Organic Consumers Association

Consumers Must Get Political to Change the Marketplace

From 9/29/03

Let's Act Like Citizens, Not Consumers
by Betsy Barnum

In the past few weeks, several articles have appeared in the alternative
press arguing that consumer action is the way to address corporate abuses
and strengthen democracy.

Doris Haddock (Granny D) described in an article posted on Common Dreams on
Aug. 27 the process by which corporations have gotten too much power,
especially when it comes to global trade, and declared that "a small group
of dedicated people" can stop them by demanding fair trade products in
coffee shops and other stores. Anita Roddick, of the Body Shop, in a Common
Dreams article on Sept. 22 suggested that consumers "hold the key" to
changing sweatshop conditions by supporting companies that have codes of
conduct for how they treat workers.

I admire these women tremendously, but they are pointing us in the wrong
direction. Consumer power is a myth, and a very potent one, that not only
doesn't work but actually distracts us from the only real power we have to
address corporate rule and the degradation of our world.

Why is consumer power a myth? Here are three reasons.

One: Political problems must be addressed politically.

It certainly appears that the problems created for society, the environment
and future generations by corporations are caused by their economic
activity. It may seem logical that we ought to counter them in our economic
role, as consumers.

But it is not simply economically that corporations dominate our lives and
our nation. It is because they have usurped our place as political
decisionmakers in our system of self-governance.

Why is trade that is regulated by and for corporate benefit called "free
trade" and shaped so that only profit matters? Who decided that worker
rights, human rights, ecological integrity and community values would be set
aside as irrelevant?

We the people did not make these decisions, nor did we create these
situations by "consumer demand." They are political decisions. It is not as
economic entities, but as politically active corporate "persons," that
corporations exercise power to define how trade is conducted and how workers
are treated, as well as how natural resources that belong to all of us are
used. And even though each corporation is, legally speaking, a single person
like each of us, in practice their political voice is amplified to such an
extent by their wealth, size, and the economic space they occupy that they
drown us out.

This situation can't be addressed by consumer action, but only by political
action--by claiming our authority as citizens, and taking away the political
voice and power of corporations so we, the human people, are guiding
political decisionmaking.

Two: Consumers don't decide what happens in the marketplace, they merely

Many people say that we can use our "consumer power" to force corporate
decisionmakers to make the products we demand. But as consumers, we can only
respond to what corporate decisionmakers put on the market. As long as we
agree to being consumers, it is the corporate honchos, not we the people,
who are making decisions about how corporate activity treats people and the

Why are we the people allowing corporate owners and managers to make
important decisions not just about global trade, but also about things large
and small that impact our everyday life--like product packaging that is not
reusable or recyclable; violent television programs and movies; advertising
circulars flooding our mailboxes; toxic poisons put into the air and water
by industrial processes? Why do our kitchen cupboards have more chemicals in
them, many highly toxic, than the average chemistry lab had 100 years ago?
Why is it almost impossible to find a pair of athletic shoes that were not
made in a sweatshop?

The answer often given to these questions is that consumers buy these
things, so they are produced. We learn in Economics 101 that consumer demand
creates the marketplace, as corporate managers respond to what consumers
want--a statement that leads directly to the ludicrous idea that consumers
have "demanded" things like genetically modified organisms in our food or
baby toys made of toxic materials like PVC, to say nothing of leafblowers,
jet skis, botox, and--add your list of useless, destructive, outrageous
products that no consumer ever thought up and demanded.

How it really works: Corporate owners and managers decide what to produce,
based on projected profit, and spend millions of dollars on advertising to
convince us that we want it. People respond by buying the products that are
advertised--voila! Consumer demand.

The highly lucrative project of direct-to-consumer drug marketing is just
one example of how "consumer demand" works in the economy. Commercials
inform people of new drugs, which they wouldn't know about any other way,
suggest that they "ask your doctor about ___," and the prescriptions written
for the drug go up. Consumer demand created by corporate advertising.

