5 ms·

I used to work in the supply-chain industry setting up the trucking end of cross-ocean shipments (mostly full truckloads of electric toothbrushes coming from Ch

by jb775 7y ago

I used to work in the supply-chain industry setting up the trucking end of cross-ocean shipments (mostly full truckloads of electric toothbrushes coming from China). I'm trying to think of ways to push back on this behavior but it's tough in such a low margin industry. The best approach is probably to threaten their revenue source --- I know that the transportation departments setting up these shipments (and therefore approving payment to the shipping company) don't even think/care about this(they are pressured to get all their loads covered by the end of the day by the toothbrush company)...so it's probably on the consumer (who pays for the electric toothbrush) to hold companies more accountable for the vendors they choose to work with. If I had access to a list of companies who held their entire supply chain to a certain set of standards, I'd be willing to pay a little more for my toothbrush.

codebje 7y ago
It's practically speaking impossible for consumers to discover and act on this information. We buy our toothbrushes from a retail store, many transactions removed from the manufacture of the toothbrush, and every organisation in that chain would have to voluntarily agree to honestly report its transportation details. This is unlikely. Even if it did happen, the onus would then be on consumers to interpret these details, perform a comparison between a number of available brands, and determine the most conscientious choice. And then review this decision periodically, because transportation contracts come and go. This is a substantial amount of work. Even if consumers were able to do that amount of work, they'd then have to replicate that work for every single product, because everything goes through a similar transportation process. There is absolutely no way that any individual has enough time in their lives to research the transportation details of even a reasonable sampling of products used. And that's not even considering the transportation issues in the supply chain! As you observe, individual organisations also cannot act, because doing so makes them less competitive. This is basically the same reason why individuals can't effectively tackle climate change. There is far too much information that's hidden, and far too much time required to effectively assess information, for individuals to influence anything. Like with climate change, there is a solution, and it's regulation. The problem would vanish overnight if the EU, the US, and I guess now the UK all refused to allow docking of ships with flags of convenience, or even just ones flying flags from countries that don't ratify the maritime treaties. And like with climate change, the solution is hampered not because of technical difficulties or cost, it's hampered by lack of will to spend a relatively small amount of money on something that only has a social good and not an economic good.
- mistrial9 7y ago
  you know, as much as I concur with some of this.. if you just tempered your language a bit to allow for some kind of effective interaction between like-minded people, instead of making the walls preventing action impenetrable by definition, it would make for a stronger statement.. Big changes do happen, and will again, one way or another !
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    I'm more or less in the same camp as the parent and I'm sure what the best way to communicate is. The call to feel-good individual consumer action has been a Siren Song for the last twenty or thirty years while the various large scale pollution disasters simply continue. I'd agree with what is now older-school economics - you need direct regulation specifically to handle those cases the market can't handle. And the moves based on consumer action and market-driven regulation have visibly (and invisibly) failed. So I hope you understand the appeal of giving people this bitter pill. I mean, think people want to hear "just add a little more of this to what you're doing" and what we're saying is more like, "sorry, I know you meant well but you need to stop what you're doing and this instead". But I don't know, don't know how to balance "I understand you're not the enemy and you mean well" with "what you're is basically counter-productive, in the sense that it gets other people to also do something ineffective".
  - codebje 7y ago
    Thanks for the reply and the feedback. Do you mean that my comment is worded in a way that describes the situation as hopeless, or that it's worded in a way that discourages discussing the ideas presented - or something else entirely?
- kalleboo 7y ago
  There are many examples of third-party certifications that allow consumers to make more ethical product choices by outsourcing all the interpretation and verification to an independent organization - see Fairtrade, UTZ, FSC, MSC, various organic certification schemes, etc. But in the end most consumers just choose the cheapest thing, or these schemes would the norm rather than exceptions.

by jb775 7y ago

codebje 7y ago

It's practically speaking impossible for consumers to discover and act on this information. We buy our toothbrushes from a retail store, many transactions removed from the manufacture of the toothbrush, and every organisation in that chain would have to voluntarily agree to honestly report its transportation details. This is unlikely. Even if it did happen, the onus would then be on consumers to interpret these details, perform a comparison between a number of available brands, and determine the most conscientious choice. And then review this decision periodically, because transportation contracts come and go. This is a substantial amount of work. Even if consumers were able to do that amount of work, they'd then have to replicate that work for every single product, because everything goes through a similar transportation process. There is absolutely no way that any individual has enough time in their lives to research the transportation details of even a reasonable sampling of products used. And that's not even considering the transportation issues in the supply chain! As you observe, individual organisations also cannot act, because doing so makes them less competitive. This is basically the same reason why individuals can't effectively tackle climate change. There is far too much information that's hidden, and far too much time required to effectively assess information, for individuals to influence anything. Like with climate change, there is a solution, and it's regulation. The problem would vanish overnight if the EU, the US, and I guess now the UK all refused to allow docking of ships with flags of convenience, or even just ones flying flags from countries that don't ratify the maritime treaties. And like with climate change, the solution is hampered not because of technical difficulties or cost, it's hampered by lack of will to spend a relatively small amount of money on something that only has a social good and not an economic good.

mistrial9 7y ago
you know, as much as I concur with some of this.. if you just tempered your language a bit to allow for some kind of effective interaction between like-minded people, instead of making the walls preventing action impenetrable by definition, it would make for a stronger statement.. Big changes do happen, and will again, one way or another !
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  I'm more or less in the same camp as the parent and I'm sure what the best way to communicate is. The call to feel-good individual consumer action has been a Siren Song for the last twenty or thirty years while the various large scale pollution disasters simply continue. I'd agree with what is now older-school economics - you need direct regulation specifically to handle those cases the market can't handle. And the moves based on consumer action and market-driven regulation have visibly (and invisibly) failed. So I hope you understand the appeal of giving people this bitter pill. I mean, think people want to hear "just add a little more of this to what you're doing" and what we're saying is more like, "sorry, I know you meant well but you need to stop what you're doing and this instead". But I don't know, don't know how to balance "I understand you're not the enemy and you mean well" with "what you're is basically counter-productive, in the sense that it gets other people to also do something ineffective".
- codebje 7y ago
  Thanks for the reply and the feedback. Do you mean that my comment is worded in a way that describes the situation as hopeless, or that it's worded in a way that discourages discussing the ideas presented - or something else entirely?
kalleboo 7y ago
There are many examples of third-party certifications that allow consumers to make more ethical product choices by outsourcing all the interpretation and verification to an independent organization - see Fairtrade, UTZ, FSC, MSC, various organic certification schemes, etc. But in the end most consumers just choose the cheapest thing, or these schemes would the norm rather than exceptions.