Figures. 🙄

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Part of the problem is that corporate greed is just so prevalent everywhere that when I see higher prices, my immediate first thought is that they’re just shafting us because they can. It could cost $0.02 more per unit to produce, and they’d still charge $10 more, if they thought they could get away with it.

    “There is a gap between what people say they want and what they actually do at the purchasing point – this is a difficulty for us,” Oriol Margo, EMEA sustainability transformation leader at Kimberly-Clark, said on Thursday at the Reuters IMPACT conference in London.

    “It feels like our consumers are asking for sustainability but they are not looking to compromise on price or quality.”

    I’m willing to compromise - as in, if it costs them $4 more to produce, they charge $2 more for it, we’re splitting the difference. Fine. I don’t believe that’s what’s happening. Maybe it is, but the perception is what matters, and we’ve been taking it up the ass for so long, it’s hard to believe they’re going to pull out on this one point.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Exactly. Greenwashing is a thing because it works. And it’s fuckin prevalent. There is no for-profit company that is not exploiting their “new green” image to make more money. 100%. Not a doubt in my mind. And so often, the “greener” option isn’t even greener. There are no standards for this. Anyone can say pretty much anything is “now all natural with LESS PACKAGING” but they could literally be talking about removing a hole punch, throwing it in the garbage, and charging an extra $2.49

      Capitalism will not solve the climate crisis. It is the climate crisis.

      And not for nothing, but we will never buy our way out of the mess we’re in. And them selling us the idea that we can is horseshit. They are killing us all and then profiting off of OUR FUCKIN GUILT.

    • Mangosniper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Uh… from an economic point you just can’t split the additional cost in half if it costs 4 dollar more. If something costs 20 dollars to make and they sell it for 25 to price in the other costs and a slight profit margin and then it costs 30 to make when doing it sustainable they can’t sell it for 20 + (10 / 2) +5 = 30. They would make a minus then. They could sell it for 35, with gaining the same profit as before.

      This is all under the assumption that the original price was a fair price.

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t need to make the same profit as before. They could make $2 less profit, and charge $2 more. Frankly I don’t care, and neither should anyone else who isn’t a shareholder, if their profit margin is reduced slightly.

        If doing that makes them unprofitable, they probably shouldn’t exist, because their business isn’t viable when done sustainably, and they’re relying on being allowed to fuck up the planet to maintain themselves.

        • Onihikage@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Profit is fine, it allows a good idea or business model to start small and grow organically to fit the need that it fulfills. The trouble begins with accumulation of capital, which is of course a core tenet of Capitalism. Beyond enough that you can reasonably expect to be fed and sheltered for the rest of your natural life, any further accumulation is antithetical to a good society. We can have currency, competitive markets, and free exchange of wealth for goods and services (for some industries, not all), but a line must be drawn at how much wealth any one person can be allowed to control.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m willing to compromise - as in, if it costs them $4 more to produce, they charge $2 more for it, we’re splitting the difference.

      If a public company did this, one that has a board of directors and is traded on the stock market, the managers would be liable for not doing their fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value. Well, they would liable if it wasn’t part of a long term strategy to capture the totality of consumer surplus.