Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ian Sturrock wrote:dogma, I suspect you just enjoy a good argument. Please start a thread in the off-topic forum entitled "Casuistry, Sophistry, Ethics, Rhetoric, And Other Fun Party Games, By dogma". Go play there.

You asked for a discussion, and I'm trying to discuss this with you. Though I think its now clear that weren't interested in discussion at all, but rather in feeding an ego that is tightly connected to your own sense of moral superiority; as nicely illustrated by you little slight above.

Avatar 720 wrote:It's the same with battery farming; do I care if chickens are kept that way? No. Would I like it if I was kept that way? Irrelevant since I am not.

I care about thing not only because it's cruel but it affects the quality of the food. Chickens kept in cramped conditions like that need a greater array of antibiotics and are given various hormone injections that free range animals simply don't need. If you don't care about welfare at least care about the quality of the product.

shealyr wrote:I can honestly guarantee you that the average sweatshop worker in Indonesia or China isn't going to care twopence about your feelings towards sweatshop labor. In fact, he probably wishes you felt differently so that his shop would get more business. You say unfairly exploited, I say given a job and an opportunity to feed one's family in an increasingly modernizing world.

I'm sure they are desperate for the money and will work for anything regardless of the feelings of some people, but that doesn't excuse exploitation, that is the very nature of exploitation. They will work for tuppence an hour, of course, and they'll do it to feed their families. They have very little choice, they can't afford to care or take note about the debate over sweatshop conditions, they typically have to accept what they are given. Just because people take these wages to survive doesn't mean we're morally in the clear to pay them tuppence.

I get that people have different reactions to sweatshops, it's quite hard to live a normal life and buy stuff casually without buying stuff made in sweatshops so a pragmatic approach would be understandable but the relish with which some people dismiss exploitation and suffering so they can support their lifestyle is pretty disgusting. Boasting how little you give a damn about animal welfare or the abuse and exploitation of people, including children, isn't cool at all. Maybe some people think it looks tough or adult or something on the interwebs, it just comes across as extremely lacking in empathy and borderline sociopathic.

I asked for a discussion about which wargames and minis manufacturers avoid sweatshop labour and/or otherwise have some kind of a definite ethical stance. Discussions about the wider politics of global capitalism aren't directly relevant to that, and nor are attempts to pop psychologize me. Again, though, if you want to start an "Ian Sturrock's ego, analyzed in a neo-Freudian manner, by dogma" discussion, in the off-topic forum, I shan't mind.

(That was addressed to dogma, of course, not to Mr Treesong.)

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I care about thing not only because it's cruel but it affects the quality of the food. Chickens kept in cramped conditions like that need a greater array of antibiotics and are given various hormone injections that free range animals simply don't need. If you don't care about welfare at least care about the quality of the product.

For many people its a question of "good enough" and not "best". I used to shop at Whole Foods et al almost exclusively (love me my Pop Tarts), but now monetary concerns prevent me from doing so, and I expect that's true for lots of people.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm sure they are desperate for the money and will work for anything regardless of the feelings of some people, but that doesn't excuse exploitation, that is the very nature of exploitation.

But when does it become exploitation? Most everyone wants to eat, and our economic system is such that people, generally, need to work in order to earn money for food. Is it exploitation when corporations take advantage of that incentive to employ people? If so, is the economy itself exploitative?

Put another way, assessing the worth of wage X in country Y isn't as simple as directly comparing it to wage Z in country A.

I've heard GW print their books in china but a lot of printing is done in china because they are much cheaper than the UK and probably better quality too. But I'm not sure that printers are typically sweat shops, the sweatshop industries tend to be those requiring a lot of manual labour such as clothes manufacture and some electrical goods.

I'd prefer GW keep miniature production in the UK. I don't really like the idea of them moving production abroad just to increase their profit margin. People saying "I don't care about sweatshops", well if GW moved all their miniature production to some sweatshop in China it wouldn't reduce model prices, they wouldn't pass any saving along. So you'd be paying the same here and instead of giving reasonably waged jobs to British and American workers you'd be supporting another industry screwing people who can barely afford to feed themselves.

GW could go jump. If there's one decent thing I can say about GW it's that for all it's vastly expensive prices it's remained true to maintaining jobs and production within the UK, at least it did for a long time.

Ian Sturrock wrote:I asked for a discussion about which wargames and minis manufacturers avoid sweatshop labour and/or otherwise have some kind of a definite ethical stance.

