Sustainable Consumerism and

Corporate Synergy
By Arista Burwell-Chen and Max Grinberg
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 2
Abstract
This paper aims to address the problems resulting from individual consumption as
well as unsustainable business practices in our world today. By exploring the history of
Neoliberalism to find the origins of our personal consumption habits, we investigate the
economic shifts that lead the United States towards growing business, deregulating
government, and unrestrained capitalism. This prioritization of profits transformed society
into consumerist individuals who are told they must belong through consumption, reinforcing
the treadmill of consumption and production. Beyond our own wallets, we identify the social
and physical externalities of consumption and production; whether it be income inequality in
America and the exploitation of workers across the globe, or environmental destruction from
corporations. However, there are certain companies exercising corporate responsibility by
using sustainable business practices, while still making a profit. Finally, we explore corporate
as well as individual and collective social change that is necessary to implement in order to
reduce the externalities destroying our planet and challenge our culture of consumption.
Introduction
We have all felt it, that intense longing for the newest, flashiest version of something
we already own. Whether it be clothes, a car, or a computer, Americans are constantly told by
the media and politicians that in order to be a successful member of society, we need to
consume the newest goods, and often. In the United States, consumerism has become a form
of citizenship, as success is measured by buying the fastest technology, trendiest clothes, and
the biggest car. 20
th
century cultural historian Gary Cross defines consumerism as an ideology
that Americans are unaware of and unwilling to consider modifying (5). He calls it an
inevitable compromise between freedom and necessity (5) because our economy is
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 3
structured around consumption and working to have the means to consume. He asserts that
consumption is a choice, never consciously made, to define self and community through
ownership of goods (5). The American tendency to belong through consumption shows.
Currently the average American has a consumption footprint 43 times higher then the average
African; the average European cat has a larger carbon footprint than the average African, and
in 1990 the world crossed the line of living sustainably and is currently living at a rate that
would require 1.3 planet Earths (Clay 2010).
There are many theories about why buying new products equates to social acceptance
in American culture. The history of the free-market, consumer driven society we live in dates
back to the early days of Neoliberalism before World War II and has transformed politics as
well as the way we live our daily lives. Our constant need to buy products has given
companies more profits and power then theyve ever had before, yet the resources that we use
to produce these goods are becoming scarce. A handful of companies are creating business
strategies and marketing plans to go green; but not enough is being done to preserve our
finite resources. Looking towards the future, eliminating big businesses is not plausible, but
citizens do have the power to impose limitations on them to regulate how they create their
products. To understand where the future of sustainable consumption and business practices
are going one must look at how our Neoliberalistic economy came into being.
Neoliberalism and Consumerism
The task of assigning a conceptual definition to Neoliberalism is a hard one. Many
scholars for the last 70 years have debated the exact root of where Neoliberalism started as
well as a unified definition. But most agree that a deregulated, free-market, consumer based,
capitalistic economy is one that dates back to pre World War II, and is the dominant ideology
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 4
shaping our world today. The root of the term Neoliberalism refers to a revival of
Liberalism. However, if you look at the ramifications of free-market consumerisms effects
on politics today, a revival is actually a misinterpretation of the anti-totalitarian, pro-
welfare, democratic intentions Liberalism really came from. The earliest forms of
Neoliberalism in literature can be tracked back to several different sources. One of the earlier
foundations for this theory was based off the classical liberalism advocated of Scottish
philosopher, Adam Smith, dating back to the 1700s.
Smiths concepts of a man and society created a new paradigm for economic theory
and policy making (Smith, n.d.). Smiths concept of the invisible hand was an economic
breakthrough stating that individuals will always attempt to become wealthier and make their
own decisions in a free-market economy where government intervention is not needed
because it states the individual should always have the power. Although the metaphor itself
was completely unassociated with capitalism at its core, the profit making intentions of the
individual have heavily influenced the politics and catapulted the private sector to the
powerful influencer and decision maker that it is today.
Another major contributor to the definition of Neoliberalism was by Frenchman,
Jacques Cros, who in his doctoral thesis, Le neo-liberalisme et revision du liberalisme
discussed how Neoliberalism was a redefinition of classic liberalism, but instead returned to a
more right-wing laissez-faire stance on economic issues (Cros 1950). This concept of a self-
regulating market almost always sought to keep the state out of the business of the private
sector. They wanted to keep government as far away from undermining the marketplace and
reducing economic efficiency as possible. But as time goes on, based off the work of German
social theorist, Edgar Nawroth, this consumer driven way of thinking can lead people to
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 5
become acquisitive and self-centered, and thus hampering their moral development and
weakening the internal solidarity of society (Nawroth n.d.).
