Valentine’s Day was a shopping holiday we covered on the blog and we urged shoppers to buy local and ethical, if possible, when hunting for last minute gifts. Ethical consumerism and the effectiveness of “voting with your money” is being debated and discussed over at treehugger.com and at least one other green blog.

The debate started when Sami Grover posted: ““Why Corporate Fat Cats Love Ethical Consumerism.” He set out to explore the concept of: "Every time you spend a dollar, you are casting a vote."  The widely-accepted idea is this: If you don’t agree with the way a company does business simply stop shopping there and they will change or go out of business as they see their revenues drop. But is that wishful thinking? Grover argues that real change occurs at the political and cultural level. He cautions that ethical consumerism could erode the political activism he believes to be more effective at getting at the core problem. Is he right or wrong or somewhere in between?

Grover says: “spending money should not be confused with voting.”  He knows, as we all should at this point, that retailers are first concerned with getting you to spend your money.  Shopping is task-oriented and usually centered on short-term gains.  This can make it difficult for consumers to make long-term ethical shopping decisions. Instead, we rely on corporations to sell us green products and sometimes those same corporations turn around and put non-sustainable products on another shelf. Falsely thinking our decisions are making a difference does not lead to real change. He does not disagree with ethical consumerism, boycotts, and awareness but sees them as tools    used to fix a problem that actually needs “systemic fixes”.

After his first blog he posted two more including, one that clarified his position even further with a five point breakdown. He reiterated that shopping by itself isn’t the solution and says: “For activists to promote shopping as a primary change agent is a little like a sports team asking to play an away game in the least favorable weather conditions possible.” 

While it’s true that no sports team (let’s use professional football because it’s sometimes played outdoors) would ask to play on the frozen or slippery ground with the wind and sleet in their face sometimes they must. The player must play the game he was given with the tools he has in his possession and can control. That’s why players change their cleats or wear gloves, it’s why teams practice with frozen footballs. The weather does not stop the elite players, it makes them play harder. To Grover playing harder means creating a more “vocal constituency” through increased political activity.

He also advocates consuming less in total and says: “If we want to change the world, let's focus on those areas of our lives—civic engagement; family life; community; politics -where people are predisposed to consider their choices more carefully.” But isn’t shopping a part “family life” and “community?”

For most families and consumers playing harder means choosing where and what to buy. It also means trying to lead by example and one would hope that means voting for politicians and legislation that can make a real difference. How can we expect the people we elect to care if we don’t show that we are serious about changing ourselves? 

Perfect behavior whether consumer, corporate, political or some combination of the three may be utopian ideas.  But which is easier to control: what you do or what others choose to do?