290,"date":"2023-06-01T18:02:58","date_gmt":"2023-06-01T18:02:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/test-hcc-press-wp-multisite.pantheonsite.io\/businessethics\/?post_type=chapter&p=290"},"modified":"2023-06-29T17:38:14","modified_gmt":"2023-06-29T17:38:14","slug":"consumer-ethics","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/chapter\/consumer-ethics\/","title":{"raw":"Consumer Ethics","rendered":"Consumer Ethics"},"content":{"raw":"

Consumer Ethics<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n \r\n\r\nThe majority of this text has focused on business ethics from the perspective of businesses themselves - their leaders, employees, and stakeholders. Before we leave this topic, let\u2019s take a moment to consider business ethics from the perspective of the consumer. Not everyone is involved in the business world by profession, but all of us engage with it as consumers, usually with little to no thought regarding the moral implications of our own actions as we make choices about where to shop and what to buy.\r\n\r\nIn a traditional capitalist framework, corporations and businesses are generally set up with one goal in mind \u2013 maximizing profit. This pursuit of profit can and often does result in businesses behaving in a way that, if they were an individual, we would find blameworthy. Yet, most of us go about our lives purchasing goods and services from these companies, without considering the implications of our own actions regarding their morally problematic behavior.\r\n\r\nSo, what do we do? We want to buy products we love and need, companies want to make as much money as possible, and all the while other humans, animals, governments, and the environment pay the price, through unsafe and exploitive working conditions, unsustainable production methods, and more.\r\n\r\n \r\n

Possible Moral Factors in Your Purchases<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n \r\n\r\nConsumer ethics asks us to consider a variety of factors that, arguably, ought to impact our purchasing decisions. When considered in isolation, most of us profess to care about these issues. Consumer ethicists argue that, if we truly care, we must put our money where our mouth is, and make purchasing decisions that align with our moral values. Some key factors to consider are outlined below.\r\n\r\n \r\n

How the company treats its workers<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nMany workers are not paid a living wage, have their hours limited to just under full time so that the company does not have to pay them benefits, and risk losing their jobs if they miss work due to illness or other unavoidable illnesses. While some countries, like the United States, do have some legal protections for workers, they often don\u2019t go far enough, or can be skirted in various ways. Gig workers, for example, are often granted fewer legal protection. And companies can and do choose to outsource their factory labor to countries with fewer protections, so even if the company itself is domestic, you can\u2019t count on all the labor involved in those products having U.S.-level worker\u2019s rights.\r\n\r\n \r\n

The materials the product is made from<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nMany of us would be horrified to realize just what goes into the products we consume without thinking. While the FDA does require companies to disclose ingredients, there\u2019s still plenty of room for us to be misled. For instance, it\u2019s unlikely that most people who see \u201cchicken\u201d on an ingredient list take that to mean a pink paste that is made from grinding up what is left of chicken bodies after they have been butchered for their meat \u2013including blood, skin, bones, organs \u2013 everything but the feathers.[1]<\/a> But this is exactly what the most affordable chicken nuggets are made out of.\r\n\r\n \r\n

The methods used to make the product<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nSome companies use methods that are unnecessary and cruel. If a cleaning or personal care product does not say that it was not tested on animals, it probably was, and in addition to the suffering itself, this is hugely wasteful. For instance, bleach is simply sodium hypochlorite diluted in water. Although it is a simple formula with well-known effects that have not changed in decades, some companies continue to test it on animals \u2013 and sure enough, it continues to be harmful every time it is rubbed into a rabbit\u2019s eye!\r\n\r\n \r\n

The environmental impact of the production and sale of the product<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nSome products create hidden environmental damage that consumers are entirely unaware of. For instance, something as seemingly benign and even \u201cpure\u201d as bottled water is often produced at a steep cost, draining natural waterways and aquifers and producing massive amounts of plastic waste.[2]<\/a> Many products are shipped far away from their source, failing to serve the residents of the communities where they are sourced, and resulting in high transportation costs, which of course carry additional environmental burdens.\r\n\r\n \r\n

