Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

•

Shoppers say they want sustainable goods, but won't pay more

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/reuters-impact-shoppers-say-they-want-sustainable-goods-wont-pay-more-2023-09-07/

Consumer goods makers and retailers investing in sustainably made products after years of shopper outcry, say they face an uphill struggle convincing people to switch when those products cost more or look inferior.

Shoppers say they want sustainable goods, but won't pay more

Figures. 🙄

58 comments

Naja_Kaouthia

•

No no no. Not won’t pay more. Can’t.

toothpicks

•

This.

Cabrio

•

The upvote is a "This" button.

howrar

•

I'd argue that it's more of a "this content is a positive contribution" button. I'd upvote something I disagree with if it fits that bill.

toothpicks

•

😂 sorry yeah. I get you. But also it's sort of sad how everything is just a "like" button and then everyone just likes or upvotes instead of saying anything. I know saying "this" isn't really contributing or saying anything. But I still feel like it has more personality that clicking a little arrow. Also I know this is not Reddit so I don't know how the algorithm works, but I thought this was a more important response to the thread than the existing top comment at the time. But I also like the idea of the "this" comment I think it's kinda funny for some reason.

But anyway yes. I was finding it hard to read the tone of the emoji in OPs comment. I'm assuming they're rolling their eyes at the article itself which is like weird capitalist propaganda. But it could be read as rolling eyes at the shoppers who won't buy the sustainable thing. So it's important to clarify that people can't afford the nicer thing right now because of capitalism and related inflation etc. Otherwise idiots like me might get confused.

Cabrio

•

Upvotes on lemmy work differently than reddit because they don't actually affect the visibility of posts or comments, a downvote doesn't do anything to hide anyone's opinions and and upvotes alone don't determine engagement for "hot" so controversial opinions aren't hidden when they have engagement.

Just like Who's Line is it Anyway, everything's made up and the points don't matter.

KoboldCoterie

•

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.

TheFriar

•

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.

Mangosniper

•

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.

KoboldCoterie

•

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.

queermunist

•

(pst profit shouldn't exist)

kmkz_ninja

•

A salary is profit. Are saying we should do away with money?

queermunist

•

No, profit is the money left after expenses.

PeepinGoodArgs

•

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.

CameronDev

•

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

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

PeepinGoodArgs

•

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.

CameronDev

•

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.

KoboldCoterie

•

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.

breadsmasher

•

Alternative

“Consumers want more sustainable products, but corporations are scalpers”

some_guy

•

Consumers want sustainable products, but are broke just paying for the unsustainable ones.

Alto

•

For real. Sorry, I just won't be poor, I guess

Stuka

•

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.

Linus_Torvalds

•

Where do you live? At least in Europe, food definetly isn't 2-3x more expensive. Apart from that, the question is not whether your XXL hamburger from BurgerKing just had a 150% price hike but rather if you can still shop your (fresh, healthy) groceries.

With a secured baseline standard of living, we all will have to get accustomed to that fact that won't be able to afford that many fast, unsustainablez trashy products.

Stuka

•

Best example off the top off my head. 2 years ago russet potatoes were about $0.75 per pound, last week they were just under $2.00 a pound. Just a little more expensive week by week

But yeah yell me more about those trashy unsustainable spuds.

Linus_Torvalds

•

Ok, I didn't know that. Prices here haven't risen this high.

Not to be condescending, but is food even such a big factor in cost of living?

UnculturedSwine

•

It is if you literally can only afford the necessities. It does come off a bit condescending, yes. I'm the US, we have corporations that are literally making record profits by using inflation and sustainable sourcing as an excuse to increase the price of products far above the cost increase and then we figure out after the fact that their pledges to sustainability are worth fuck all. It doesn't help the fact that we have literal "food deserts" where the nearest grocery store is over an hour away and the only closer options you have are convenience stores and fast food. Try voting with your wallet in one of those places.

Linus_Torvalds

•

Thank you for giving me your perspective, I feel somewhat bad now for my comments..

mayo

•

Groceries is that area in a budget that you can adjust to 'scrape by' so it can feel sensitive to price fluctuations more than other things. It's also a $2400+ a year, which is not nothing and is in fact quite a lot for a lot of people. Psychologically it feels like getting kicked in the dick by the economy when I go grocery shopping. I adapt, but it hurts.

