For the past week a debate has been unfurling on popular CR list-serve CSR-Chicks (the application criteria are flexible). At issue: is it better for rich-world consumers to support farmers in developing countries by buying FairTrade, or to protect farmers in developing countries by buying locally to reduce foodmiles and limit the catastrophic risks posed by climate change.
My question: How long will it be before Tesco helps us poor confused, conflicted, concerned consumers by investing in emissions reductions programmes so that their credits can be used to subsidise the foodmiles associated with FairTrade products - or any other product from poor Kenya, Bolivia or Viet Nam?
The FairTrade vs Local debate is a classic case of how complexity can stun concerned people into inaction. It also suggests a few things:
First, there are no easy answers. Balancing environmental, social and economic objectives involves tough decisions. People are not, and cannot be expected to be, consistent in how they deal with this complexity. I might choose FairTrade one day and local the next; I might choose the lowest cost (to me) one day and the premium green brand the next. This is not inconsistent: it reflects reality. Reality is complex; ethical preferences are not homogenous.
Second, it points to the need for some guidance and a degree of "benign dictatorship". If I know what the right thing to do is, I'll try to do it (no promises). If I am not sure what the right thing to do is, and I am busy, had a rough day, stubbed my toe on the way into the shop ... screw it: if it was that important they'd make it easier on me to do the right thing.
Third (self interest) - it highlights the importance of good communication, designed by people who actually understand the issues.
In the absence of the right information down traditional channels, we turn to trusted arbitors. NGOs, Consumer Groups, celebrities ... rightly or wrongly, for good or bad, all of these groups influence purchasing decisions. But only government has the mandate to consider all the pros and cons (and short and long term issues) in a coordinated way. Some market failures need government input. Perfect information is a dream; perfect markets are too.
Governments have showed us that they are happy to leave this issue to companies, civil society and market mechanisms. We should not expect much from DEFRA and DfiD to help us figure out the right thing to do.
So what happens next? Back to my original question:
Tesco has decided to label each of its 70,000 products with a carbon footprint label. At some point, consumers will point out that this information is pushing them to reduce the environmental impact of their purchases at the expense of their support for economic development.
So, how long will it be before Tesco helps us poor confused, conflicted, concerned consumers by investing in emissions reductions programmes so that their credits can be used to subsidise the foodmiles associated with FairTrade products? Or is doing the right thing too complex?
RSS feeds
Comments