Can Harvard Be an Ethical Consumer?

All individuals in today’s integrated world faces a dilemma: how to balance their own economic interests with the well being of others around the globe whom their actions effect. Because potential injustices can be linked to almost any purchase, “ethical consumerism” has been brought to the forefront of society as an ideal. Broadly defined, the desire to be an ethical consumer—be it as a stockholder, business partner, or traditional consumer—is at the heart of the divestment debate. This issue raises two questions: first, whether we have an obligation to hold ourselves to the standards of ethical consumerism, and second, whether ethical consumerism is our highest ethical obligation.

One is hard-pressed to find anyone these days who is willing to make the case that we have no serious obligations to others when making economic decisions. The fact that multinational corporations feel compelled to at least voice concern for the global implications of their business practices, and the fact that neo-liberal economists do their best to couch their policies in terms of “development” and “poverty reduction,” suggests that the human rights cause has solidly won the battle for public sentiment. Hence, it may seem somewhat pointless to ask whether we have an obligation to be ethical consumers.

Still, it is unclear whether ethical consumerism is an effective means of reform. For it to be successful, it must take the form of collective action—while individual protest may do little to affect a corporation’s practices, an organized, widespread boycott can have a major impact, as shown by the public campaign that triggered Starbucks’ shift to “fair trade” coffee.

There are various ways of addressing this concern, some philosophical and some pragmatic. On the philosophical end, one might question whether we ought to accept the “self-interest” model of rational choice foisted upon us by economists. After all, protest only seems irrational when “success” is so individualistically defined. On the pragmatic end, the public relations victories that human rights advocates are winning serve as evidence that one will not be alone in making ethical decisions and hence that such efforts at bringing about change need not be totally in vain.

Of special relevance to Harvard’s case is its status as an influential, well-publicized actor. Harvard’s actions can have a disproportionately large effect, due to both the amount of money Harvard controls and, more importantly, through precedent that Harvard sets.

There is, however, an upper limit on the degree of reform this course of action can bring about. Pulling our money from an individual corporation may have serious repercussions for that corporation. Such actions, however, generally benefit that corporation’s competitors, whose actions are frequently just as exploitative. Take, for example, the “effective” boycott of Shell in the late 1990s, which probably benefited Chevron more than anyone else.

Furthermore, so long as we continue to be beholden to multinationals to obtain even basic necessities, we continue to reinforce an economic structure that systematically produces massive inequality and exploitation. While Nike or Coca-Cola may serve as figureheads, society’s ills are not the result of the actions of “a few bad [corporate] apples,” but rather the product of a generally problematic system. Thus, insofar as ethical consumerism’s effects are limited to these figureheads, as a general tactic it is clearly insufficient.

This culture of corporate dominance is not inevitable—it is just that, in order to subvert it, one must fight it on multiple fronts. Ethical consumerism is not by itself sufficient, but that does not provide an excuse to not hold ourselves to such standards when possible (another serious deficiency of ethical consumerism is that it is primarily a luxury of the wealthy, but that is another discussion). In addition, one must simultaneously protest the current system more generally by demanding serious systematic reform at the local, national, and global levels.

Institutions such as Harvard have a special obligation given their great potential for influence. Yet to expect established institutions to head the movement for wholesale reform is naïve. Rather, the passionate individuals that compose civil society must lead the charge. Only then will the various “enlightened” or “progressive” institutions follow suit.

Ryan D. Doerfler is a graduate student in the philosophy department.