A Brief History of 20
th
Century Consumption
Consumerism in the 1900s to 1930s
Consumerism first gained popularity between the 1900s and 1930s because of its
appeal to Americas core values, liberty and democracy. According to Cross, after World War
II, consumer society was a positive answer to communism. The ideal was not sacrifice, but
personal freedom to choose as, the key debates in American politics became which policies
brought the greatest purchasing power (87). To consume was to help the economy and
stimulate growth. One consumed for the benefit of their fellow American.
As consumer society came to represent the rejection of communism by championing
personal freedom to choose, it also allowed people to mark themselves as individuals and
distinguish themselves from older identities without forsaking their families and cultural
backgrounds as Cars and clothes gave identity to young and old, female and male, ethnic
majority and minority, telling others who they were and how they expected to be treated
(Cross 2). This stemmed largely from advertisements as each product was assigned social
meaning and became a reflection of who the consumer was or who they wanted to become
(35). At this time, externals were an important way of connecting with Americans they
were unfamiliar with. Advertising dramas eased social anxieties by promising inclusion
through the culture of consumption (36). According to Cross, Products increasingly
embodied what people in a mass society wanted, a reassuring and inspiring friend (38).
They marketed tangible goods as solutions for intangible desires as social, psychological and
physical needs could now be met with a single product (38).
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 6
Consumerism in the 1960s to 1980s
It comes as no surprise then that the early 1900s drive to satisfy individual desire
carried over into the1960s-1980s. According to Economist George Katona, It is precisely the
wanting and striving for improvements in private living standards that forms the solid basis of
American prosperity (194). Indeed, advertisers capitalized on these desires. Consumption
became about satisfying wants rather than needs as advertisements catered to the idea that
aspirations could be achieved through the type of products one bought.
The old culture of constraint became nonexistent as arguments for growth without
limits obliterated any counterargument of constraint for the sake of the environment or
economic stability (239). Elected officials in the 1980s argued that unlimited growth was
Consistent with American optimism and political pragmatism. Jobs depended on it. The key
political question became: Are you better off today than you were four years ago?
Constraint was only for the poor and marginal, who contributed little to growth. The
unquestioned dogma was that unlimited desire guaranteed progress because it induced people
to work and innovate. In any case, what else was there? (238).
Consumerism in the 1980s to 2000s
However, the advent of consumer culture brought with it a decrease in American
productivity in the 1980s. The hard work, discipline, and innovation required to produce the
goods, which effectively pulled the US out of the Great Depression, were no longer dominant
mindsets and producers became subject to the whims of consumers. Constant consumption
brought about laziness as a romantic quest for true selfhood produced people incapable of
working in the real world or submitting to structure (194). And yet, despite drastically
unequal incomes, the American Dreams hollow promise that common people who work hard
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 7
can have anything gave many false hopes for personal achievement as they compared
themselves to television personas with much higher incomes (222). Because of this, everyone
wanted to buy more stuff to equate themselves with their favorite celebrities. This combined
with the fundamental pragmatic approach to progress, gained the attention of conservative
movements. By manipulating a changing world we saw leaders such as Margaret Thatcher
from the UK and Ronald Reagan, quick to adopt the adaptation of neoliberalism in the
modern era. They both strategically aimed to steer the minds of its citizens by evoking an
ugency and false prosperity towards growth. This embodiment of the good life being seen
as attainable by consumption of products was the very transition to the way we as Americans,
consume today.
Consumerism Now
That symbolism attached to products that indicated wealth, prosperity and success still
carries into todays consumer culture. Goods have acquired an almost spiritual quality to them
as the feelings of quasi-religious joy and contentment that came when consumers were
accepted by others (an themselves) through their goods as commodities are bought not so
much for their functional value, but rather for their meaning as markers of status,
participation, identity, progress or memory (236). Consumption has become a celebration of
choice and identity that helped distinguish individuals from the crowd as even minority
groups defied hegemonic power through music and clothing (240).