Does the company have political or social agendas that you object to?<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nCompanies can support political and social positions in several ways. They can donate directly to political campaigns and political action committees, or to organizations that support and promote specific agendas, such as the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood. Increasingly, companies are incorporating social positions into their branding, making their support of particular social causes or beliefs part of the face of the company. This can be a reason for some to actively embrace, or reject, that company\u2019s products, depending on whether it aligns with their own beliefs.\r\n\r\n \r\n

Proximity and Psychological Impact<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n \r\n\r\nFor most people, few if any of the previous factors have ever occurred to them. This is because, except in instances in which we are being unusually careful in the way that we think, psychological impact correlates with physical proximity \u2013 out of sight out of mind. It is easy not to think about the fact that your cheeseburger was a living being capable of pain and suffering if you\u2019ve never had to watch cows be slaughtered and butchered. All you ever see is the heavily processed end product that looks nothing like a living animal. Likewise, when the sweatshop workers laboring under brutal working conditions are thousands of miles away, it\u2019s easy to look at our low-cost fast fashion and see nothing but something new and fun to wear this weekend. This dissonance poses a real problem in trying to solve moral issues of this kind. Our ignorance lets us live our lives unperturbed, but it means that others are suffering with little hope of reprieve, since we can so easily put their pain out of mind.\r\n\r\n \r\n

Direct vs. Indirect Harm<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n \r\n\r\nConsumer ethics is tricky, because there are so many players involved, it\u2019s hard to pinpoint responsibility. And we\u2019re often more than eager to shift the blame to someone else, so that we don\u2019t have to feel guilt over our own role in a complex system. When thinking about who bears moral responsibility in the production and commerce of consumer goods, it\u2019s helpful to make a distinction between direct and indirect harm.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nDirect harm<\/em> is harm caused when one person takes a specific action against another person. Stealing someone\u2019s car or punching them in the nose are paradigmatic examples of direct harm. These are fairly simple cases, as it\u2019s clear who bears moral responsibility for the action.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIndirect harm<\/em> is harm that happens to a person as a byproduct of another action. Littering and pollution are paradigmatic examples of indirect harm. Indirect harm is often the result of a cumulative build-up of actions. For instance, if one person leaves a piece of trash behind at the beach, probably nothing bad happens. One cow\u2019s methane production does no harm to the atmosphere. But many people\u2019s small actions can make bodies of water uninhabitable for marine life, and huge cattle farms release damaging levels of methane into the air.\r\n\r\n\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n

How Do We Understand Moral Responsibility in a Business?<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n \r\n\r\nTypically, people talk about businesses as if they are singular things \u2013 the US Supreme Court\u00a0has even ruled that they should be treated as persons for the purposes of speech. Businesses are not monoliths, though. They are composed of individuals. Employees, boards\u00a0of directors, presidents, etc. So, who should we blame when businesses do wrong? Typically, businesses themselves blame individuals when something goes wrong. Don\u2019t blame\u00a0the company for the wrongdoing of a few bad apples, the argument goes. The problem with this type of approach, though, is that it ignores institutional norms and\u00a0cultures that give rise to the \u201cbad apples.\u201d\r\n\r\n\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n

Who\u2019s Responsible?<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n \r\n\r\nWhen trying to determine moral responsibility, in consumer ethics cases, we must consider the scope of indirect harm. There are a few different positions one might take, including the view that only direct harm should be considered.\r\n\r\n \r\n

The corporations alone<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nThis position holds that since the businesses are the ones doing the direct harm, they are solely responsible for any harm or wrongdoing that occurs. On this view, consumers incur no moral responsibility in patronizing a company that has caused harm \u2013 they are merely engaging in a commercial transaction, and as long as they\u2019re not stealing or paying for the product with illicit funds, they are not blameworthy.\r\n\r\n\u00a0<\/em>\r\n

The consumer alone<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nThis position holds that business are not moral agents, so if anyone is responsible, it must be the consumer. Businesses,\u00a0after all, only care about making money, and if consumers refuse to buy their product for a moral reason, those financially motivated businesses would quickly change their\u00a0behavior. In other, companies are only as good or as bad as the people who keep them in business.\r\n\r\n \r\n

