As younger generations strive to increase accountability for both corporations and customers, the concept of consuming products ‘ethically’ continues to dominate most conversations on the topic. But what does “ethical consumption” really entail? And more importantly, is it a realistic expectation for people from all walks of life to achieve? While pushing for more environmentally and socially conscious choices does have a great positive impact on society, it also further segregates less fortunate individuals who simply can not afford to uphold those standards.
The most obvious way to think about this ‘ethical divide’ is found in the fashion industry. Many are aware of the brutal, inhumane working conditions that ‘employees’ of the fast fashion industry endure. With dangerous child labor in foreign countries and massive environmental consequences due to overproduction, these companies have amassed a reputation for being unethical. Younger generations have pushed for boycotts on brands like SHEIN and Forever 21, gravely describing the impacts that further purchases will cause. However, we must examine why many people chose to purchase from those brands in the first place. Fast fashion provides extremely cheap alternatives to sustainable brands, ringing up at least 50% less on average. They also include multitudes of different options that may fit a certain person’s specific needs, such as clothes for an event or special occasion. For example, imagine an impoverished person trying to apply for a job. When getting ready for their first interview, they would need a nice blazer, some slacks, maybe a cute blouse. Purchasing an outfit like that sustainably would cost upwards of $100 (estimated from Quince, a popular sustainable workwear brand on the cheaper end of the spectrum), and it could end up only needed for one day. On the other hand, the same outfit would cost around $25 from SHEIN. While the quality and ethicality of the products prove much lower from fast fashion brands, they often come out on top purely because of the immense gap in cost. In this example, as well as many others, poverty pushes people to find the cheapest options possible–understandably so. In contrast, more fortunate spenders have the option–or privilege–to purchase from more sustainable sources like Quince, which in turn contributes to their “ethical consumption” mantra.
In a more literal example, consuming food ethically causes a socioeconomic divide as well. Similar to the move against fast fashion, many activists have spoken out against unfair labor practices in the agricultural and seafood industries, with human trafficking, sexual abuse, and unfair wages running rampant, especially concerning migrant workers. In addition, the treatment of animals in CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) has fallen under increasing scrutiny with further journalism being done into the practices of the meat and dairy industry. Due to these issues as well as environmental concerns, the push for ethical consumption at the grocery store has increased dramatically. Just like with the fashion industry, these sustainable practices come with a price. On AmazonFresh, organic food costs around 21% more than nonorganic food. A dozen pasture-raised eggs cost around $9.99 compared to cafe-free options, costing only $3.99. People struggling to purchase everyday meals simply can’t afford to support sustainable farms. Even families who can afford a luxury purchase every once in a while will experience financial stress if they routinely purchase the more ethical option at almost three times the regular price.
These examples provide simple explanations of the larger issue. Consumption is found in every single area of life. No matter what you do, you will have to buy things every day unless you can set yourself up to live extremely sustainably. Now, some low-cost, ethical options do exist, like thrifting or growing your own food but they come with their drawbacks. Thrift shops have very limited options and growing a garden is expensive at first due to the cost of soil, tools, fertilizers, and many other factors. These options don’t do enough to solve the issue, and truly nothing can. Products’ pricing is a balancing act, where if the costs on the production side go down–due to unfair wages, for example– the price can also decrease. But if the producers are diligent in following all regulations, production prices will always go up, causing higher product prices. With no real solution, less fortunate people will be forced to support unethical practices simply due to lack of funds. Simply put, you have to be wealthy to be ‘ethical’ by this definition. Knowing this, it is clear that the current culture of ‘ethical consumption’ tends to overlook the innate divide that separates different classes of consumers. The supporters of this movement are right; for the average person, the decision between a cheap, lower-quality option and a more expensive, sustainable option will arise incredibly often. But should this choice determine one’s moral standpoint? For some people, the privilege of choosing the latter option simply doesn’t exist.