Nah, that's not what you asked for.

Ian Sturrock wrote:This thread is intended to discuss what's meant by ethical purchasing/consuming, *as related to wargames, miniatures, etc.*, and (hopefully) talk about what companies and/or products are relatively safe to buy from, in ethical terms.

Just wanting to clarify, again -- sorry if I've been abrasive or unclear (sore back, this last few days, which makes me grumpy, as does not being able to work out due to my sore back...) -- I don't care, personally, what moral stance other people take, or don't take, when they purchase goods.

None of us is perfect. It's pretty much impossible, these days, to totally avoid unethical purchases. It's up to us, as individuals, what to buy and what not to; I'm not going to tell anyone they're a bad human being for making certain choices or not making certain choices.

Incidentally, I googled for ethical wargaming, and found a couple of other discussions that at least touch on the issue, though mostly from an environmental perspective:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4372154

http://trollsforge.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=geek&action=display&thread=1134

Nothing very comprehensive though... I may have to start an ethical wargaming blog, or something, if no-one else beats me to it (please, someone else, beat me to it, I don't have time for this!).

dogma wrote:But when does it become exploitation? Most everyone wants to eat, and our economic system is such that people, generally, need to work in order to earn money for food. Is it exploitation when corporations take advantage of that incentive to employ people? If so, is the economy itself exploitative?

They pay the barest minimum they can, basically people have to take anything they can to survive. The wages children get are barely enough to buy a few cups of rice for their family. Of course it's exploitation. Some people will take anything to avoid starvation, so when someone knowingly employs them on the absolute minimum they can to take advantage of this, yes it certainly is exploitation. Exploitation of the desperate. Making them work for a pittance, ridiculously long hours and no regard to health and safety. In our countries we have a minimum wage enforced because we know that without this employers would happily pay workers nearly nothing. The minimum wage is there to ensure that while employers can be competitive and successful, they don't do so at the expense of their employees well being, that's why there are laws to protect the health of workers and limit their working hours or give them sick leave or maternity periods. Companies moving production abroad clearly do this to circumvent all of these putting the concern of the well being of their workers below their profit margin. Regardless of the country or the absolute value of the wages, people shouldn't have the desperation of work used as a tool against them by unscrupulous companies to pay them a wage that barely keeps them out of starvation and requires that they work excessive hours and in hazardous conditions.

shealyr wrote:Honestly, Mr. Ian Sturrock, you strike me as exactly what turns me off from caring about issues like these.

I don't know if you mean to or not, but you come across as smug, condescending, and just overall extremely haughty. The way you present yourself demonstrates a belief of superiority over those who do not demonstrate the same care towards the plight of others, and it is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Your entire altruistic worldview is simply self-serving, in the end. It is a moral philosophy that I will never subscribe to, no matter how many disaster porn images you link to showing poor working conditions. In the end, I simply must leave you with a quote which I hope you will reflect on.

Good day to you, sir.

"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice–which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction–which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good...

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes."

Mr Sturrock has asked a question.
He has not been prosletysing. He has raised the question in good conscience without ramming his own beliefs aggressively down anyone's throat.
You could do worse than learn from his manner and good bearing even if you disagree with caring about the well being of others.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
They pay the barest minimum they can, basically people have to take anything they can to survive. The wages children get are barely enough to buy a few cups of rice for their family. Of course it's exploitation.

Ok, but what demarcates that from any other job? In high school I took what I got because I could, but now the social structure of the United States actually encourages me to be unemployed in certain situations. I'm not really given any more or less choice, my choices are just generally seen as preferable to those of Chinese worker X.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Companies moving production abroad clearly do this to circumvent all of these putting the concern of the well being of their workers below their profit margin. Regardless of the country or the absolute value of the wages, people shouldn't have the desperation of work used as a tool against them by unscrupulous companies to pay them a wage that barely keeps them out of starvation and requires that they work excessive hours and in hazardous conditions.

So you're arguing from justice?

Ok I'm up for asking Games Workshop about there Processing and Factory conditions in the case of over seas production lines.

As an engineer by trade and after a length discussion with an ex union rep for British rail (British laws haven't changed that much since then), we have EVERY right as Games Workshop Customers to enquire into there Production Processors and Working Conditions, admittedly some of the information goes beyond the scale of "public" viewing such as special projects such as experimental models, but down to the case of human rights, we as the consumer have every right to make sure Fair Trade is achieved especially with growing concerns and high chances of the factory being a sweatshops.

