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.

AesSedai wrote:

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.

A consumer is someone who exchanges money for goods. The consumer values the goods received as worth more than the currency he exchanged for those goods.

The idea of "social responsibility" is that you have an obligation to benefit society at large, and that your choices as a consumer can materially affect that society. However, this is no different than standard consumerism, you're only changing the criteria that you use to value the good you're purchasing.

The "socially responsible" consumer is making the same value judgment I am, he is exchanging money for a good that he believes is worth more than what he is paying for it. He just attributes his willingness to pay a higher price to his concept of altruism.

AesSedai wrote:

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.

By the authority of a bazillion threads a week whining about GW's prices. And when that price increase was due to 'social responsibility' (VAT increase), there was even more whining.

AesSedai wrote:

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?

How is there any practical, real world difference between permitting suffering to continue by purchasing a product made by sweat labor and permitting suffering to continue by purchasing an ethically produced good instead of donating the money?

If the evil is in permitting the act to continue, you are just as morally suspect as the purchaser of the unethical good.

AesSedai wrote:

"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...

I will repeat, the only duties that a corporation has is to:
1) maximize profit
2) preserve shareholder interests.

If they accomplish either or both of these goals by "promoting ethical values in business," then that's great. Good for them. But there are many shades of gray between "greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants" and the progressive view of corporate responsibility.

A consumer is someone who exchanges money for goods. The consumer values the goods received as worth more than the currency he exchanged for those goods.

Really?

That is a tad mechanistic old bean. When I go shopping it ain't as some automaton.
Although people going to Meadowhell Shopping Mall looking like the zombies in Dawn of the Dead makes one wonder.

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.

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.

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."

Just for the record, the above quote is from Ayn Rand. Of course a Randroid would hate any sort of ethical framework that asks people to do more than look out for their own self interest at all costs. No, there is no way to have an honest conversation with one of her followers. Not that the poster is necessarily one, but it's rare to see someone quote her without buying into the whole ball of crazy.

Ian wanted to discuss this in a fair way. Due to epic sophistry of rather disgusting people the thread has collapsed and is now about how his attempt to be ethical in a horrific world is a selfish act and the exploitation of children in slave labor conditions is a moral imperative.

If anyone has any question as to what is wrong with Western culture this is it. We live in a society where calling someone out for lying or being amoral and evil is worse than the very lies and evil ideas they put forward (as I'm sure we'll see here with my comments).

This is par for the course with nerdom of all stripes, though. Racism, misogyny, and promotion of the exploitation of those they view as less than them are virtues in communities dedicated to a quirky hobby.

So, you do make a distinction between consumers who are conscious of their purchases affecting society and people who consume without thought. But because both types of consumers are exchanging money for an equal or greater value in goods, you consider the distinction insignificant? I'm confused by this. I care about the ethics of the companies I support with my purchases to the extent that I am unwilling to give my money to a company whose practices I find distasteful. Some people don't give a rat's ass. Big difference, isn't it?

By the authority of a bazillion threads a week whining about GW's prices. And when that price increase was due to 'social responsibility' (VAT increase), there was even more whining.

If your going to use people whining on dakka threads about price increases as evidence that GW consumers would buy unethically produced miniatures because they are cheap...well...I think the opinions presented in this thread give more insight as they address the topic far more directly.

If the evil is in permitting the act to continue, you are just as morally suspect as the purchaser of the unethical good.

I never professed to being a saint, merely a consumer who cares about the rights and treatment of the people who make my toys.

If they accomplish either or both of these goals by "promoting ethical values in business," then that's great. Good for them. But there are many shades of gray between "greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants" and the progressive view of corporate responsibility.

I agree. Surely, the days when a company could openly focus on profit and shareholder interests to the exclusion of all else are waning. At the very least, as CBB said, they have to pay lip service to corporate social responsibilty--else why not simply have a giant ETHICS BE DAMNED at the top of their investor relations page?

1. Reminder, politeness is required.
2. I am moving to OT at this point. In the words of the immortal bard

Frazzled, is there any way to split the thread, rather than move it entirely? I don't much want to carry on participating in a thread that is now going to veer even more into general politics than it already has, but I'd love to hear about any responses people get from GW (which was kind of the point of the thread).

Don't wish to speak for Frazzled but maybe it would be easier to start a new thread for that Ian?

And stipulate the thread requirements and that any deviation will be deleted?

