A Family-Focused Approach to Consumption
“I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove.” Thus begins a classic work in economics by which generations of students have been introduced to important concepts like the knowledge problem and the division of labor.
The pencil also reminds us that every product is a mix of both local and international production. The thin cedar slats for the pencil stems may be sourced from Northern California or Oregon. Graphite from Sri Lanka must be mixed with clay from Mississippi and paraffin from Mexico. Then there is the eraser (raw materials from Indonesia and Italy), labels, factory machines, and delivery trucks. And what about the numerous cups of Brazilian or Colombian coffee consumed by workers during the pencil’s production—surely these are also inputs? After cataloging its “family tree,” the pencil declares: “Since only God can make a tree, I insist that only God could make me.”
Moreover, the case of the pencil illustrates the difficulty in finding out whether a production process was truly “fair.” Perhaps some of the many workers involved received a fair wage and enjoyed decent treatment; perhaps others did not. Each product we consume might have been touched by a saint, but we can only say with certainty that it was produced with the help of many sinners like ourselves. It can also be difficult for us to distinguish what counts as “fair” in contexts so different from our own.
Ethical consumerism is the idea that consumers ought to focus on the process by which a good or service was produced. But while “locally produced,” “fair trade,” or “ethically sourced” labels purport to be the morally superior choice, the reality is much more ambiguous. I propose an alternative to those frameworks for consumption that rely on extensive knowledge of production processes (or, more often, labels and certifications). Our consumption decisions should, instead, be focused on the needs of our family members. This requires attention to unglamorous factors such as budgets and nutritional requirements, instead of being up-to-date with the brands and campaigns that purport to solve the world’s problems by selling us products.
False Distinctions
Many false distinctions—such as small vs. large firms, local vs. international producers, or fair vs. exploitative trade—pervade current debates over ethical consumerism. But the truth is that nearly everything we consume involves cooperation from both small and large firms, local and international producers, and fair and exploitative trading partners. While we certainly ought to avoid directly supporting intrinsic evils (e.g., abortion or slavery), production processes are not always a solid basis for decision-making about ethical consumerism.
Take the “fair trade” movement, for instance. These costly certifications often exclude, and risk demonizing, the poorest producers who cannot afford to undergo the stringent compliance processes. Moreover, claims to provide a “living wage” or to eliminate “unnecessary” intermediaries are often more complicated than the average customer may realize. Similarly, the buy-one-give-one model in which firms justify charging higher prices (often to consumers in developed economies) because they donate a portion of their products (often to people in developing economies), often harms the nascent industries in the communities they intend to help by flooding the market with donations. One study of TOMS shoes donations found that children who received the shoe donations from TOMS were “significantly more likely to state that outsiders should provide for the needs of their family.” It is noteworthy that TOMS has since shifted away from the buy-one-give-one model and toward partnerships with community organizations that focus on “mental health, access to opportunity and ending gun violence.”
To be clear, I am not arguing that patronizing a business that also engages in some charitable giving is wrong. The mistake is thinking that it is the only or best way to be an ethical consumer. The division between businesses that “do good” and those that, by implication, “do bad” is not sufficiently covered by a certification process or clever marketing scheme.
A Family-Focused Approach
False distinctions should not be the basis for decision-making about consumption. Rather, we ought to choose the goods that 1) best serve our family’s needs, and 2) are within our family’s budget. This puts the emphasis on the purpose of consumption—to provide for our everyday needs and those of our dependents—rather than obsessing over the origins of the goods we consume or what others will think of our choices, which can easily lead to anxiety or pride.
Parents are generally tasked with making economic decisions for the household, and this is a more serious responsibility than we often appreciate. First, deciding which goods and services best fit the needs of the family requires continued deliberation and earnest cooperation. Does our family want to prioritize eating organic fruit or an extra serving of protein each week? Or perhaps neither this year, because visiting the grandparents twice is more important? I suspect that the growing body of research finding that couples with shared bank accounts fare better relationally than those with separate accounts is picking up on the salutary effects of having such conversations—and committing to certain tradeoffs—with one’s spouse.
Economies of scale do exist, and large suppliers can typically offer lower prices, which can be a great help to a family—especially one that is open to welcoming new life. No mother or father should ever feel like they are making an ethical compromise when they shop at a big chain store because that’s what fits their family’s budget. In fact, large chain stores can have salutary effects on their communities. The opening of a Walmart store has been linked to lower food prices, improved food security (especially for low-income children), and higher wages.
But perhaps we sacrifice social capital when we shop at big chains instead of our local mom-and-pop shop or the “fair trade” coffee shop? A fascinating recent study tracked cell phone data to find out which places fostered encounters across class lines. The authors found that it was not churches, sporting events, or community centers but large restaurant chains, like an Olive Garden or Applebee’s, where people were most likely to “rub shoulders” with people outside their social class. Research has also shown that “third places” (beyond home or work) like a neighborhood Starbucks café can increase the number of startups in the community as would-be entrepreneurs meet and share ideas over coffee.
Family-Focused, True and False
While putting one’s familial obligations at the forefront of consumption decisions clarifies the ethical question, we must be careful of choices that seem to benefit our family at the expense of the community. Put differently, a family-focused approach to consumption will also be better for the community as a whole.
I was struck by a recent conversation on the Honestly podcast (with Bari Weiss) about parenting. The interlocutors could vividly recall even the smallest economic decisions made by their parents. They joked about whether their parents would have been horrified by a mistake that meant their overage child could eat off the cheaper kid’s menu or if they would have seen it as a fantastic deal. This humorous example conveys a deeper truth: our community will become more or less trusting to the degree that we, as parents, model honest economic exchange. It might seem acceptable to fudge the truth for the “benefit of our family,” though in reality, we are taking away from other families with legitimate needs and only making life more difficult in the future by pulling apart the fabric of trust that binds our society.
Transparency and honesty are also essential for building up a culture of family-friendly work. Imagine a young couple that discovers they are expecting their first child. They decide that the wife should leave her job and stay at home to raise the child. To maximize their household resources, however, they stack up her maternity leave and other available benefits while not being transparent about her intention to quit afterward. In doing so, they cost the company months of looking for a potential replacement and also make it harder the next time a married young woman applies for a job at the company. Decisions that put one’s family first at the expense of honest exchange within the community are not truly family-focused.
Marketers understand something about human nature. They recognize that we deeply desire “not only to be loved, but to be lovely” and do their best to give us what we want—whether that is paying extra fees for “carbon offsets” or labels like “American made.” But truly ethical consumption is simple. We ought to select goods that will serve our family’s needs and stay within our budget. Put differently, a family-focused approach to consumption is realizing that your daughter needs pencils for her math homework and making sure there is room in the weekly grocery budget by forgoing that latte on the drive home. These everyday choices are what will encourage and inspire our spouses and teach and form our children.
Image by kasto and licensed via Adobe Stock.