Figures. 🙄
Part of the problem is that corporate greed is just so prevalent everywhere that when I see higher prices, my immediate first thought is that they’re just shafting us because they can. It could cost $0.02 more per unit to produce, and they’d still charge $10 more, if they thought they could get away with it.
“There is a gap between what people say they want and what they actually do at the purchasing point – this is a difficulty for us,” Oriol Margo, EMEA sustainability transformation leader at Kimberly-Clark, said on Thursday at the Reuters IMPACT conference in London.
“It feels like our consumers are asking for sustainability but they are not looking to compromise on price or quality.”
I’m willing to compromise - as in, if it costs them $4 more to produce, they charge $2 more for it, we’re splitting the difference. Fine. I don’t believe that’s what’s happening. Maybe it is, but the perception is what matters, and we’ve been taking it up the ass for so long, it’s hard to believe they’re going to pull out on this one point.
Exactly. Greenwashing is a thing because it works. And it’s fuckin prevalent. There is no for-profit company that is not exploiting their “new green” image to make more money. 100%. Not a doubt in my mind. And so often, the “greener” option isn’t even greener. There are no standards for this. Anyone can say pretty much anything is “now all natural with LESS PACKAGING” but they could literally be talking about removing a hole punch, throwing it in the garbage, and charging an extra $2.49
Capitalism will not solve the climate crisis. It is the climate crisis.
And not for nothing, but we will never buy our way out of the mess we’re in. And them selling us the idea that we can is horseshit. They are killing us all and then profiting off of OUR FUCKIN GUILT.
I’m willing to compromise - as in, if it costs them $4 more to produce, they charge $2 more for it, we’re splitting the difference.
If a public company did this, one that has a board of directors and is traded on the stock market, the managers would be liable for not doing their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. Well, they would liable if it wasn’t part of a long term strategy to capture the totality of consumer surplus.
That is a common myth:
In 2014, the United States Supreme Court voiced its position in no uncertain terms. In Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., the Supreme Court stated that “Modern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”.
https://legislate.ai/blog/does-the-law-require-public-companies-to-maximise-shareholder-value
Oof. That’s fair. That explains Woke, Inc. and other critiques of wokism in the boardroom: because these initiatives are argued to be detracting from shareholder value by creating unnecessary inefficiencies.
So, okay, cool. Thanks for the update.
I’m not quite understanding your point, could you elaborate?
To be fair, while companies may not be legally obligated to maximise profit/shareholder value, CEO bonus structures often do incentivise doing exactly that. And perpetuating the myth does give boards an excuse to do whatever they want.
It’s just yet another reason why we shouldn’t give any credit to any of these articles. Corporations can’t expect us to foot the entire bill, they can’t / won’t make less profit, so the only option I see is for it to be regulated such that they have to do it. Otherwise, it’s never getting done.
Uh… from an economic point you just can’t split the additional cost in half if it costs 4 dollar more. If something costs 20 dollars to make and they sell it for 25 to price in the other costs and a slight profit margin and then it costs 30 to make when doing it sustainable they can’t sell it for 20 + (10 / 2) +5 = 30. They would make a minus then. They could sell it for 35, with gaining the same profit as before.
This is all under the assumption that the original price was a fair price.
They don’t need to make the same profit as before. They could make $2 less profit, and charge $2 more. Frankly I don’t care, and neither should anyone else who isn’t a shareholder, if their profit margin is reduced slightly.
If doing that makes them unprofitable, they probably shouldn’t exist, because their business isn’t viable when done sustainably, and they’re relying on being allowed to fuck up the planet to maintain themselves.
(pst profit shouldn’t exist)
Profit is fine, it allows a good idea or business model to start small and grow organically to fit the need that it fulfills. The trouble begins with accumulation of capital, which is of course a core tenet of Capitalism. Beyond enough that you can reasonably expect to be fed and sheltered for the rest of your natural life, any further accumulation is antithetical to a good society. We can have currency, competitive markets, and free exchange of wealth for goods and services (for some industries, not all), but a line must be drawn at how much wealth any one person can be allowed to control.
Profit is theft and good ideas can exist without the profit motive.
Though no argument that the accumulation of wealth shouldn’t exist either.
Food is 2-3x the price it was just a few years ago, yet you’re gonna roll your eyes cause people can’t afford even more expensive goods? Fuck off.
How about our governments stop subsidising environmentally unsustainable things like meat and animal products and use that money for subsidising sustainable food so this price problem goes away?
Why should they pay more?
These companies have been driving people into the poor house for years. A nontrivial number of products started out as sustainable. The big business execs decided to save money and increase profit by moving their manufacturing to something that wasn’t sustainable… all so they could get a bonus, or short term increase to their bottom line.
Did they pass any of those savings onto customers? Fuck no. They pocketed that cash faster than you can say “corruption”.
Now that they want to reverse that decision, they want to pass off the cost of doing it the right way, to the consumer?
How about you go get fucked in the ass with a cactus you fucking money worshipping fuckheads.
Subsidize them like we do with unsustainable goods. Then stop subsidizing unsustainable ones.
Nothing new under the sun. Free market nor consumers as a category will regulate themselves. The unsustainable merch just has to stop existing or at least the sustainable one should be subsidized.
We shouldn’t have to pay more for good and ethical quality, especially in an inflation crisis/not crisis that the world has been going through in decades. People can’t buy homes as it is! Solarpunk demands low or no prices.
One of my challenges is good labelling. A product can make the claim it’s sustainable but products make a lot of bogus claims. I’d pay more if the label was worth a damn.
About 15-20 years ago, a friend of mine who teaches communication at a university told me of a study that I think of every time I’m in a store and see vague sustainability messaging on a product. The study had two types of milk containers, each with the same milk from the same producer, but one had a standard label and cap, while the other had green-coloured labelling and a meaningless phrase along the lines of “for a better tomorrow”. The milk in the green, meaningless labels outsold the other one, even without making any actual claims. I think years of greenwashing BS have made people not trust claims of sustainability or eco-friendliness.
Another issue is hyperbolic discounting. Even if a more sustainable option saves money of the long run, people are generally bad at factoring in future savings.
Anyone else absolutely sick of seeing every product now coming in multipacks of smaller packages? You want a bag of chips? How about one big bag and 8 tiny bags to throw in the garbage? Even Pringles I saw had an 6 or 8 pack of individual little plastic cups. It’s so much fucking waste material for nothing! Starbucks won’t give my fiance a straw for her drink but these companies are allowed to do this shit?
Your mind will be blown when you realize that often it is the package that costs more to produce than what’s in it. Basically the company is selling you packaging… and suddenly it starts making sense in a perverse way.
That and I’ve noticed that in several instances comparing a large bag of the product to a multipack saves you money and gets you more product. The example I have right in front of me is Hello Panda, the little cookie things. The multipack is a total of 6oz of cookies, but the bag is 7oz; the bag is a whole dollar cheaper than the multipack.
Maybe capitalism just isn’t compatible with environmentalism
Companies say they want to make sustainable goods but won’t make less profits.
They’re really trying to push people to a breaking point. Aren’t they? Read through these comments. Do these seem like people companies should be trying to squeeze even more?
“Shoppers don’t want to pay more for worse products”
Wow!
Just end Capitalism already.