Jim Forster makes some good points below. One thing I'd like to add is that the pricing changes coupled to getting externalities to be included in the cost of goods sold is a branding issue that extends all the way from state fiscal and monetary policy down to the level of consumer purchases costing more at the cash register.
That pricing change will come if it's accompanied by a value change that is deep and heartfelt and desires expression throughout a lifestyle. A first target might be the LOHAS market (lifestyles of health and sustainability). Get this ethically purchasing consumer to wake up to poverty and get them willing to pay to fight the conditions that foster it and you have something. If you can get the selfish yuppies who are trying to treat their own bodies and minds well to think about extending that kind of regard to somebody else who has less than they do, then it could work. They'd have to see how global economic justice is in their best interests, just as they have become enlightened consumers of personal products and services, this is about them becoming enlightened consumers, about expanding their horizons of what is in their best interests. You would in effect get them to pay a poverty fighting/environment cleaning surtax, but do it through being willing to pay a premium for poverty fighting just like they already do for environment cleaning. It would also have to be tied to those developing world cultures selling their culture effectively into the developed world, just as the developed world shoves media and culture into the developing world. The transmission of value would be two way... If that happened, then market forces can make the difference. Here's Jim's response to a previous post: > Bettina Hammerich made some very good points in her recent posting that > also pertain to the current question of the role of profitability, > including: > >> * Businesses are more likely to be efficient service providers >> >> * Governments and NGO's can be corrupt and/or ineffective > > and > >> * Environmental and human rights are not best served by the free market >> >> * The level playing field is uneven and everyone is not "free to choose" >> >> * MNCs are not transparent > > Perhaps some of the concerns in the second group can be addressed in > time. I would hope, for instance, that some of the environmental effects > could be reduced by burdening the products with projected environmental > costs and in some way capturing the externalities. This is easier said > than done but simple examples include requiring recycling fees at the > time of purchase. MNCs are not transparent; neither are some NGOs and > some governments. All should be pressured to be more transparent. ..snip... Creating conversations between tech marketers and their customers Kevin Jones, co-founder, Microcast Communications ------------ This DOT-COM Discussion is funded by USAID's dot-ORG Cooperative Agreement with AED, in partnership with World Resources Institute's Digital Dividend Project, and hosted by GKD. http://www.dot-com-alliance.org and http://www.digitaldividend.org provide more information. To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type: subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at: <http://www.dot-com-alliance.org/archive.html>