I don't particularly care if other people send a letter to Games Workshop but thanks to

Ian Sturrock

i have every intention of sending my own letter (yes letter, not e-mail) to Games Workshop, but a forewarning! They can refuse to reply or answer but if we had more people sending them in it will force a greater impact (like a grot straddling a Baneblade shot).

I will be writing my letter sometime this week, most likely tomorrow night after i get back from my... date... x)

:edit:

My personal reason for doing this is more along the lines of not "greed" but more general compassion, i hate knowing people suffer as a whole and now its going to play on my mind until i get an answer, as a whole im not after trade secrets with the letter, just to find out if the working practices are satisfactory, while i already know and understand such overseas country's (such as china) can live on a lower wage and rougher Conditions, there is still a minimum standard Games Workshop should be employing for the Workers safety and well being, but as the customer we can demand to know about such things.

Avatar 720 wrote:Couldn't care less about sweatshops etc.

Call me heartless, but there is just no way to represent how little of a damn I give.

It's the same with battery farming; do I care if chickens are kept that way? No. Would I like it if I was kept that way? Irrelevant since I am not.

There's just a lot more important stuff on my mind at the moment, and concerns such as these don't make the shortlist.

maybe this will help.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
There have been several posts on this forum violating Dakka Rule #1. Thatr is not appropriate. Get off the personal slants. NOW.

WarOne wrote:

biccat wrote:I shop ethically.

I give GW (well, my FLGS actually, but indirectly it finds its way into GW's hands) money. In exchange, they give me a product that I feel is worth more than the money I have exchanged for the product.

This is a very ethical relationship and I'm happy to participate.

The best extrapolation you can bring for how products are made for Western markets is by understanding that most Western or International companies enter a contract with the best bidders in making their product. Most executives or employees of that company (if any) actually step foot inside a factory of the company they hire to make their products.

Now sometimes it's a lot less competition for making a product, as the company seeking to make products will shop around for potential suitors. If more than one arise, they either pick who they think is the best/cheapest or try and haggle prices by seeing who will provide their services for cheap.

To understand what you find in other nations, simply Google using the right search terms to get hits on the conditions of factories everywhere.

For instance, typing in "conditions chinese factory" nets me this article:

http://boingboing.net/2009/02/09/ghastly-working-cond.html

"Mexican factory conditions" nets me this:

http://www.iww.org/en/node/4002

For special terms that are harder to spot, a bit of education into the matter works wonders.

For instance, I learned about Maquiladoras in Women's Studies and have found a wealth of information concerning the plight of women in factories outside the U.S.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladora

While this obviously response presents a lot of information, what relevance does it have to my post? I think that it is ethical to exchange goods for money without regard to either's providence. Do you disagree? If so, what makes that position unethical?

To the "ethical" proponents, suppose Games Workshop created 2 model lines. 1 line is produced in China using sweatshop labor and prices are reduced by 10% (of current prices). A second line is produced in the United States using fully unionized labor, providing health care, pensions, and a living wage. The price of this line is increased 10% (of current prices). There is no difference in quality or models.

You can either buy a $56 "sweatshop" Land Raider or a $68 "ethical" Land Raider. When you're browsing the FLGS, are you willing to pay a premium on the goods you're purchasing, just to be 'ethical'?

People do that all the time Biccat. Over here we see a similar line of reasoning with so called 'organic' foods which are sold at a premium.

filbert wrote:People do that all the time Biccat. Over here we see a similar line of reasoning with so called 'organic' foods which are sold at a premium.

You might have a point. But I'd contend that people think they're getting something more when they buy 'organic' foods. There's a measurable (or at least, perceived) difference between "organic" and "regular" food. If there really is no difference (neither real nor perceived) between the goods, I don't think people would buy the pricier product.

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:People do that all the time Biccat. Over here we see a similar line of reasoning with so called 'organic' foods which are sold at a premium.

You might have a point. But I'd contend that people think they're getting something more when they buy 'organic' foods. There's a measurable (or at least, perceived) difference between "organic" and "regular" food. If there really is no difference (neither real nor perceived) between the goods, I don't think people would buy the pricier product.

I'm not so sure. The trouble is (to go on a slight tangent here) that organic foods in the UK aren't really regulated much. There is nothing to stop a producer slapping an organic sticker on a cabbage providing certain restrictions are met. And indeed there has been a number of cases where producers have been brought to task on claiming food as organically grown when certain organic pesticides have still been used (just not the ones that are considered 'wrong' for want of a better term).