Thus, towards the end of the 20
th
century we see growing social fragmentation as
politics cater towards the individual and consumption becomes a needdefining who we are.
This made it easier to sell the idea of deregulated markets and shrinking government because
it meant more consumer choices for the individual. It empowered businesses to develop
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 8
cheaper resources, cheaper labor and cheaper products driving the consumer culture. Then,
consumption is promoted via branding and marketing. Yet as products and jobs are
outsourced, more competition for fewer jobs means more stress for the individual as they risk
debt, resulting in social isolation. Thus, as wealth inequality grows, individuals seek to ease
their social isolation through the consumer lifestyle.
At the end of the day, individuals desire to ease their personal stress by belonging
through consumption. Cross says, Consumer goods defined and eased the initiation,
maintenance, and dissolution of social relationships, allowing individuals to protest and define
boundaries with others. To own was to be in society (65). We are told that to belong in our
desired image tribes we should wear the trendiest clothing or buy the best car. As Lance
Bennett puts it, The most powerful narcotic in the world is the promise of belonging (Lasn
1999) and in the US we belong by being cool. However different image tribes have different
definitions of cool, which results in advertising taking the responsibility to shape how we
define ourselves through the image tribes we identify with.
Externalities: Social
Looking in America after World War 2, until the 1990s, we see what made us become
the country we are today. Growing businesses, booming profits, technological advancements,
entrepreneurial innovations, as well as deregulated government intervention can all be seen as
quintessential rungs up the latter that allowed America to become an international
powerhouse. Power and wealth and the real ability to control our country were concentrated to
a small percentage of Americans. These companies not only controlled the production of
goods, but also were responsible for delivering them to the billions of consumers that didnt
have the resources or time to decipher how things like their baby food was originally grown
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 9
and ended up in the childs stomach. They just wanted the best value for their family to keep
their child fed. What many companies havent discovered until very recently was that
efficient allocation of resources was the most important purpose of the economic system,
because without resources our market will no longer exist.
In the United States today our top twenty percent of household earners are a little over
one hundred times wealthier then our bottom twenty percent. Eighty percent of America
controls just seven percent of the wealth, while one percent controls forty percent of it (Lessig
2013). The American dream and our desire to buy goods in order to fit in acts as a Trojan
horse for Neoliberalism to run our nation. Our free-market, capitalistic society has created
some of the richest and most powerful people in the world.
Happiness for Who?
The social and physical externalities of consumption can be seen most obviously in
sweatshops. The neoliberal view of sweatshops is that they create jobs for people who
otherwise would be out of work. However, consider this story from The Story of Stuff creator
Annie Leonard as she investigates the origins of a simple cotton t-shirt in her article How to
Be More than a Mindful Consumer. In 1990, she traveled to Port-au-Prince, Haiti to speak
with women who worked eight hours a day for six days a week making clothes for the Walt
Disney Company. She found that these women would never be able to buy the clothes they
made, because at most, the women were paid 15 dollars a week (about 31 cents an hour) while
Disney CEO Michael Eisner made $101,000 an hour (Leonard). These women endured daily
sexual harassment and pressure to make as many shirts as possible in unsafe work conditions
for one half of one percent of the U.S. retail price of the t-shirts they created (Leonard). In
these sweatshops, workers were refused the right to higher wages (even though they only
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 10
wanted $5 a day), which made them unable to see their children for more than a short time or
have enough food to feed them. The suffering of these women was commoditized simply so
that Americans could pay less for a t-shirt. And when asked why they endured city slums
without electricity or sanitation, They said the countryside simply couldnt sustain them
anymore. Their families had given up farming since they couldn't compete against the rice
imported from the U.S. and sold for less than half the price of the more labor-intensive, more
nutritious native rice. It was all part of a plan, someone whispered, by the World Bank and
U.S. Agency for International Development to drive Haitians off their land and into the city to
sew clothes for rich Americans. The destruction of farming as a livelihood was necessary to
push people to the city, so people would be desperate enough to work all day in hellish
sweatshops (Leonard 2013).
This left Haiti to the mercy of the global economy as 80 percent of its rice was
imported by 2008 and the natives were unable to afford their main source of food as global
rice prices tripled due to rising fuel costs, drought and the diversion of water to more lucrative
crops (like the cotton used to make t-shirts). Thus, many live in poverty in the city because
globalization which leads to the destruction of local sustainable communities and economies.
