Does the Term “Ethical” Have Any Value In The Market Place?
A consumer survey from EU countries by the World Luxury Ethical Council shows that consumers are skeptical of companies’ claims to be “ethical,” while pointing to the potential market for companies that can be third party certified as “ethical.”
Certainly part of the ethical ethos today is toward ethical practices which includes in a broad sense corporate social responsibility.
A report published by the World Wild Life Fund on social and environmental performance gave bad grades to just about every Luxury brand. http://www.wwf.org.uk/deeperluxury/index.html On their website is this call to action: “WWF-UK calls upon the luxury industry to bring to life a new definition of luxury, with deeper values expressed through social and environmental excellence.”
Several jewelry companies are trashed in the study. Tiffany, which is widely considered in the jewelry industry to be a shining light, gets merely a D+. The Council for Responsible Jewelry Practices, (CRJP) issued a strong condemnation the study, http://www.responsiblejewellery.com/news.htm stating, “The report is of very poor quality and reflects just as badly on its authors and its publisher.”
What does “social and environmental performance” mean, anyway? What does “ethical” mean? It all depends upon which god you are worshipping and under what constraints you live under. It is about a personal hierarchy of values which for many people are deeply fixed and unconscious. The tree hugger living on solar power in his cabin in Alaska and the gas guzzling hummer driver commuting in LA two hours a day each believe they are righteously “ethical.” Good luck in telling them otherwise.
When I read about the WWF and CJRP spat, I can’t help but think of an old saying from Missouri: “There’s no point in piss fighting a skunk.”
Closer to home, the jewelry sector, I was recently in correspondence with a blogger jeweler who wrote, in an email exchange with me, something to the effect of, I sell John Hardy and Rolex which are ethical companies. Though he supported the notion of raising standards, he was also concerned about how a new “ethical” label might undermine his own already ethical reputation which he has built up over decades.
Everyone these days is ethical—even the company that plans to put up hundreds of oil wells which may poison our water shed south and west of Santa Fe, NM, where I live. They consider themselves ethical and within the law.
Lim’s study states that 68% of consumers believe companies pretend to be ethical to sell more products and services. This means that the concept of “ethical” is now diluted. We can now add the term, “ethical wash” to “green wash” and “fair wash.”
The study also stated that 82% of consumers believe its better for a company to be honest with consumers rather than pretend to be always squeaky clean. Hence, our open source FRE system, which does not claim the ethical high ground, but instead provides the information to the consumer to make that assessment, is supported by the survey of the World Luxury Ethical Council. Part of my marketing through the FRE includes telling the customers that I really don’t know what damage I’m doing with this part of the jewelry I am wanting to sell to you.
I will argue forever that it is better to focus on transparency than ethics. Anyone can be ethical in the slippery marketing slope that’s a grab for the new consumer.
Yet ultimately the ethical label will not work. It merely creates dualities and pissing fights.
