> But in the end, convincing people to just not buy stuff would be the best thing to do. Companies that are trying to play both sides are suspect to me. I sort

> But in the end, convincing people to just not buy stuff would be the best thing to do. Companies that are trying to play both sides are suspect to me. I sort of agreed with you, but only up to your conclusion. Imo, this kind of all or nothing outlook tends to let the dogmatic be the enemy of the pragmatic. I find it unrealistic and impractical. I also disagree with the notion that there might be a "side" that has some kind of monopoly on being genuine, because it claims some sort of purity of ideals. That's not the color of reality and you'll have to kill a lot of people to create that utopia, either before or after. Mobile phones are here to stay. If out of two companies, one spends its resources trying to convince people to stop using them, while the other just acknowledges the need and settles for nudging the culture toward repair rather than replace, I think the latter is the one being "real". As for the company's financial and social incentives, I don't know Fairphone enough to know if what you implied would be true about them. I'd say that a company can aim for profitability and self-sustainability, and still hit all their other targets, including the environmental ones. Generally, it's when you aim for growth at all cost (e.g. you took some vc money) that all other objectives take a backseat or go the way of the door.