Article by Anisha Ahmed

Photo by Greg Rosenke on Unsplash

Nowadays, it’s hard to avoid the push for environmental change, with organisations such as Just Stop Oil and figureheads such as Greta Thunberg often taking the forefront of media attention, despite this, capitalism, arguably the biggest catalyst for environmental damage, seems to persevere.  This begs the question, how, in an age of environmental awareness, do corporations and businesses seem to get away with immeasurable harm to the environment, and why do we, as consumers, continue to provide them with profit? The answer, some might argue, lies with in the emergence of ‘green capitalism’, an approach which aims to unite market practices with environmental awareness via methods such as more sustainable and eco-friendly technologies. However, sceptics may argue that green capitalism is a farce and, in reality, corporations are ‘greenwashing’ themselves, a practice that involves hiding behind the guise of eco-friendliness in order to pander to an ever-growing environmentally conscious audience.

Overconsumption is at the heart of environmental damage, with sociologists such as Urry (2009) highlighting how dependent modern day lifestyles are upon ‘novelty acquiring’, so it is unsurprising that capitalism continues to thrive, but with a recent shift in public concern towards environmental harm, many businesses have been forced to address this concern though adopting environmentally friendly practices, such as The European Green Deal, which is an investment of €1 trillion allocated to transitioning Europe away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. These acts of green capitalism are, in theory, a positive change from traditionally destructive, profit-prioritising means of business, however, the selfish, money-driven nature of capitalism makes this idea of genuine concern about climate change from money-hungry entrepreneurs questionable at best. Instead, these publicised steps towards saving the environment are often seen as deception, intended to appear sustainable to customers without implementing any real sustainable practices. This becomes even more ethically questionable when we consider how greenwashing might be used to undermine actual efforts to help the environment. Through greenwashing, businesses are able to play upon the genuine concerns and worries of consumers and use these to infiltrate a market that would’ve condemned them otherwise, leading to more profit, more growth and, ultimately, more harm to the environment. This cash-over-climate mindset makes real, effective green capitalism near enough impossible.

On the other hand, it can be argued that consumers have a role in allowing capitalism to harm the environment too. Since the industrial revolution, there has been a clear change in consumer behaviour, leaning more towards overconsumption and a “keeping up with the Joneses” mindset, especially in more recent years, further mobilised by the increasing unavoidability of advertising due to technological advancements. Although the general public may be concerned, on a surface level, about their environmental impact, the continued consumption of goods and services made and sold by green criminals may encourage us to question; how much do we really value the environment? Less than we value the latest fad item that we just need to buy? Whilst some may feel that corporations should be held responsible rather than individuals, it is undeniable that consumers do have a level of choice over how they impact the world around them, but how significant this level is can be debated. For example, Sanne (2002) argues that the choices of individuals alone, in the absence of structural policy changes, are not enough to prevent or remedy unsustainable consumption. This supports the idea that, whilst responsible consumer practices are important, without real efforts from corporations to implement more green policies, rather than hiding behind greenwashed campaigns, they may be ineffective in countering the climate crisis.

Ultimately, green capitalism may be an unattainable pipe dream, one that has been spun into a mask that can be worn by environmentally harmful businesses in order to justify and hide their assault of the environment. The notion that companies will only entertain the idea of participating in environmentally friendly practices if it helps to draw in more customers and, as a result, more profit may be a bleak one, but it is one that we, as consumers, must be able to consider in order to truly critically evaluate these corporations and make informed consumer choices. We must begin questioning the ruinous, ruthless businesses that rely upon and exploit us, as well as our planet, for their own profit, before it is too late.

References:

Urry, J. (2009), “Sociology and Climate Change”, The Sociological Review, 57 (s2): 84-100.

Sanne, C. (2002), “Willing consumers—or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption”, Ecological Economics, 42(1-2), pp.273–287.

Related