Groceries are 6.5-8% of my net income. If I spent the same amount on monthly food that my friends spend it'd be around 15%-20% which would put me in the negative each month. So I also think there is something in here about lifestyle or socioeconomic status which translates into grocery spend.

But not to be totally discouraging... I might not be able to eat well every day, but I can eat well periodically and still hit my budget.

jackie_jormp_jomp

•

Here in the US grocery store chains are fucking our asses with these prices.

houston

•

Where I'm located a whole, raw chicken is $17 :(

randombullet

•

Back in 2023 I could feed 2 people for 40-50 a week. 70 if we're splurging.

Now we're spending about 75-100 a week for bare necessities , if we want to splurge it's closer to 120-140.

I don't even buy alcohol any more since it's out of our budget.

We cook for 12-14 meals a week and we eat out 1 meal.

I have all of my historical data because I keep a budget on my excel sheet. I can pull up exact numbers.

I'm located in Germany.

johnnycashsguitar

•

Back in 2023?

Clent

•

None of these brands have rebuilt trust with the consumers.

These are all mega corporations that have chased profits over all else.

Why would I pay more for a promise that I cannot verify, from a company that only started caring after exhausting all other options; including lobbying to prevent cleaner products.

Mojojojo1993

•

I will pay more. But not 10x more. Considering it isn't costing that to make it. Most products are only cheaper because I'm the one paying for the cleanups. If we actually paid for the real price of all the plastic shit without subsidies and they paid the cost of transportation and an actual living wage.

Then those sustainable products would be far cheaper.

howrar

•

Yep. And if we go out and buy sustainable products, we're still paying for the non-sustainable ones. Of course most people are going to choose to get the thing they're already paying for.

Mojojojo1993

•

Exactly. System is rigged. Needs to be torn down and restarted by us for us. Not them

DrownedRats

•

People are already struggling to afford to buy the unsustainable options. If an alternative is offered but the cheaper one is still available people are going to buy the unsustainable option because it's short term better than straining their paychecks even further.

The solution isn't shaming consumers for picking the cheaper, unsustainable option. The solution is taxing the ultra wealthy and the corporation's producing unsustainable food and using that money to subsidise sustainable options and massively undercut the unsustainable products.

mayo

•

Throughout all this I haven't understood why the only thing central authorities seem able to do is raise interest rates. Why can't the federal or provincial/state government introduce legislation to do exactly what you propose. It's so damn obvious.

It really feels like everyone is observing the ultra rich and profiteering companies make record profits and then turning around and being like 'welp, nothing we could possibly do about that' and then the bank does what it is supposed to do raises interest rates.

I know it's more complicated than I'm aware, for example if you tax the wealthy they might just leave. Well, they would certainly leave because that is what they do.

It's probably a tricky line to pull because you can't just take money from private companies and wealthy families. If we had legislation that allowed that I feel like that would be quite intense or radical, like a course of action not available in the current paradigm. It's probably that our current system is designed to protect wealthy companies and families, maybe that's how they exist in the first place and certainly how they continue to exist and get bigger at our expense.

MuhammadJesusGaySex

•

See, this is how trickle down economics works. My company gets tax breaks. Then my company doesn’t pass that extra money to me. Which means I can’t pass the extra money that I don’t have down to goods that are better for everyone.

See. Everything is working just as intended.

Astroturfed

•

I'm doing my part already. I barely eat meat anymore because grocery store trips that used to cost $50 are $125+. Fuck off with this abusive headline blaming consumers who can't afford premium goods. If price wasn't a factor you bet your ass I'd be shopping in th fancy premium grocery store that carries more organic, sustainable items. That food tastes better too.

Walmarts profits are up massively. You know why? Because everyone's budget is strapped and we're trying to save money. This is not a climate you can blame the consumer in.

TheLurker

•

Permanently Deleted

MystikIncarnate

•

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.

Mandy

•

Rolling your eyes cause people are more often than not one surprise bill away from poverty don't wanna pay more for sustainable goods? Get outta here

LSNLDN

•

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?

Cabrio

•

Record Profits means Record Exploitation

SeaJ

•

Subsidize them like we do with unsustainable goods. Then stop subsidizing unsustainable ones.

mambabasa

•

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.

Bunnylux

•

I can't afford food as it is, ever heard of inflation

terny

•

Companies say they want to make sustainable goods but won't make less profits.

ex_06

•

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.

dillekant

•

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.

theendismeh

•

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.