Leonard also found that cotton alone uses the most dangerous toxins as insecticides,
dye, and bleach, which contaminate groundwater. Additionally, cotton needs much more
water than other crops so many poor farmworkers dont have access to water because it is
being diverted to cotton fields (Leonard). After they have been purchased, these clothes are
not being reused or recycled, but instead are tossed into landfills as trends change and new
clothes are produced. Lastly, Leonard found that we are not sharing the stuff that we do have.
While some of us are renting storage units because we have too much stuff, others in need of
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 11
clothing, housing, and food, could greatly benefit from our extra stuff. She says, For those of
us in the over consuming parts of the world, it's increasingly clear that more stuff doesnt
make us more happy, but for the millions of people who need housing, clothes, and food,
more stuff would actually lead to healthier, happier people. If you have only one T-shirt,
getting a second one is a big deal. But if you have a drawer stuffed with them, as I do, a new
one doesnt improve my life. It just increases my clutter. Call it stuff inequity. One billion
people on the planet are chronically hungry while another billion are obese. (Leonard 2013).
So who exactly is happier from the production of more stuff? Weve already identified
one small percentage of the population who benefits from our constant need for consumption.
The CEOs of large corporations certainly do. As weve seen with Disney CEO Michael
Eisner, he benefits 325,806 times more than the average Haitian sweatshop worker does from
the production of more stuff. However, this enormous financial gain may even have adverse
effects on the 1 percent. Recently, Imara Jones wrote an article for ColorLines detailing just
how out of touch with reality the top 1 percent of Americans are. He writes, The massive
accumulation of wealth can rewire the brain. In an article on the money-empathy gap New
York magazine contributing editor Lisa Miller puts it this way: Living high on the
socioeconomic ladder can, colloquially speaking, dehumanize people. It can make them less
ethical, more selfish, more insular and less compassionate than other people. Wealth
psychology researcher Paul Piff breaks it down even further, The rich are way more likely to
prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people. The bottom line is that
can contribute to pathologies and anti-social behavior (Jones 2014). So even for the rich,
while more consumption certainly makes them wealthier, it doesnt necessarily make them
happier and in fact, can damage their ability to connect with other people (which some would
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 12
argue is why we consume in the first place). But what about the average consumer? The US is
one of the hardest working countries in the world, yet one of the least happy. Why is this?
Sociologist and professor Allan Schnaiberg believes that the treadmill of
consumption and treadmill of production could have something to do with it (is it
Schneiberg who coined this term or did he only do treadmill of production?). The treadmill
of consumption refers to our desire to consume more material goods based on the idea that
more possessions result in higher happiness. However, this constant desire for more products
creates competition and jealousy as we work harder to have more stuff than our neighbor. We
work more, stress more, and see less of our loved ones. We live for those consumer moments.
And this leaves us feeling disconnected and unsatisfied, yet feeling more than ever like we
need to compensate with more material goods. So we can see the emptiness of constant
consumption on an individual scale, and in the end it produces an economy that is distributed
extremely unequally. This economy only works for the richest one percent of Americans, yet
hurts the other 99 percent (and the rest of the world!) as the treadmill of production is pushed
to its limit. Due to our insatiable need to consume companies build business models around
creating the most products in the cheapest way by using exploiting others for cheap labor. As
Leonard showed us, these treadmills marginalize citizens of the poorest countries and damage
the environment as more resources are taken from the earth and more toxins are put back into
it to create the goods we so desperately crave.
Physical Externalities
Leonards story shows us the disastrous social and physical externalities that one of
the most basic and prevalent products in our lives can create. Many of these physical
externalities may be traced back to big businesses. People are beginning to realize how much
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 13
power big business have and how inefficiently they have been utilizing the finite amount of
resources our world has to offer. Through consumer democracy and power that was given to
the individual has caused many companies to look at their diminishing profits as an indicator
to take the environment into higher consideration and go green. Businesses of all shapes
and sizes in America are beginning to implement environmental sustainability initiatives in an
effort to maintain our planet as well as continue to make a profit. But how much of the
business worlds attempt to ride the green wave is genuine corporate responsibility and how
much is just a marketing/PR tool in an attempt to seem like a greener company in the publics
eye?
