If the goal is to actually change the chocolate industry, they’re going to have to start caring about price. If a company’s product is priced at 14 times the most common forms of chocolate, theyre not doing anything other than catering to the minority of people that are willing to pay that premium. The meat substitute industry has the same problem. Price things at what their niche is willing to pay rather than at a price that people that are more on the fence are willing to pay. So the result is that the cheap brands continue to fuck up the environment and exploit workers with little reason to do otherwise.
I see what you’re getting at, but there will always be the higher and lower end of any type of product. Many companies charge orders of magnitude more for goods or services that most people get elsewhere for cheaper.
As with most any issue of a company damaging the environment or abusing their workforce, the answer could lie with stronger regulation, but that’s getting a different subject altogether.
Except… these brands market themselves as environmentally friendly/fair trade. But in reality they’re luxury brands. Which isn’t compatible with that goal because luxury brands are niche products not products that actually cause real change. Something that actually causes change needs to be sufficiently widely adopted.
Thing is… I actually want things to improve. It matters to me that environmentally friendly products that dont exploit the people that make the materials used in them actually get popular enough to start forcing the industry to change. And while the law is a useful tool to acheive that change, it cant do it on its own. Peoples’ buying habits need to be taken into account. You cant just… brute force everything.
If the goal is to actually change the chocolate industry, they’re going to have to start caring about price. If a company’s product is priced at 14 times the most common forms of chocolate, theyre not doing anything other than catering to the minority of people that are willing to pay that premium. The meat substitute industry has the same problem. Price things at what their niche is willing to pay rather than at a price that people that are more on the fence are willing to pay. So the result is that the cheap brands continue to fuck up the environment and exploit workers with little reason to do otherwise.
I see what you’re getting at, but there will always be the higher and lower end of any type of product. Many companies charge orders of magnitude more for goods or services that most people get elsewhere for cheaper.
As with most any issue of a company damaging the environment or abusing their workforce, the answer could lie with stronger regulation, but that’s getting a different subject altogether.
Except… these brands market themselves as environmentally friendly/fair trade. But in reality they’re luxury brands. Which isn’t compatible with that goal because luxury brands are niche products not products that actually cause real change. Something that actually causes change needs to be sufficiently widely adopted.
Thing is… I actually want things to improve. It matters to me that environmentally friendly products that dont exploit the people that make the materials used in them actually get popular enough to start forcing the industry to change. And while the law is a useful tool to acheive that change, it cant do it on its own. Peoples’ buying habits need to be taken into account. You cant just… brute force everything.