AesSedai wrote:So, you do make a distinction between consumers who are conscious of their purchases affecting society and people who consume without thought. But because both types of consumers are exchanging money for an equal or greater value in goods, you consider the distinction insignificant? I'm confused by this. I care about the ethics of the companies I support with my purchases to the extent that I am unwilling to give my money to a company whose practices I find distasteful. Some people don't give a rat's ass. Big difference, isn't it?

Not really. The value you get out of your plastic toy soldiers is insignificant to the value I get out of my plastic toy soldiers. The only difference is in what we're willing to pay. Anyone who is willing to pay a premium for a sticker that says "we're ethical!" is only willing to pay more than I am. I'm willing to pay less for models without a sticker with "we're ethical!", and somehow that makes me less thoughtful or ethical?

AesSedai wrote:

By the authority of a bazillion threads a week whining about GW's prices. And when that price increase was due to 'social responsibility' (VAT increase), there was even more whining.

If your going to use people whining on dakka threads about price increases as evidence that GW consumers would buy unethically produced miniatures because they are cheap...well...I think the opinions presented in this thread give more insight as they address the topic far more directly.

Talk is cheap, what matters is purchasing power. Every customer of GW can say "I support higher wages for GW workers" until they actually have to pay for it.

AesSedai wrote:

If they accomplish either or both of these goals by "promoting ethical values in business," then that's great. Good for them. But there are many shades of gray between "greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants" and the progressive view of corporate responsibility.

I agree. Surely, the days when a company could openly focus on profit and shareholder interests to the exclusion of all else are waning. At the very least, as CBB said, they have to pay lip service to corporate social responsibilty--else why not simply have a giant ETHICS BE DAMNED at the top of their investor relations page?

"Corporate responsibility" is a catch phrase used to improve your company's perceived value in the eyes of the customer in order to gain market share. While the effect may be beneficial, the underlying purpose is to attract business.

If a company isn't making money, then their shareholders won't be happy and they'll elect a new board of directors. Or, the shareholders will sell their shares to someone who is willing to pay for them and that person will elect a new board of directors. Only so long as "corporate responsibility" is improving the bottom line can a company continue to practice it.

I will say this once for the OP and bleeding hearts:

Ethics is not equal to moral standards.

Ethics is how you justify to yourself and other stakeholders the actions and intentions behind them.

Crying about where and how something is produced, then making a purchase decision wih consideration to this is just another decision most buyers make.

I attempt to buy Australian Made goods.

However, what you must also realise is that if everyone stopped purchasing goods that wereproduced offshore, your economies would eventually break down, as those same goods could not be manufactured/produced to the same quality domestically, at the same price.

Those in the USA and UK should know this, yet some of the arguements here are blind or ignorant of this fact.

You'd be fine with your house being cleaned by a slave, then.

I dont care about ethics, all my tax money gets sent to doleys or spent on feeding peoples kids who I dont like or given to Africa or spent on the NHS for boob jobs or spent on immigrants or spent on fething MPs porno videos.

feth em. I dont want fair trade, I want slave trade.

I actually got in an argument on the train because the woman told me "its fair trade that!" so i said "put it back give me a mars bar"

If it gets me my minis for 10p cheaper, I dont care if they make them with slave boys for 3p a week.

Funny that GW figures are the most expensive, despite being made in China.

I only buy miniatures forged from lead and hardened with tears of poor children. Obliviously most of my mini's are from Reaper...

Ahtman wrote:I only buy miniatures forged from lead and hardened with tears of poor children. Obliviously most of my mini's are from Reaper...

lol.

Seriously though, If you found out GW got orphans to make their minis for 5p a month, would you stop buying your beloved GW?!

Cos i friggin wouldnt!

Are these children photogenic? That makes a big difference, at least in terms of media coverage.

No, and one of them has a hair-lip and a severe limp.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Don't wish to speak for Frazzled but maybe it would be easier to start a new thread for that Ian?

And stipulate the thread requirements and that any deviation will be deleted?

I am not certain where it would be split. Ideas?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:You'd be fine with your house being cleaned by a slave, then.

Wo! A bit harsh there KK?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote: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.

So what companies use sweatshop production? Can anyone tell me this? Just because you produce something in Asia (or China to be more specific) does not mean that you are using sweat shop production. And lastly would these workers be better off with no job? If so can you provide facts to show that you are correct? I want someone in this thread going on and on about ethical wargaming purchases to show me that a company is indeed using sweat shop labor and that the people working in this sweat shop would be better off with no income at all.

Did I say that because production was switched to Asia it would be using sweatshops?