Joint responsibility<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nThis position holds that the corporations are responsible because they are doing direct harm, but also recognizes that they\u00a0would not be doing that harm if it weren\u2019t for the consumer. On this view, consumers are not let off the hook. It is true that an individual can\u2019t control the actions of a corporation, but it is within an individual\u2019s power to refrain from giving that corporation their money.\r\n\r\n \r\n

Governmental responsibility<\/em><\/h4>\r\n \r\n\r\nThis position argues that the government bears moral responsibility for businesses within its jurisdiction. This view argues that consumers can\u2019t know what businesses are doing behind closed doors, and furthermore shouldn\u2019t be expected to investigate them to make sure they aren\u2019t behaving immorally. And, on the flip side, this view argues that corporations should be free to seek profit within the bounds of the law. So, if companies are behaving badly, it is because the government is allowing them to do so, and the way forward is through more government regulations that will ensure that companies behave in at least minimally descent ways.\r\n\r\n \r\n

How Should We Respond?<\/strong><\/h3>\r\n \r\n\r\nAssuming we do think we have at least some moral responsibility for the behavior\u00a0of companies that we support financially, we still need to determine the right way to\u00a0respond.\r\n

Boycotts<\/em><\/h4>\r\nBoycotts can be a very effective way to get businesses to change their behavior. For a boycott to really work, however, a lot of people need to get on board. Even if you don\u2019t think you\u2019re going to actually convince the company to change its mind,\u00a0however, you still might make the personal choice not to give a company you disagree\u00a0with your business. Others argue that, rather than just avoiding a business that will likely continue to exist\u00a0whether you give it your money or not, it\u2019s more effective to work with the business,\u00a0trying to bring about positive changes.\r\n

Caring Consumers<\/em><\/h4>\r\nToday more than ever, many people who care about behaving morally take advantage\u00a0of the availability of information about companies to really live out their moral\u00a0convictions through their purchasing dollars. And more and more companies are happy to oblige, offering products that are\u00a0cruelty-free, kind to the environment, and\/or that donate a portion of their profits to\u00a0charitable organizations or social causes. This allows consumers to really feel good about where their money is going, while\u00a0getting products they want at the same time.\r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n
\r\n\r\n[1]<\/a> Hamblin, James. \u201cLook Inside a Chicken Nugget,\u201d The Atlantic<\/em>, 2013.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n[2]<\/a> Sainato, Michael and Chelsea Skojec. \u201cBottled Water is Sucking Florida Dry,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, September 15, 2019.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

Consumer Ethics<\/strong><\/h2>\n

 <\/p>\n

The majority of this text has focused on business ethics from the perspective of businesses themselves – their leaders, employees, and stakeholders. Before we leave this topic, let\u2019s take a moment to consider business ethics from the perspective of the consumer. Not everyone is involved in the business world by profession, but all of us engage with it as consumers, usually with little to no thought regarding the moral implications of our own actions as we make choices about where to shop and what to buy.<\/p>\n

In a traditional capitalist framework, corporations and businesses are generally set up with one goal in mind \u2013 maximizing profit. This pursuit of profit can and often does result in businesses behaving in a way that, if they were an individual, we would find blameworthy. Yet, most of us go about our lives purchasing goods and services from these companies, without considering the implications of our own actions regarding their morally problematic behavior.<\/p>\n

So, what do we do? We want to buy products we love and need, companies want to make as much money as possible, and all the while other humans, animals, governments, and the environment pay the price, through unsafe and exploitive working conditions, unsustainable production methods, and more.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Possible Moral Factors in Your Purchases<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

Consumer ethics asks us to consider a variety of factors that, arguably, ought to impact our purchasing decisions. When considered in isolation, most of us profess to care about these issues. Consumer ethicists argue that, if we truly care, we must put our money where our mouth is, and make purchasing decisions that align with our moral values. Some key factors to consider are outlined below.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