Yet there is still a prevailing opinion that organic is somehow 'better' or 'healthier' than non-organic, largely due to effective demonisation of pesticides and propaganda from the pro-organic lobby. such decisions are rarely based on empirical evidence and more on the gut feeling of the consumer. If people really stopped to consider and weigh up the facts then I don't think there would be a clear favourite in consumer preference.

The comments of Avatar 720 and Dogma make me sad.

As was mentioned in the first post, there are lots of possibilities to buy from small companies that have good labor practices. Unfortunately, most big companies such as Privateer Press, Battlefront Miniatures, and GW have production in Asia. The bright side is that the production of unpainted miniatures is not as bad as that of toys or mass produced prepainted miniatures.

I'd prefer that my Plastic Soldiers are made in the country I live in. That way, at least some of my GW money stays close to home.
But, that died off decades ago, and countries industrially slower than mine are taking the work, and my money ends up there.
If I stopped buying GW stuff, would that country end up poorer? Would they get nothing, and the workers starve, or just get other international contracts to get along?
Boycotting is not the answer, but getting the middle-men, GW and their suppliers, to spend more on the contracts they send out.
I'd pay a % or two more, if GW got a stamp of approval from ethical monitoring organisation. At least I'd know that that % is going to the bottom of the supply chain.

filbert wrote:Yet there is still a prevailing opinion that organic is somehow 'better' or 'healthier' than non-organic, largely due to effective demonisation of pesticides and propaganda from the pro-organic lobby. such decisions are rarely based on empirical evidence and more on the gut feeling of the consumer. If people really stopped to consider and weigh up the facts then I don't think there would be a clear favourite in consumer preference.

ITA. The producers/marketers of "organic" food have created a (perceived) secondary attribute of their product: that it is healthier than a similar non-organic product. There probably are a few people who buy organic knowing that it's the same as non-organic X, but do so because it's good for the environment. But I suspect these are few and far between. Most likely purchase organic because they think it's healthier.

In the case of a sweatship/ethical Land Raider, you're not getting any benefit. The ethical model doesn't fit together better, it won't come fully painted, it's the exact same product.

biccat wrote: When you're browsing the FLGS, are you willing to pay a premium on the goods you're purchasing, just to be 'ethical'?

Yes, if I know the majority stays with the FLGS. Unless it's too far to go for one item, they don't have stock, or the online alternative is fairly local, too.

I'm curious about this. I think it is well worth inquiring about the production process and working conditions of model companies. Whatever views folks have n the issue, I think the OP is interested in finding out what conditions are like in the first place.

Clumpski, if companies can ignore such requests and fail to answer inquiries, is there any language, jargon, or types of questions that are more likely to get a response? Generally speaking, I think pointed questions are more difficult to deflect. Has anyone given thought to which questions or requests would be most pointed on this subject?

filbert wrote:

biccat wrote:

filbert wrote:People do that all the time Biccat. Over here we see a similar line of reasoning with so called 'organic' foods which are sold at a premium.

You might have a point. But I'd contend that people think they're getting something more when they buy 'organic' foods. There's a measurable (or at least, perceived) difference between "organic" and "regular" food. If there really is no difference (neither real nor perceived) between the goods, I don't think people would buy the pricier product.

I'm not so sure. The trouble is (to go on a slight tangent here) that organic foods in the UK aren't really regulated much. There is nothing to stop a producer slapping an organic sticker on a cabbage providing certain restrictions are met. And indeed there has been a number of cases where producers have been brought to task on claiming food as organically grown when certain organic pesticides have still been used (just not the ones that are considered 'wrong' for want of a better term).

Yet there is still a prevailing opinion that organic is somehow 'better' or 'healthier' than non-organic, largely due to effective demonisation of pesticides and propaganda from the pro-organic lobby. such decisions are rarely based on empirical evidence and more on the gut feeling of the consumer. If people really stopped to consider and weigh up the facts then I don't think there would be a clear favourite in consumer preference.

The 'organic' industry is a debate worthy of a thread in itself and has a lot to do with politics rather than ethical decisions. A lot of the public who buy organic vegetables do so because of the perception of it is healthier rather than thinking it is more ethical. People wanting to make ethical decision about vegetable purchases are more likely to buy Fairtrade. Also organic vegetables and organic animals are rather different things, an organic cabbage is simply organic because of the treatments it receives when being grown, an organic chicken or pig not only has avoided various chemical treatments but importantly is far more likely to have had a better standard of life. The industrially farming of chickens and pigs is a pretty horrendous business that most people would prefer not to think about when buying cheap sausages.