But if consumer demand in our "marketplace democracy" doesn't really
originate from consumers themselves, how are we to make our preferences for
sustainable products known? How can we, for example, "vote with our dollars"
if the products we want to choose aren't being made? What if we can't find
out crucial information we need to decide which product to "vote" for, such
as whether it has genetically modified organisms, or what kinds of poisons
were released into the environment in producing the product, how workers who
made it were treated or how much the CEO was paid last year?

As consumers, we can only choose from what is offered, and corporate
decisionmakers only offer what they know will be profitable, while doing
their best to ensure we don't have access to full information about the
product so that knowledge won't influence our decision.

Here's another example. In an era of global warming that is brewing an
ecological crisis unlike anything humanity has ever experienced, corporate
decisionmakers are still making and marketing 12-mpg vehicles because they
are more profitable than small gas-efficient models. This should qualify as

To say, as many do, "they wouldn't make them if people didn't buy them"
overlooks the truth about how "consumer demand" is created, and
oversimplifies a complex and subtle dynamic that includes psychological
manipulation, deception, many overlapping cultural factors like fear and
denial--and lots and lots of money.

Why do we allow corporate owners and managers to make decisions like
continuing to produce gas-guzzling vehicles, and to spend billions marketing
them to us with psychological manipulation and lies--and write off the
advertising costs on their income taxes? Why do we, in our role as
consumers, believe that we must acquiesce in being continually assaulted
with manipulative advertising, tolerate the flooding of our social commons
with 3,000 commercial messages in our face every day which we subsidize with
our taxes, and then take the blame for the very existence of the products we

Yes, people who buy SUVs do have a responsibility in this situation, but it
doesn't make sense to hold people who buy products like gas-guzzling SUVs
responsible while we ignore the responsibility of the people who decide to
make and sell SUVs. Why do we let them off the hook and blame the buyers?
Perhaps it is because we believe the myth that consumer demand drives the

SUV owners do have responsibility for the existence of SUVs, the same
responsibility we all share as citizens in a democracy: It is we, not the
owners of corporations, who should be deciding that lower ecological impact,
not higher profit, should be a main guiding principle in auto manufacturing.
As long as we abdicate our role of responsibility for making governing
decisions, and allow corporate owners to make them for us with profit as the
sole criterion, we are all responsible for the consequences.

It actually used to be that the people were in charge. In the 19th century
corporations were required to operate in the public good, and many that
overstepped were dissolved. Corporate personhood, a Supreme Court decision
in 1886 that gave corporations the rights of an individual, changed all
that. But suggesting that corporations ought to be considered tools for the
public good is is not a wild, new idea, nor is realizing that allowing
corporate owners to make decisions with vast impacts on society and culture
is allowing corporations to govern. And it's not a moment too soon for us to
begin thinking about how to recover our governing authority.

Rather than simply reacting to what corporate decisionmakers decide to offer
us, we the people ought to be deciding that all products must be
sustainable, and requiring that corporate activity be based on our commonly
agreed values. We cannot move corporate decisionmaking away from favoring
the bottom line over all other values by trying to shop more consciously. We
can only do it by taking our rightful place as the decisionmakers in a
democratic society, and taking responsibility for the political shaping of
an economy that is based on the humane, Earth-honoring values I'm convinced
almost all of us share.

Three: Consumer action can't create the political force to end corporate

Corporate domination of our lives and world is an extremely serious problem
that must be addressed immediately. It's clear that continuing to allow
corporate decisions that consider only profit and disregard ecological,
humanitarian, community and labor concerns will further shred the fabric of
social life and eventually destroy the ecological basis of human society.

Attempting to exercise consumer pressure in hopes that corporate
decisionmakers will respond to our concerns just isn't going to cut it. To
end corporate domination, we need a social movement as strong and broad as
those that changed law and culture about slavery, women's right to vote,
organized labor and civil rights for people of color.

Although consumer action may look like a social movement, it's really just
individuals doing the same thing separately. There may be some coordination,
provided by an organization that calls a boycott, for instance, but the
potential for effectiveness rests entirely on individuals making "good
choices" on their own, day after day and month after month.