The automotive industry is a prime example of how money and marketing has
changed the way people purchase goods. The Toyota Prius has been coveted as the saving
grace environmentally friendly vehicle with their hybrid engine technology that has helped
sales numbers past the 2 million mark. The Prius started a movement that left consumers not
thinking about style or speed but rather saving money on gas and reducing their carbon
emissions. But when you look a little closer, according to U.S. Department of Energys
Argonne National Laboratory the production of a hybrid (in particular the battery) requires
more energy, burns more fossil fuels, and emits more greenhouse gasses (like sulfur oxide)
then production of a traditional car battery does. So the next time you see that GMC Yukon
hybrid that gets 22 mpg a consumer really must ask themselves if this purchase they are so
inclined to make is really worth the cost it took to make.
Whether it is due to lobbyist or other power components in the American political
structure, the US was one of most influential nations in the world not to sign the Kyoto
Protocol (which held each country to its own CO2 emissions level), leaving corporate
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 14
participation voluntary. CO2 emissions and the transfer of greenhouses gasses internationally
is just one of the many focuses that companies are starting to put on the environment. IKEA, a
Swedish company, has currently hired Steve Howard as Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO)
and in 2010 lowered CO2 emissions by 5%, reduced their carbon footprint and energy
consumption by 40%, and hope all facilities will run entirely on renewable wind and solar
energy instead of fossil fuels (IKEA 2010). IKEA controls raw material extraction all the way
to the end of a products life, by implementing a code of conduct through their entire value
chain. They have worked hand in hand with the WWF to promote responsible forestry using
FSC-certified wood, recycled/sustainable cotton cultivated using less water, as well as
maximized transportation utilization that have concrete emission targets that measure CO2
emissions.
Sustainable Progress
Starbucks is another example of a major U.S. corporation making a major attempt to
go green. The Seattle based company has introduced principles of environmental
sustainability with green supply chain management. They have done a fabulous job in
purchasing Fair Trade Certified as well as organic coffee beans from around the globe.
They are setting out to receive LEED certification on all their stores as well as purchasing
cabinetry with 90% post-industrial material, both of which play a major role in Starbucks
attempt to become a greener company. But in both circumstances one doesnt see nearly the
amount of publicity towards what these companies achieved compared to companies that are
spending millions on artificial green advertising and campaigns that dont lessen their carbon
footprint what so ever.
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 15
Another prime example of a company doing a very large part of spearheading the
corporately conscious movement is Patagonia. Since its founding in 1973 CEO and founder,
Yvon Chouinard, has placed a monumental roll on their company leading the way
environmentally whilst still providing high end, profitable goods. In 1985 Patagonia started
their Sustainable Economy campaign that aimed to put even more attention on their all ready
publically known cause to implement their own solutions and inspire others to follow. Since
the founding of the campaign, Patagonia has 1% of their total sales or 10% of their profit
(whichever is more) towards the environment, and to date has totaled over $46 million
(Chouinard 2005). In 2008 they were awarded the Eco Brand of the Year by the Volvo
Ecodesign Forum further legitimizing their efforts to do their own part in authentically
embracing the environmental ethos. Not only that, Patagonia has also instated and is taking
part countless different programs as well as processes throughout their production and supply
chain management. Within production whether it using environmentally conscious fibers such
as recycled polyester and nylon, organic cotton, hemp, and chlorine-free wool Patagonia has
instated rigorous environmental assessments of materials. Beyond the physical creation of
their products, Patagonia incorporated a transparent documentation of their supply chain
entitled the Footprint Chronicles, actually inviting customers to look at all measures taken
to get a garment of clothing to a consumers hands. Going even further then transparency, they
are also doing a great deal to empower local producer in entrepreneurs in the world. In Fall of
2014 Patagonia will become one of the first U.S. outdoor apparel companies to introduce Fair
Trade Certified products. They have also recently launched a $20 million dollar venture
capital fund to help like-minded responsible start-ups aiming for type of environmental
impact and action in the sustainable food, water, and energy fields (Chouinard 2005).