That's why I buy free range meat and eggs, but vegetables don't really matter either way if they come from big industry or are organic (though they are coy about it the organic industry is pretty big and wealthy itself). There is the carbon footprint though, and that's another consideration that customers can make, both on meat and vegetables.

People do buy fairtrade products, and there's no indication it is healthier at all, it's purely because it's supposed to give the workers at the bottom of the production process a 'fair wage'. Though how well this works in practice is again a bit debatable, but generally it is an improvement on normal produce and people do elect to pay the little extra for that alone.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
People do buy fairtrade products, and there's no indication it is healthier at all, it's purely because it's supposed to give the workers at the bottom of the production process a 'fair wage'.

Short paper on the differences between Fair and Free Trade for comparison:

http://www.deliberating.org/Lessons_Globalization_Fair_Trade.pdf

Thank you, Ian Sturrock. You keep the misanthropy at bay.

@ Biccat-- I don't like the way you trivialize socially responsible consumerism. I also object to the idea that a consumer has only two choices: to buy a "sweatshop" landraider or to buy an "ethical" landraider at a premium. How about the option of exercising some social responsibility and not buying the landraider at all, thus keeping your money out of the hands of an enterprise which has a line of sweatshop goods?

The idea that anyone would knowingly contribute to the exploitation of their fellow man to save 10% on toy soldiers grosses me the feth out.

And another thing:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/ethics_statement.aspx

It seems that GW recognizes that the primary role of it's business and corporate social responsibility need not be mutually exclusive.

Pacific wrote:

No, but what is kind of sad is the number of people rushing to defend the guy who says "I don't give a fig about other people's wellbeing", it's a sad inditement of the modern world that we feel it is acceptable to just shrug our shoulders at the suffering of other human beings. People whose situation we might share were it not for an accident of birth.

I really wasn't going to post in this thread because it is going to end up being a train wreck but you really annoyed me. First off that is not what he said at all so don't throw quotes around your own words and attribute them to someone else. That is certainly unethical. Why don't you quote what he actually said?

Well you didn't quote what he actually said because it isn't nearly as horrible as your made up quote suggests. So before you start lecturing people about ethics perhaps you should take some lessons in what lying is.

Most people don't worry about that kind of stuff in their everyday lives because they have a lot of other more immediate concerns that they have to take care of. I don't know if it is right or wrong and certainly the world would be a nicer place if we didn't have sweat shops but personally I prefer to keep my politics out of my hobby.

The one concession I make is that I do try and not support companies that do either all of their manufacturing or a majority of it in China. This is one of the reasons I decided not to purchase from Wargames Factory.

AesSedai wrote:@ Biccat-- I don't like the way you trivialize socially responsible consumerism.

I don't believe I trivialized socially responsible consumerism. I just don't think there's such a thing as being a socially responsible consumer.

AesSedai wrote:I also object to the idea that a consumer has only two choices: to buy a "sweatshop" landraider or to buy an "ethical" landraider at a premium. How about the option of exercising some social responsibility and not buying the landraider at all, thus keeping your money out of the hands of an enterprise which has a line of sweatshop goods?

My example was to pose a question: would you be willing to pay a premium for a model if the non-premium priced model were available? This is important, because it illustrates the difference between consumer choice and taxation. If consumers would choose "ethical" models over "sweatshop" models, then the cheaper model would lose out and that factory would go out of business. But most consumers would rather have the cheaper model, because they are getting the most value for their money.

Therefore, the only way to force 'ethical' production would be the imposition of an artificial 'tax' (or price premium) tacked on top of GW's product. GW would therefore be forced to charge a higher price than what is economically feasable, and would open the door to competitors who aren't as ethical, and willing to sell products at a cheaper price.

AesSedai wrote:The idea that anyone would knowingly contribute to the exploitation of their fellow man to save 10% on toy soldiers grosses me the feth out.

And yet you pay money to purchase these luxury items, knowing full well that people are starving in other countries, and that your money could help them live another day.

AesSedai wrote:It seems that GW recognizes that the primary role of it's business and corporate social responsibility need not be mutually exclusive.

"Corporate social responsibility" Oh my. The corporation only has a duty to its shareholders to maximize profit and preserve the shareholders' interests.