I said that even though a company has moved production and professes to have ethical standards, it is still possible for the manufacturer to use child labour for instance.

Forgive my poor memory, but this was the subject of a TV documentary a few years back regarding textiles produced for a British retailer.
Despite the ethical stance and iirc unknown to the retailer, child labour was used.

No one has said that any gaming company has knowingly or even unwittingly used a manufacturer that employs poor standards of welfare.

The OP asked a legitimate question to see if this may be the case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7068096.stm

brettz123 wrote:And lastly would these workers be better off with no job? If so can you provide facts to show that you are correct? I want someone in this thread going on and on about ethical wargaming purchases to show me that a company is indeed using sweat shop labor and that the people working in this sweat shop would be better off with no income at all.

I love this argument, like people who work in sweatshops should be grateful we even give them a job worth tuppence. What a wonderfully victorian way of looking at employment, this is how wealthy industrialists looked at the working classes over 100 years ago.

Just because we give them enough money not to starve doesn't make much headway in defending the work or pay conditions at all. Okay so they aren't dying of starvation, but there's clear room for improvement simply on the basis of what would seem fair and humane as opposed to clear exploitation. They'll always be paid less then us because our economies and costs of living are higher, but in some places they work well beyond what we would consider fair hours and still barely get enough to put food on the table.

I'm quite surprised how aggressive some of the responses are in legitimising the nature of sweatshops, my guess is that people who feel they don't give a damn and dismiss the conditions by making a point of going on the offensive calling people "bleeding hearts" and saying "it's better than nothing" realise on some level how ugly and selfish that attitude actually is and they don't like it being exposed, to themselves or anyone else.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:No one has said that any gaming company has knowingly or even unwittingly used a manufacturer that employs poor standards of welfare.

Correct, so why do people keep asking for examples of *gaming* companies that do this? Bit of a strawman, in the case of gaming companies it's a hypothetical concern for the future, we hope, but for other industries it's widely known to occur.

Frazzled wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Don't wish to speak for Frazzled but maybe it would be easier to start a new thread for that Ian?

And stipulate the thread requirements and that any deviation will be deleted?

I am not certain where it would be split. Ideas?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:You'd be fine with your house being cleaned by a slave, then.

Wo! A bit harsh there KK?

It's merely sharp debate.

See, I don't have this problem as I am entirely separate from the whole manufacturer/consumer network. I live in a cave and only breath twice a day. I eat only animals which ask to be eaten and I made this computer out of dead grass and moose feces. Ethical, organic, and morally responsible describe my life to a tee.








But seriously guys, this is a serious issue.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

brettz123 wrote:And lastly would these workers be better off with no job? If so can you provide facts to show that you are correct? I want someone in this thread going on and on about ethical wargaming purchases to show me that a company is indeed using sweat shop labor and that the people working in this sweat shop would be better off with no income at all.

I love this argument, like people who work in sweatshops should be grateful we even give them a job worth tuppence. What a wonderfully victorian way of looking at employment, this is how wealthy industrialists looked at the working classes over 100 years ago.

So the answer I am getting is that no one knows if this is indeed going and not one of you can actually point to any piece of evidence that it is. I would take the question much more seriously if any of you actually had a shred of evidence to support your hypothesis.

And the question of whether or not they would be better off or not is of prime importance in this discussion. If you are going to make someones life worse by your actions then I would consider that unethical. What I did not say Treesong is that the initial conditions were good. Please don't purposefully or illogically interpret what I said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Correct, so why do people keep asking for examples of *gaming* companies that do this? Bit of a strawman, in the case of gaming companies it's a hypothetical concern for the future, we hope, but for other industries it's widely known to occur.

No this is not a strawman argument at all. The question was specifically about the ethical purchasing of wargaming related items. If there are no ethical violations being perpetrated by wargaming companies the entire question is pointless. It gets to the heart of the issue rather clearly.

Stop buying products and produce EVERYTHING you want. That will be the only guarantee of ethics in production. Don't use a cell phone, buy clothes, use a computer or even a coffee maker. All of these were invariably produced or have components made in 3rd world countries.

This is all feel good idealism, just realize that the world is not a nice place, people do get screwed and bad situations get taken advantage of by enterprising people. All of this is neither new or unique to Asia.

Aknowledging this and realizing that you can do nothing about and going to work the next day is a much better way to look at this. You'll develop an ulcer worrying about Worker #6785 on production line 13 at the massive factory in Beijing who doesn't even know who you are, what Dakka is or why he shold feel bad about his situation. Not everyone can earn a ridiculous hourly wage. Someone's gotta sweep the floors (or make the GW products).

