Competent Consumers

Frighteningly quickly, we have reached the end of my class Econ: Risking Value! In this last stretch of our class, we have been reading Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth. In which Raworth renovates and improves the way we should be thinking of the economy by blending in better mathematical and statistical values and the UN's SDGs. As you must know by now, the SDGs are kind of GCE's main guides in most classes, so of course, reading Raworth's book was fascinating to read since we already had a base understanding of most things she talked about! 

To show our understanding of the book and its teaching, for our AP (Action Project) we were to write a mock 8th chapter to add on to the 7 economic principles Raworth provided. So, let's talk about Competent Consumers!

GGS. Old Consumers vs. N.E.W. Consumers. 2020

    Consumers of the past are ones who place the value of goods and services in its monetary value and/or quantity over quality for themselves. The N.E.W. 21st-century consumer is educated, puts less value in prices, has ethics they follow, and considers not only their needs and wants, but how their purchase impacts the planet and their local economy.

    Though there are complications with this new idea. Individual consumers usually have a hard time differentiating themselves and their morals from a customer/consumer that wants the best deal. In fact, Kate Raworth cites an online survey in her book, Doughnut Economics, on page 104:1

“One online survey asked participants to imagine themselves as one among four households facing a water shortage due to a drought affecting their shared well. Crucially, the survey described the whole scenario in terms of ‘consumers’ to one-half of the participants, and in terms of ‘individuals’ to the other half. What difference did that single word change make? Those labeled ‘consumers’ reported feeling less personal responsibility to take action and less trust in others to do the same than did those referred to as ‘individuals’. Simply thinking like a consumer, it seems, triggers self-regarding behaviour, and divides rather than unites groups who are facing a common scarcity.”

There are so many factors that dictate a consumer’s behavior, and evidently, even calling someone a consumer triggers the brain to think about itself in a survivalist instinct. Besides having difficulty accepting responsibility and being somewhat selfish, many consumers sadly can’t afford to shop in the most sustainable or ethical way. However, those who can afford to shop sustainably simply don’t because they are deciding not to. Whether this decision is pure ignorance or a willful intent depends on the person, but in this day in age neither should be an option for those who can afford to make this choice.

The E in N.E.W. stands for ethics, something that every 21st-century consumer should have strongly ingrained into their shopping habits. Ethics are a broad subject that within shopping can include if a company doesn’t support a community, tests on animals, uses cheap or child labor, is emitting large quantities of pollution, or is not sustainable. The 21st-century consumer has to discover their own ethical stance and research the places they are shopping at and the items and services they are purchasing before buying anything for their needs or wants. Let’s look at a few examples of when ethics can affect whether or not a consumer will purchase from or support a company.

When one thinks of produce and grocery shops, the first thoughts that come to mind are often “I want the nicest and freshest looking items.” However, this thought process creates a ton of food waste as ‘imperfect’ foods are usually thrown out as they most likely won’t be sold. Besides this, transporting such large sums of foodstuffs, usually to be thrown away, leaves huge carbon footprints. Ethical consumers may consider purchasing these ‘imperfect’ foods to lower their carbon footprint when buying produce and leave less food to go to waste. Companies like Misfit Market and Imperfect Foods are examples of conscious and ethical alternatives for consumers.

Even within companies that seem or even are sustainable, there are ethics and values within them that may make them unappealing to a consumer. For example, The Salvation Army is an organization that provides shelter, food, and clothing to homeless people, and affords to do so through selling second-hand clothing. However, for all the good that they seem to provide, many sources claim The Salvation Army has had a history of being homophobic as well as provide money to anti-LGBTQ+ charities.2 Though, the National Commander of the Salvation Army, David Hudson, recently wrote an op-ed for USA Today essentially dismissing the allegations of discrimination as ‘fake news’.2 Since there has been no responsibility taken by the organization costumers are reluctant to support them. 

In another similar ethical dilemma, fast-food chain, Chick-fil-A, known for having the friendliest staff in the industry and for providing funds to anti-LGBTQ+ charities, has caved due to constumers scrutiny. In 2019 Chick-fil-A released a statement that promised the chain would no longer provide any money to charities that take anti-LGBTQ+ stances. Even though this is good news, Chick-fil-A’s president and CEO, Tim Tassopoulos, made it clear the new donation strategy is at least somewhat related to the constant backlash and scrutiny they have received.3 Even though the company hasn’t had a change of heart, they have begun a change in policies, and this has given LGBTQ+ people cautious optimism for bigger changes to the company. 

In these 3 examples, we can see the 21st-century consumer ideas begin to rise in popularity. So much so that they are impacting the policies of certain companies, and this is only the beginning. If we all became 21st-century consumers, lowering our carbon footprint, reducing waste, and demanding accessible and responsible goods, the world would have a better chance of being in the sweet spot of the doughnut.

_____________________________________________________________________

Citations

1)    Raworth, Kate. "Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist." London: Random House, Feb. 2017.

2)    Del Valle, Gaby. "The Salvation Army says it doesn’t discriminate against LGBTQ people. Critics say that’s not true." Vox.com. Dec 16, 2019. accessed Nov. 16, 2020.

3)    Del Valle, Gaby. "Chick-fil-A’s many controversies, explained." Vox.com. Updated Nov 19, 2019. Accessed Nov. 17, 2020.