How the company treats its workers<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Many workers are not paid a living wage, have their hours limited to just under full time so that the company does not have to pay them benefits, and risk losing their jobs if they miss work due to illness or other unavoidable illnesses. While some countries, like the United States, do have some legal protections for workers, they often don\u2019t go far enough, or can be skirted in various ways. Gig workers, for example, are often granted fewer legal protection. And companies can and do choose to outsource their factory labor to countries with fewer protections, so even if the company itself is domestic, you can\u2019t count on all the labor involved in those products having U.S.-level worker\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The materials the product is made from<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Many of us would be horrified to realize just what goes into the products we consume without thinking. While the FDA does require companies to disclose ingredients, there\u2019s still plenty of room for us to be misled. For instance, it\u2019s unlikely that most people who see \u201cchicken\u201d on an ingredient list take that to mean a pink paste that is made from grinding up what is left of chicken bodies after they have been butchered for their meat \u2013including blood, skin, bones, organs \u2013 everything but the feathers.[1]<\/a> But this is exactly what the most affordable chicken nuggets are made out of.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The methods used to make the product<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Some companies use methods that are unnecessary and cruel. If a cleaning or personal care product does not say that it was not tested on animals, it probably was, and in addition to the suffering itself, this is hugely wasteful. For instance, bleach is simply sodium hypochlorite diluted in water. Although it is a simple formula with well-known effects that have not changed in decades, some companies continue to test it on animals \u2013 and sure enough, it continues to be harmful every time it is rubbed into a rabbit\u2019s eye!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The environmental impact of the production and sale of the product<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Some products create hidden environmental damage that consumers are entirely unaware of. For instance, something as seemingly benign and even \u201cpure\u201d as bottled water is often produced at a steep cost, draining natural waterways and aquifers and producing massive amounts of plastic waste.[2]<\/a> Many products are shipped far away from their source, failing to serve the residents of the communities where they are sourced, and resulting in high transportation costs, which of course carry additional environmental burdens.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Does the company have political or social agendas that you object to?<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Companies can support political and social positions in several ways. They can donate directly to political campaigns and political action committees, or to organizations that support and promote specific agendas, such as the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood. Increasingly, companies are incorporating social positions into their branding, making their support of particular social causes or beliefs part of the face of the company. This can be a reason for some to actively embrace, or reject, that company\u2019s products, depending on whether it aligns with their own beliefs.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Proximity and Psychological Impact<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

For most people, few if any of the previous factors have ever occurred to them. This is because, except in instances in which we are being unusually careful in the way that we think, psychological impact correlates with physical proximity \u2013 out of sight out of mind. It is easy not to think about the fact that your cheeseburger was a living being capable of pain and suffering if you\u2019ve never had to watch cows be slaughtered and butchered. All you ever see is the heavily processed end product that looks nothing like a living animal. Likewise, when the sweatshop workers laboring under brutal working conditions are thousands of miles away, it\u2019s easy to look at our low-cost fast fashion and see nothing but something new and fun to wear this weekend. This dissonance poses a real problem in trying to solve moral issues of this kind. Our ignorance lets us live our lives unperturbed, but it means that others are suffering with little hope of reprieve, since we can so easily put their pain out of mind.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Direct vs. Indirect Harm<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

Consumer ethics is tricky, because there are so many players involved, it\u2019s hard to pinpoint responsibility. And we\u2019re often more than eager to shift the blame to someone else, so that we don\u2019t have to feel guilt over our own role in a complex system. When thinking about who bears moral responsibility in the production and commerce of consumer goods, it\u2019s helpful to make a distinction between direct and indirect harm.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Direct harm<\/em> is harm caused when one person takes a specific action against another person. Stealing someone\u2019s car or punching them in the nose are paradigmatic examples of direct harm. These are fairly simple cases, as it\u2019s clear who bears moral responsibility for the action.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Indirect harm<\/em> is harm that happens to a person as a byproduct of another action. Littering and pollution are paradigmatic examples of indirect harm. Indirect harm is often the result of a cumulative build-up of actions. For instance, if one person leaves a piece of trash behind at the beach, probably nothing bad happens. One cow\u2019s methane production does no harm to the atmosphere. But many people\u2019s small actions can make bodies of water uninhabitable for marine life, and huge cattle farms release damaging levels of methane into the air.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