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 16
The list goes on and on showcasing Patagonias ability to maintain their position as
one of the most popular outdoor apparel companies in the business as well creating seemingly
endless strides to lead the way to do something about preserving our planet. The most recent
and possibly most effective strategy to date has been their Dont buy this jacket/Buy less
campaign, encouraging consumers to think twice about whether or not they really need the
new jacket. Beyond that, promoting the consumer to learn how to repair their own clothes in
general, insisting that a Patagonia jacket is one they will have the rest of their lives was the
main point. This campaign was not only wildly successful profit wise increasing sales almost
one-third to $543 million last year but truly and organically embodies the ideal sustainable
business model that creates a community of like minded consumers.
Moving Forward: Corporate Changes
So much of the activity regarding sustainable business practices today directly
correlates to the same exact cause that gave these corporations all the power to begin with: the
individual. That economic growth that grew exponentially since the 1990s was completely
due to people buying products. Because no matter how much money a company pumps into
their business plan to either make their company greener or seem that way, in our free-market,
capitalistic society we live in today, the consumer will always have the final say. Wealth is
created by meeting the needs of a profit, and profit can be sustainable by solving social
problems. If we have any chance to protect our planet, individuals are going to need to
demand corporate responsibility towards the environment. Although, it is an overly ambitious
task to try and control the 6.9 billion consumers in our world and have them all get on the
same page towards protecting our environment. Americans are working 20% more then the
generation before us, and lack the time and resources to make conscious decisions about what
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 17
products are being produced, manufactured, and sold sustainably (Lessig 2013). Furthermore
there are 1.5 billion producers of natural resources all fighting for the best and most efficient
way to have their good purchased and produced into a good that is most likely going to be
controlled by one of these powerful corporations. There isnt a company or non-profit that has
the time or manpower to control this many people to do the right thing and consume less.
What we need to do is improve the local business environment by controlling the
intermediary between the producer and the consumer. These companies will need to start
making step-by-step progress in order the reap the benefits operating responsibly.
ForumfortheFuture.com put together a business case step-change process that incorporates
five common themes towards building their company in a successful and sustainable way: 1)
Having a journey to build on, 2) Seeking out the right senior executive leadership, 3) Taking a
long-term view, 4) Having a specific business rationale, and 5) Addressing status quo bias in
financial tools. These steps, although may seem intuitive may create a drastic positive change
in that way a business operates by collecting insight from all stakeholders in a company and
proposing action that is realistic and achievable.
According to Jason Clay, Senior Vice President of Market Transformation for the
WWF, 300-500 companies control 70% of trade of the top 15 commodities in the world.
These commodities include palm oil, cotton, biofuels, sugarcane, pulp paper, sawn wood,
dairy, beef, soy, fish oil/meal, salmon, shrimp, tuna, and whitefish; all of which come from
fragile ecosystems with elaborate biodiversity. Within those 300-500 companies, 100 of them
control 25% of the trade of those top 15 commodities that we as consumers cannot live
without (Clay 2010). Clay argues that sustainability must become a precompetitive issue, by
not allowing the massive amounts of consumers and producers to have a choice. What the
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 18
WWF is doing is creating roundtables that bring together producers all the way down to
retailers, discussing the sustainable growth of their individual commodities. By creating
legislature that forces corporations from across the board to participate in the roundtables not
only will the consumer feel comfortable and informed with the products they purchase; but
better yet the companies themselves will have a cognizant outlook on the repercussions of
every level of their supply chain and what it takes to get a finished product into the hands of a
consumer. If legislature were to be passed that enforces these roundtables on a larger scale we
would be able to protect the interests of the environment while keeping limitations on
production in order to keep the commodities from being depleted. By participating in these
mandatory roundtables facilitated by the WWF, we would have a regulated rate of production
creating a manageable system that we as consumers would be able to adhere to while trusting
that our own consumption will not be depleting our resources at an unsustainable rate.
