Ethical Consumerism: A Defense of Market Vigilantism

There are many ways in which people can try, acting alone or with others, to change the world for the better. They can engage in political activism or volunteer work, or provide financial support for others who do so. They can also act through the medium of the market by providing incentives for change—for example, through paying a higher price for fair-trade coffee—or threatening to withhold purchases in response to the wrongful conduct of other market actors. Acting through the market has its advantages. If the aim of a consumer campaign is to change the behavior of some firm or state, it need not appeal to the better natures of these collective agents; it need only appeal to their concern for their material interests. Seeking social change through legislative change can be very difficult, and it can take a great deal of time and organization. This can also be true of acting through the market, but when consumers decide to support or to stop buying a product, this can trigger a quick response from the agents associated with it: such agents are often highly sensitive about their public image and will scramble to make changes to protect it. For this reason, the use of consumer pressure on various actors has become increasingly commonplace among those seeking social change. Insofar as market activism promotes valuable social goals, it would seem a welcome form of action. However, like any form of activism, using the medium of the market through boycotts or other forms of organized market pressure can undermine rather than promote the common good. The effects of boycotts may be blunt and relatively undiscriminating— generating unintended and unfair consequences for innocent parties. Although consumers