Gang aft agley
– Robert Burns
The tragic loss of life involved in the collapse of Rana Plaza in Bangladesh has engendered a spate of articles promoting ethical consumption in the UK. Susanna Ruskin argues for fairtrade labelling on clothes in the Guardian, whereas Christine Bader – also in the Guardian – wants higher standards of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The idea that buyers in the west or ‘global north’ – whether they are individuals or corporations – can and should impose ethical standards and embargoes on producers in the developing world, is gaining ground. The death of three workers at Foxconn a few days ago has rekindled the debate on work conditions in China and other parts of the third world. There are of course those who argue that denying a lowly paid worker their meagre wage does not exactly constitute a kindness, but let us leave that aside. The central question is whether ‘ethical consumerism’- whatsoever be the ethics behind it – can in fact gain momentum, or whether it is destined to remain a somewhat oxymoronic footnote.
A recent paper in Science by Armin Falk and Nora Szech suggests that markets erode morals. The result is based on a series of experiments which confronted several hundred subjects with with a choice between the life of a mouse and a monetary reward.
“These mice are no longer needed for research purposes. Without the experiment, they would have all been killed. As a consequence of the study many hundreds of young mice that would otherwise all have died were saved. If a subject decided to save a mouse, the experimenters bought the animal. The saved mice are perfectly healthy and live under best possible lab conditions and medical care.”
The experiment was carried out under three different conditions: an individual (non-market) context where each subject was confronted singly with the choice of receiving money or saving the life of the mouse, a bilateral market involving a buyer and a seller, and a multilateral market with several buyers and sellers. In each of the market cases, a successful trade would result in the death of the mouse. Compared to the individual case a significantly higher number of subjects were willing to accept the killing of a mouse under both market conditions. The authors argue that this result implies that markets result in the erosion of morals.
“In markets, people face several mechanisms that may lower their feelings of guilt and responsibility,” explains Nora Szech. In addition, in markets with many buyers and sellers, subjects may justify their behavior by stressing that their impact on outcomes is negligible. “This logic is a general characteristic of markets,” says Prof. Falk.
It is fairly easy to attack the design of the experiment and to argue that the evidence doesn’t really support the conclusion reached by the researchers. Is the life of a laboratory mouse really the best test of human morals? I don’t see why not, but I can see why others might disagree. In any case the result is obtained by comparing choices made under market and non-market conditions. Also, given the deeply troubling results of the controversial Milgram experiment, and the phenomenon of the Bystander effect, there is a fair bit of evidence to support the view that people are less likely to adhere to individual moral codes when responsibility is reduced or diffused.
Like the labels ‘fairtrade’ and ‘organic’, the idea of ethical consumerism will probably appeal to a small group of consumers, and some brands will benefit from this shift in preferences. I think that there is a role that consumers can play in forcing corporations to change abhorrent practices, however the mechanism of the market is generally more adept at minimising price, than at addressing issues of quality or regulating the moral conduct of companies and their suppliers.