Although it is beginning to work and roughly 15% of the companies have signed off
on the WWFs agreement more needs to be done to reverse the damage that our economic
growth has caused (Clay 2010). Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED)
certification is a new and viable source of green validity regarding whether or not buildings
and communities are designed, constructed, and maintained while addressing the entire
building lifecycle. LEED certification is a prime example of how sustainable business
practices can lower operating costs and increase asset value, conserve energy/water/other
resources, be healthier and safer for individuals, as well as qualifying businesses for money-
saving incentives like tax rebates and zoning allowances. Another popular certification that
has added value to businesses is the Fair Trade Certification. Fair Trade USA is a non-profit,
third party certifier of sustainably produced goods. They are currently working with 800
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 19
companies (such as Whole Foods, Dunkin Donuts, Green Mountain Coffee, Sams Club, and
Starbucks) whose goods last year reached $1.5 billion (Clifford 2012). Not only does fair
trade cut out a middle man and allows farmers to get profits more directly but also through an
additional fee gives money back to build schools, roads, hospitals, and other local
infrastructure of the remote areas of production. These are just three examples of companies
that are making profits from a theological change in mindset that is essential for us to exist as
a race. But we have learned throughout modern history that voluntary environmental
provisions do not always cover every end of the legislative spectrum and many companies
often fall through the cracks. In order to ensure that all companies are adhering to new
policies that look to protect our biosphere, use resources sustainably, reduce waste, conserve
energy, restoration of the environment, and most of all informing the public, we can look at
the work of Ceres. Ceres is non-profit sustainability organization whos mission is to
mobilize investor and business leadership to build a thriving, sustainable global economy.
For the last 25 year Ceres has acted as one of the global leaders integrating all levels of
corporate stakeholders to accelerate the adoption of sustainable business practices. Currently
50 companies including 13 Fortune 500 companies have adopted equivalent environmental
policies that share the goal of corporate responsibilities. NGOs such as Ceres would be the
spearhead along with the WWF to lead the way towards legitimate environmental action. A
fitting example of the over-regulation that is going to be necessary to protect the environment
would come in the form of government subsidies. By rewarding the corporations that partner
with NGOs like Ceres, and are certified to have had adhered to their strict environmental
principles and procedures, we very well be one step closer invoking social chance.
Social Changes for the Individual
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 20
Consumerism and its externalities will never be fully eradicated from modern society,
but we can alter our purchases to reflect our attitudes toward protecting the environment and
people. As Annie Leonard says, we must Buy stuff that is well made, honestly marketed,
used for a long time, and recycled in a way where it doesnt trash the planet, poison people
and exploit workers (Leonard 2013). More specifically, we can take action by purchasing
more organic products, avoiding products that were made using toxins and consistently
recycle our goods. This is not limited to waste either. Recycling products in our communities
or even buying goods to serve an entire community rather than the individual will make a
difference.
Social Changes for the Collective
But the most substantive changes will come from working as a collective group, rather
than separate individuals in order to create structural change. Leonard says, Even "ethical
consumerism" is generally limited to choosing the most responsible item on the menu, which
often leaves us choosing between the lesser of two evils. Citizenship means working to
change whats on the menu, and stuff that trashes the planet or harms people just doesnt
belong (Leonard 2013). In order to make a difference, we must work together to modify our
options. This includes strengthening legislature that requires businesses to reduce waste and
produce goods in an environmentally conscious way.
One example of citizens and scientists uniting to change whats on the menu is the
most recent lawsuit against six federal departmentsthe Environmental Protection Agency
and the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Defense Five teenagers and two
nonprofitsWildEarthGuardians and Kids vs. Global Warmingare behind the lawsuit
which states that, The welfare of youth is directly affected by the failure of government to
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 21
confront human-made climate change, and unless the government acts immediately to rapidly
reduce carbon emissions youth will face irrevocable harm: the collapse of natural resource
systems and a largely uninhabitable nation. Supported by some of the worlds leading
scientists and constitutional professors, plaintiffs argue that the failure of the government to
develop a plan to battle climate change is a violation of the youths constitutional rights, as
the government has a responsibility to future generations to protect resources they will need
according to the public trust doctrine. The suit calls for a reduction in carbon emissions
nationally by six percent every year. This type of unified social change is the perfect example
of how we can come together to start thinking like citizens instead of acting like consumers.