AesSedai wrote:And another thing:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/ethics_statement.aspx

It seems that GW recognizes that the primary role of it's business and corporate social responsibility need not be mutually exclusive.

Nice find, dude -- thank you very much for tracking that down.

OK, I am actually reasonably reassured by that. Yes, it does contain a few tricky issues, still; one might argue that GW's buyer's "subjective" opinion as to whether workers are being exploited is going to be more dependent on GW's economic needs than on actual exploitation. However, on balance, I am reasonably happy personally with the idea of a person being sent to look around the factory, with a specific part of their job description being "check out working terms and conditions, look out for forced labour, find out what kind of hours people work, find out whether the wage is fair". Sure, it's possible for an unscrupulous factory owner to send the more outspoken workers home on the days the foreign client is due -- but usually, the people sent to do that kind of work are fairly experienced at doing business in the country concerned, and end up gauging things pretty well anyway. The anti-child labour provision is an excellent one, too.

There is still the huge issue that any business done in China is inherently somewhat dubious because the nation as a whole doesn't really allow for the kind of collective bargaining that our ancestors used to get us luxuries like weekends, or paid holidays, or legal minimum wages, or limits to working hours. I actually agree somewhat with the sentiment of a few posters here that the actual conditions of foreign workers are not our business -- somewhat. That is, I think that the conditions of foreign workers are more *their* business than ours, which is why I think that right to collective bargaining for better conditions is actually *more* important than any specific better conditions! I hope that makes sense; it can sometimes seem a bit busybodying for us in the rich West to assume we know best about how many hours people should work in China, say, whereas I would hope that we can all agree that government victimization of anyone who even asks for fewer hours is probably a bad thing.

So -- I still think it's worth writing to GW, and using that Ethics statement as a starting point. It's quite reasonable for us to ask which 3rd world countries they are in, and who inspects their factories there, and whether they've ever rejected any on ethical grounds, and so on.

As to biccat's point about whether we'd pay a premium for an "ethical" line from a business that is predominantly unethical -- I wouldn't, personally. I don't buy from cafepress, because most of their stuff is sweatshop-made even though they have "ethical" lines, but I will buy from skreened.com, who exclusively use American Apparel (who are widely regarded as having good labour practices).

Crumbs mate, calm down a little bit will you? I find it funny that someone can become so obviously enraged by a comment that wasn't aimed at a particular person (deliberately - I'm not making accusations towards anyone's character or anything like that), but at the essence of the few posts that had followed this comment:

Couldn't care less about sweatshops etc.

Call me heartless, but there is just no way to represent how little of a damn I give.

I think 'couldn't give a fig' is a fair summation of 'couldn't care less', no? I'm not adding any extra meaning, or 'lying' :(

Dogma then pointed out that social altruism is more of a modern phenomenon, which upon reflection I suppose I would be inclined to agree with. It's far easier to look at the problems of others when you are in a situation of comfort yourself.

I don't believe I trivialized socially responsible consumerism. I just don't think there's such a thing as being a socially responsible consumer.

You don't? I'm quite certain you are mistaken. There is an old adage: where there is a will there is a way. There are so many agencies and organizations, legislation, regulators, consumer groups, etc. providing avenues to inform yourself about the goods you consume. Perhaps if you feel that being a socially responsible consumer is impossible, then the deficiency is with your will rather than with the lack of a way.

But most consumers would rather have the cheaper model, because they are getting the most value for their money.

By what authority do you make this claim? It seems to me that there are a significant number of consumers who calculate value in a manner quite different than you suggest.

And yet you pay money to purchase these luxury items, knowing full well that people are starving in other countries, and that your money could help them live another day.

To think of the world in such stark black and white terms, lol...are you serious? To harm a single blade of grass is a violent act and that is why I putter to and fro on a cloud of my own moral superiority, didn't you know?

"Corporate social responsibility" Oh my. The corporation only has a duty to its shareholders to maximize profit and preserve the shareholders' interests.

This may startle you but the corporation in question has professed other interests "as the market leader in our sector, that we have a major role to play in promoting ethical values in business". It's not 1810. Perhaps shareholders would object to greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants---you never know...

For all the nay saying against ethical standards, many corporations pay lip service if not take positive action and promote themselves as being ethical.

Could be cynical and say that it is driven more by self promotion than altruism. But it indicates that they need to do so because they perceive that is what consumers are wanting.