We know from the history of consumer boycotts that they sometimes succeed if
large numbers of people participate; but once the corporation meets the
demands, and the pressure is off, the objectionable activity resumes. Any
type of consumer pressure--demands for certain products, insistence on
social justice monitoring, "voting with our dollars," etc.--will follow the
same pattern.

The boycott of Nestle Corp. over its marketing of infant formula in the
Third World is instructive. Begun in 1977 by INFACT, a nonprofit group, the
boycott was hugely successful over the next nine years, with millions of
people and many nonprofit and religious organizations taking part and urging
others to join.

Finally, the negative publicity got bad enough that Nestle Corp.'s
executives agreed in 1986 to stop marketing the infant formula to women in
poor countries and the boycott was called off. But within two years it was
reinstated because the corporation's decisionmakers broke their promises.
And even though the boycott is still in effect 17 years later, coordinated
by a different group, the marketing of Nestle and other brands of infant
formula in poor countries not only continues, but has become entrenched as
the corporate promoters develop materials and arguments to counter the

Our true power: Political action together

All this is not to say that it doesn't matter what purchasing decisions we
make. It is very important, especially for people who have disposable income
in the U.S., the wealthiest nation on Earth, to become conscious of the
ecological and human impacts of our consumer choices. We must shop with
integrity and awareness, reduce our consumption and avoid products from

And in doing so, we must also understand that improving our consumer choices
will not change the economic structures that allow sweatshops and clearcut
logging, toxic pollution and child labor, destruction of indigenous cultures
and privatizing of water. It will do nothing to challenge the authority of
corporate owners and managers to make decisions that create the conditions
in which all people and all creatures on the planet must live.

The only way to challenge and ultimately change this obscene imbalance of
power is to come together politically as people who love the Earth, who want
everyone to have food and water and shelter, and who want to leave a livable
and just world to our children. We must enact our responsibility as
citizens, not consumers, and build a social movement to restore democracy.

Political action in social movements isn't as easy as changing our buying
habits. It requires coming out of our cocoons, getting informed, thinking
through our political opinions and talking with others about them,
organizing neighbors and friends, learning to make decisions together when
we don't agree on everything.

And there's the question of what to do, once we've gotten together. How can
we take political action to challenge corporate power in our community?
Thinking together with other people in your area who care about the present
and the future is almost certain to result in a wide variety of ideas for
political action that makes sense in your community. The possibilities are
limited only by the civic imaginations of the group that begins to talk
about what to do.

Teach-ins, conferences, forums, study circles and other educational events
are political activities. So are kitchen-table conversations. And the need
for education is great. Educating ourselves is an excellent starting place.

In some communities, city councils have passed resolutions and ordinances
opposing corporate personhood and asserting local control over
decisionmaking. State-level efforts to change laws governing corporate
charters are under way in some states. In other places people have begun
campaigns to demand that their local media meet community standards for
coverage of issues and events.

Building coalitions among groups working on a wide variety of social
justice, human rights and environmental issues, as well as faith-based
groups, has always been an essential aspect of strengthening social
movements. For example, some anti-war groups have shifted their focus to
discussing the connections between militarism and corporations, and are
reaching out to democracy organizations for information and joint work. Some
of these coalitions are developing strategies to make sure resolutions about
ending corporate personhood become part of political party platforms for the
next election, or to work on holding local media accountable.

Direct action is also political, has a long and venerable history as part of
social movements--and can be very effective if large numbers of people are

As long as we allow ourselves to be defined as consumers, and continue to
believe that as consumers we can affect situations that are politically
created and politically maintained, we will continue to be at the mercy of
what corporate owners and managers decide to do.

Reversing this situation, so that we the people, not corporations, are
making the important decisions and taking responsibility for our common
future, will not happen easily or quickly. But it can happen--will
happen--if we take up our power as citizens and act together politically.

Betsy Barnum ( is a member of the Women's International
League for Peace and Freedom, the Alliance for Democracy -- Minnesota
chapter and a member-supporter of the Program on Corporations, Law and
Democracy. She is also Executive Director of the Great River Earth
Institute, an environmental nonprofit in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.