Social change is not something that simply happens over night. Throughout history we
see social change gain momentum and legitimacy through the enforcement by the
state/institutions in a position of power. Most individuals will more likely view change as
legitimate if there is government enforcement to coincide with it. Saying there must be a
cultural shift in the mindset of people is much different from one actually occurring. Cultural
outlook is something that takes many years to develop and solidify in the minds and souls of
individuals. Currently the system we have in place is the by-product of decades of
individualistic thinking, that we must do what is best for ourselves. But when did our natural
instinct to survive by presenting ourselves as a worthy candidate for partnership become
indicative with owning more possessions? Circling back to the beginnings of consumerism,
the point was to give the power to the individual. We as people over time have created an
institution where the power is no longer in our hands, and instead of the hands of companies
that gained momentum through the system in place. If we have any chance of preserving the
resources these companies control, people must change the way they think. This is going to be
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 22
the hardest task to accomplish of all; because the social reinforcement, of not reinforcing what
individuals think is the norm, takes internal strength. Internal strength that must be stronger
then that which is received by the satisfaction of others opinions of ones self. This deep
psychological demeanor must look at the ramifications of the actions of others on a scale
much larger then ones self. It goes beyond writing a letter to a local senator saying that they
want more regulations for companies to be held to in a bill. It is going to take a cultural
movement, spread by the positive intentions of change amongst ourselves; because consumer
democracy is, and as long as we operate in a free-market capitalistic economy, will always be
the most powerful tool to evoke change.
Conclusion
We can no longer ignore this problem and hope change will come naturally, because
before we know it there will be no planet left for us to protect. The severity of our actions as
consumers must be addressed. To preserve any hope of saving the one planet we have been
given, whether you are a fisherman in Sri Lanka, or the CEO of Starbucks, we all must do our
part to act sustainably. We must consider all levels of consumption and production and make
decisions that do not trash the planet, poison people and exploit workers.
Because of the exponential amount of population growth these problems will only get
worse. We are so consumed with creating a lavish life for ourselves that we are exhausting
resources essential for our survival. This is a pervasive problem that must be addressed. The
answer is not an easy one, and will require massive cultural adjustments. But a careful
examination of the past will help us implement socially conscious decisions as consumers,
and increase corporate social responsibility. Only then will we be able to take the correct and
necessary steps to maintaining our future.
Burwell-Chen & Grinberg 23
Works Cited
"Adam Smith." : The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.
"Best Practices in Environmental Sustainability." University of San Francisco Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June
2014.
Buss, Dale. "Patagonia Enjoys Unique Benefits of Its Authentic Sustainability Ethos." BrandChannel.com. N.p.,
29 Aug. 2013. Web. 10 June 2014.
Clay, Jason. "How Big Brands Can Help save Biodiversity." Jason Clay:. Ted, n.d. Web. 10 July 2010.
Chouinard, Yvon. Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman. New York: Penguin,
2005. Print.
Clifford, Catherine. "Fair Trade's Growing Pains: Pivoting a Successful Model." Entrepreneur. N.p., 27 Apr.
2012. Web. 10 June 2014.
Clifford, Catherine. "Green Power: A Low-Cost Boost to Your Brand and Bottom Line." Entrepreneur. N.p., 25
Apr. 2012. Web. 10 June 2014.
Cross, Gary S. An All-consuming Century: Why Commercialism Won in Modern America. New York: Columbia
UP, 2000. Print.
Elks, Jennifer. "Patagonia Launches 'Responsible Economy' Campaign." Sustainablebrands.com. N.p., 1 Oct.
2013. Web. 10 June 2014.
"Environmental and Social Responsibility." Patagonia. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2014.
Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.
IKEA. "People & Planet - IKEA." IKEA /GB/EN. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.
"IKEA Reduces CO2 Emissions by 5% Environmental Management & Energy News Environmental
Leader." Environmental Leader RSS. N.p., 19 May 2010. Web. 10 June 2014.
"Invisible Hand Definition | Investopedia." Investopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2014.
Jones, Imara. "The 1 Percent State of Mind - COLORLINES." Colorlines. N.p., 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 10 June
2014.
Lasn, Kalle. Culture Jam: The Uncooling of America. New York: Eagle Brook, 1999. Print.
"LEED." U.S. Green Building Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 June 2014.
Leonard, Annie. "Annie Leonard: How to Be More than a Mindful Consumer." YES! Magazine. N.p., 22 Aug.
2013. Web. 10 June 2014.
Lessig, Lawrence. We the People, and the Republic We Must Reclaim." N.p., Feb. 2013. Web. 10 June 2014
"Reverse the Curse: Maximizing the Potential of Resource-driven Economies." McKinsey & Company. N.p., n.d.
Web. 10 June 2014.
Roos, Dave. "Does Hybrid Car Production Waste Offset Hybrid Benefits?" HowStuffWorks.
HowStuffWorks.com, 06 Dec. 2010. Web. 10 June 2014.
.