Shoppers say they want sustainable goods, but won't pay more
Shoppers say they want sustainable goods, but won't pay more
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.
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.
94Exactly. 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.
47Uh... 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.
-2They 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.
16
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.
-4That 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
23It'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.
4
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.
52Where 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.
-14Back 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.
4
Alternative
“Consumers want more sustainable products, but corporations are scalpers”
45Consumers want sustainable products, but are broke just paying for the unsustainable ones.
30For real. Sorry, I just won't be poor, I guess
9
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.
36Throughout 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.
4
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.
32Yep. 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.
4Exactly. System is rigged. Needs to be torn down and restarted by us for us. Not them
5
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.
30Why 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.
27Permanently Deleted
27How 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?
25None 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.
23Rolling 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
23Subsidize them like we do with unsustainable goods. Then stop subsidizing unsustainable ones.
19See, 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.
17We 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.
15Companies say they want to make sustainable goods but won't make less profits.
13Anyone 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?
12Your 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.
13That 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.
2
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.
12Maybe capitalism just isn't compatible with environmentalism
10One 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.
10About 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.
8
Record Profits means Record Exploitation
8I can't afford food as it is, ever heard of inflation
5They'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?
5If you have a sustainable business model your prices shouldn't need to increase
3Just end Capitalism already.
3"Shoppers don't want to pay more for worse products"
Wow!
1