I'm sure you'll gladly adopt a child from a 3rd world country to help break the sweat shop cycle.

I would if I could but I ain't Madonna



good grief Charlie Brown.

If you wish to live without understanding or caring that is your business. If people like the OP wish to try and live a life according to a set of values they feel comfortable with, then that is their business.

So who should we listen to?
maybe the likes of
Buddha?
Lao Tzu?
Jesus Christ?
Krishna?

or the likes of Stormrider, Brettz et al?

Behave like an ork if you wish, but even though I be flawed please don't decry my paltry efforts to be better than I am.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
If you wish to live without understanding or caring that is your business.

Becuase our only options are to agree with you wholesale or be sociopaths.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
So who should we listen to?
maybe the likes of
Buddha?
Lao Tzu?
Jesus Christ?
Krishna?

Some of those don't really fit this conversations.

I love how there are people here who don't seem to believe sweatshops exist at all (head in the sand, much?!?), and others whose defence mechanisms against the idea of social progress of any kind are so strong that they believe we should just accept the world is gak rather than ever attempting to do anything about it.

Just as a counterpoint to the "you should live in a tree and make everything you own yourself, so as to ensure nothing is exploited" wags -- I hope you "traditionalist" guys still doff your caps to your feudal overlords, work seven days a week for your bosses at work (weekends are a gorram commie invention!), accept that politicians, bosses, police, judges etc. are corrupt and that's just the way things should be, burn old ladies who own cats and know about herbs, instruct your wives how they should vote (and don't allow them to work, or wear trousers), and occasionally go on trips to foreign places to gather slaves at gunpoint or stab people for being infidels.

Obviously society never changes, or progresses, and campaigns, mass movements, and bleeding heart liberals have never acheived ANYTHING over the past thousand years or so, because all of the above abuses of power still go on as a matter of course -- right? There's no point in us trying to change anything that's wrong in society, and any attempt any of us do make to change anything is gonna be met with derision, because more freedom, more tolerance, and more social justice than we have already achieved is clearly going to be dangerous to the very moral fabric of American society.

mattyrm wrote:I dont care about ethics, all my tax money gets sent to doleys or spent on feeding peoples kids who I dont like or given to Africa or spent on the NHS for boob jobs or spent on immigrants or spent on fething MPs porno videos.

feth em. I dont want fair trade, I want slave trade.

I actually got in an argument on the train because the woman told me "its fair trade that!" so i said "put it back give me a mars bar"

If it gets me my minis for 10p cheaper, I dont care if they make them with slave boys for 3p a week.

I'm fairly certain your taxes went to that train more then they went to africa. Then again, I don't live in the UK. Maybe your subways are private.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stormrider wrote:Stop buying products and produce EVERYTHING you want. That will be the only guarantee of ethics in production. Don't use a cell phone, buy clothes, use a computer or even a coffee maker. All of these were invariably produced or have components made in 3rd world countries.

This is all feel good idealism, just realize that the world is not a nice place, people do get screwed and bad situations get taken advantage of by enterprising people. All of this is neither new or unique to Asia.

Aknowledging this and realizing that you can do nothing about and going to work the next day is a much better way to look at this. You'll develop an ulcer worrying about Worker #6785 on production line 13 at the massive factory in Beijing who doesn't even know who you are, what Dakka is or why he shold feel bad about his situation. Not everyone can earn a ridiculous hourly wage. Someone's gotta sweep the floors (or make the GW products).

I'm sure you'll gladly adopt a child from a 3rd world country to help break the sweat shop cycle.

Theres really no more reason someone "has" to live that way or work in those conditions then there is that they don't. It's a false assumption based on current trends. Things could be much better or worse off for that same worker under different social, political, or economic systems. Activism doesn't have to be hopeless, nor does apathy have to be bad. People in this thread are taking things to silly extremes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ian Sturrock wrote:I love how there are people here who don't seem to believe sweatshops exist at all (head in the sand, much?!?), and others whose defence mechanisms against the idea of social progress of any kind are so strong that they believe we should just accept the world is gak rather than ever attempting to do anything about it.

Just as a counterpoint to the "you should live in a tree and make everything you own yourself, so as to ensure nothing is exploited" wags -- I hope you "traditionalist" guys still doff your caps to your feudal overlords, work seven days a week for your bosses at work (weekends are a gorram commie invention!), accept that politicians, bosses, police, judges etc. are corrupt and that's just the way things should be, burn old ladies who own cats and know about herbs, instruct your wives how they should vote (and don't allow them to work, or wear trousers), and occasionally go on trips to foreign places to gather slaves at gunpoint or stab people for being infidels.