How Do We Understand Moral Responsibility in a Business?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

Typically, people talk about businesses as if they are singular things \u2013 the US Supreme Court\u00a0has even ruled that they should be treated as persons for the purposes of speech. Businesses are not monoliths, though. They are composed of individuals. Employees, boards\u00a0of directors, presidents, etc. So, who should we blame when businesses do wrong? Typically, businesses themselves blame individuals when something goes wrong. Don\u2019t blame\u00a0the company for the wrongdoing of a few bad apples, the argument goes. The problem with this type of approach, though, is that it ignores institutional norms and\u00a0cultures that give rise to the \u201cbad apples.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Who\u2019s Responsible?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

When trying to determine moral responsibility, in consumer ethics cases, we must consider the scope of indirect harm. There are a few different positions one might take, including the view that only direct harm should be considered.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The corporations alone<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

This position holds that since the businesses are the ones doing the direct harm, they are solely responsible for any harm or wrongdoing that occurs. On this view, consumers incur no moral responsibility in patronizing a company that has caused harm \u2013 they are merely engaging in a commercial transaction, and as long as they\u2019re not stealing or paying for the product with illicit funds, they are not blameworthy.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The consumer alone<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

This position holds that business are not moral agents, so if anyone is responsible, it must be the consumer. Businesses,\u00a0after all, only care about making money, and if consumers refuse to buy their product for a moral reason, those financially motivated businesses would quickly change their\u00a0behavior. In other, companies are only as good or as bad as the people who keep them in business.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Joint responsibility<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

This position holds that the corporations are responsible because they are doing direct harm, but also recognizes that they\u00a0would not be doing that harm if it weren\u2019t for the consumer. On this view, consumers are not let off the hook. It is true that an individual can\u2019t control the actions of a corporation, but it is within an individual\u2019s power to refrain from giving that corporation their money.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Governmental responsibility<\/em><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

This position argues that the government bears moral responsibility for businesses within its jurisdiction. This view argues that consumers can\u2019t know what businesses are doing behind closed doors, and furthermore shouldn\u2019t be expected to investigate them to make sure they aren\u2019t behaving immorally. And, on the flip side, this view argues that corporations should be free to seek profit within the bounds of the law. So, if companies are behaving badly, it is because the government is allowing them to do so, and the way forward is through more government regulations that will ensure that companies behave in at least minimally descent ways.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

How Should We Respond?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

Assuming we do think we have at least some moral responsibility for the behavior\u00a0of companies that we support financially, we still need to determine the right way to\u00a0respond.<\/p>\n

Boycotts<\/em><\/h4>\n

Boycotts can be a very effective way to get businesses to change their behavior. For a boycott to really work, however, a lot of people need to get on board. Even if you don\u2019t think you\u2019re going to actually convince the company to change its mind,\u00a0however, you still might make the personal choice not to give a company you disagree\u00a0with your business. Others argue that, rather than just avoiding a business that will likely continue to exist\u00a0whether you give it your money or not, it\u2019s more effective to work with the business,\u00a0trying to bring about positive changes.<\/p>\n

Caring Consumers<\/em><\/h4>\n

Today more than ever, many people who care about behaving morally take advantage\u00a0of the availability of information about companies to really live out their moral\u00a0convictions through their purchasing dollars. And more and more companies are happy to oblige, offering products that are\u00a0cruelty-free, kind to the environment, and\/or that donate a portion of their profits to\u00a0charitable organizations or social causes. This allows consumers to really feel good about where their money is going, while\u00a0getting products they want at the same time.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

[1]<\/a> Hamblin, James. \u201cLook Inside a Chicken Nugget,\u201d The Atlantic<\/em>, 2013.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

[2]<\/a> Sainato, Michael and Chelsea Skojec. \u201cBottled Water is Sucking Florida Dry,\u201d New York Times<\/em>, September 15, 2019.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-290","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":185,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/290\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":293,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/290\/revisions\/293"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/185"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/290\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=290"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=290"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.hccfl.edu\/businessethics\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}