Companies say they want to make sustainable goods but won't make less profits.
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5219 readers
485 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
A salary is profit. Are saying we should do away with money?
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.
Iβm willing to compromise - as in, if it costs them $4 more to produce, they charge $2 more for it, weβre 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 βModern corporate law does not require for profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything elseβ.
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.
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.