Obviously society never changes, or progresses, and campaigns, mass movements, and bleeding heart liberals have never acheived ANYTHING over the past thousand years or so, because all of the above abuses of power still go on as a matter of course -- right? There's no point in us trying to change anything that's wrong in society, and any attempt any of us do make to change anything is gonna be met with derision, because more freedom, more tolerance, and more social justice than we have already achieved is clearly going to be dangerous to the very moral fabric of American society.

You lose credibility rapidly when you make assertions like "People here don't believe sweatshops exist".

biccat wrote:How is there any practical, real world difference between permitting suffering to continue by purchasing a product made by sweat labor and permitting suffering to continue by purchasing an ethically produced good instead of donating the money?

If the evil is in permitting the act to continue, you are just as morally suspect as the purchaser of the unethical good.

That's an incredibly silly claim. Really, just... stunningly absurd.

You've actually just said that person who doesn't actively act to prevent a problem is the same a a person who facilitates it. It's like claiming that a person who isn't spending his spare time trying to break internet paedophilia rings is morally exactly the same as a person who is buying child pornography.

I mean, I'm all for international trade and think the best thing for everyone is for the product to be produced in country best suited to producing it, that is to say "buy local" is a crock, so I'm kind of on you side, but your argument above is just bonkers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:I will say this once for the OP and bleeding hearts:

Ethics is not equal to moral standards.

Ethics is how you justify to yourself and other stakeholders the actions and intentions behind them.

Crying about where and how something is produced, then making a purchase decision wih consideration to this is just another decision most buyers make.

I attempt to buy Australian Made goods.

However, what you must also realise is that if everyone stopped purchasing goods that wereproduced offshore, your economies would eventually break down, as those same goods could not be manufactured/produced to the same quality domestically, at the same price.

Those in the USA and UK should know this, yet some of the arguements here are blind or ignorant of this fact.

Your argument makes no sense. Why do you buy locally? What makes it a more ethical decision to support a local job, than to support a job in Vietnam or somewhere else? If anything, the Vietnamese guy probably needs the income a whole lot more than the Australian guy.

Second up, since when was it the responsbility of any consumer to ensure market stability? The point of the market is that it stabilises itself, based around meeting what consumers want. If consumers genuinely wanted to pay more for local products, the markets would adjust and we'd get more expensive but locally produced goods.

Basically, you've got those two points around the wrong way. It really isn't better to buy locally, but if that's what people wanted the markets would adjust.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:"Corporate responsibility" is a catch phrase used to improve your company's perceived value in the eyes of the customer in order to gain market share. While the effect may be beneficial, the underlying purpose is to attract business.

If a company isn't making money, then their shareholders won't be happy and they'll elect a new board of directors. Or, the shareholders will sell their shares to someone who is willing to pay for them and that person will elect a new board of directors. Only so long as "corporate responsibility" is improving the bottom line can a company continue to practice it.

Have you done any reading on this subject, or are you just assuming that must be what's true because it's what your ideology dictates?

Because the interplay of corporate responsibility and profitability is far more complicated than your little ditty above. To put it really briefly, while the development of corporate responsbility has been a slow and stuttering affair, none of the delay has come from any kind of shareholder blowback against the board, in fact companies with ethical operating practices have proven more stable.

Nor does there exist this mob of purely mercenary shareholders, that will not tolerate one cent less in dividends for the sake of corporate responsibility. In fact shareholders, like people in general, are diverse and desiring of many different things, and while we've been content historically to narrow it all down to dividends and share growth, actual studies of shareholder behaviour demonstrate an incredible level of diversity among their desires.

Yeah as nice a bloke as Ian is, I've just got no time for these debates,
If you want to be a bastion of moral light, then crack on. Don't come on here with all your fake outrage cos you think it makes you look or feel good.

It's the same with Eco warriors "make sure you turn the tap off when you brush your teeth" but they have 4 kids and produce 400 times the carbon I do.

Its a drop in the ocean. I'm a relatively moral person, I don't rob rape or steal, I don't sponge off the state and I pay my taxes. Let that be enough, and gimme my GW minis, cos I like them. If you want to convince yourself I'm a nonce because it makes you feel better, that's your right too, but don't come on here and try to pretend your a better person because you claim to care where your plastic comes from, cos its boring.