The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

The Price of Eco-Consciousness

33 Comments

August 19, 2008 by Kathy McManus

Reduce your carbon footprint. It’s the current mantra of environmental responsibility.

Many consumers have reduced their primary footprint by making changes in their daily lives, like shrinking electricity use, switching to more energy efficient light bulbs at home, and cutting back—or cutting out—driving a car.

Consumers who want to reduce their so-called secondary footprint have to make tougher decisions about products and services beyond their daily control, weighing the whole lifecycle of the things they consume, as well as the environmental practices of the businesses they deal with.

But in many cases, going green costs green—and raises a question about whether consumers should be responsible for paying the price of reducing a business’s carbon hoof marks.

Some small businesses are now asking their customers to pay extra to help them, the Wall Street Journal reports, citing a San Francisco engineering firm that tacks a modest surcharge on to every bill to help pay for the company’s own renewable energy credits as a way of reducing its carbon footprint.

So far, no customer has refused to pay the extra fee. “I think they would feel too guilty,” said the CEO.

But the answers were very different when the Journal posed this question to its readers: “Would you mind paying extra to help a business reduce its carbon footprint?”

“Yes, I would mind,” one person wrote. “I do not ask you to pay for my charity work. It is pretty arrogant and self-righteous to ‘slip’ that into the bill.” Another reader was also opposed: “I would not pay something to someone to do something they should morally be doing anyway.” And there was this more business-like response: “Couldn’t they just bill more and not charge a separate fee?

Tell us what you think: Should consumers be financially responsible for helping businesses go green? Where does personal responsibility end and business responsibility begin when it comes to the cost of helping the environment?

33 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• August 19, 2008 by Julian Amici

  I have to agree with those who say that it's not fair for the consumer to pay for the company going green. If a person or corporate entity decides to go green, then the responsibility stays with that entity. I, for one, would stop using a service that decided to charge me extra for doing something without my consent that does not directly benefit me. While I do want a cleaner earth, charging me so a company can stay green is JUST like asking me to pay for their charity work. If I wanted the financial burden of such an endeavor, I would donate (and have donated) to worthy causes. To force me or anyone else to donate to some fund as "an additional charge" is not only wrong and immoral. I think should be illegal as well, since the company is weaseling in charges for their own purposes. No company would get away with adding in extra charges to give their management extra kickbacks, and the ends never justify the means. If it's wrong to add on extra unnecessary charges for kickbacks, then it's wrong for any reason other than the direct benefit of the individual consumer (not the world as a whole, which happens to include the consumer).

  Reply

• August 19, 2008 by Ehes

  If a business alters its ways to go green, but it results in an extra cost, it makes sense that they have to recover that expense to maintain their profit. I don't think that they should make it optional by asking only green oriented buyers to pay the price. It would be wise for them to explain the reason for the increase. Of course it is possible that going green might even lower their costs.

  Reply

  • August 19, 2008 by Dave Washburn

    As much as I hate "connection fees" and "universal data charges" and other vaguely-referenced billing items, they all add up to one thing - your bill. It could be at the company's discretion (based on goods/services provided) as to how far they break down the total of your bill. It comes down to cost of business v revenue. If a company's overhead goes up, they're gonna find a way to offset the additional cost. The easiest fix is usually an increase in the price to the consumer. How many of us would tell our children that if making and selling lemonade cost $0.40 a glass instead of $0.10 a glass because they decided to serve it in bio-degradable containers, they should still sell it for $0.25 and just eat the extra cost because it's the "moral" thing to do?

    Reply

  • August 20, 2008 by Julian Amici

    Yes, it is possible for a company to lower their costs by going green, but it isn't likely (otherwise MANY more companies would be going green). Going green has always been more expensive than cutting corners and letting a little more pollution slide. Now, with companies raising their prices, that's fine, with consumer products (anything you would buy at the store) because you have a choice in price right there between product 1, 2, or 3, or to just not buy it at all. However, when a company puts in extra charges to its customers for a service they already receive, especially without notifying them (which is what I understand is exactly what this engineering company did) then they have done wrong, no matter how good the intentions are. Companies are required to notify all consumers about changes in price for services with adequate reason and time to switch if they want. People who want to pay the extra can stay, people who want a cheaper service can move on to another company (assuming, of course, there is another company to go to).

    Reply

  • November 7, 2008 by Tim Cole

    I'll gladly help a company recover necessary costs to "go green" if it truly covers a valid cost, but such a cost should vary as the needs are met. If I find an unchanging fee, month after month, occasionally increasing as Cost-Of-Living dictates, then I have to assume that this is just another item on the "retail shelf" to gain profitability: a sham to the consumer and exploiting the consumer's moral/ethical values with no real product. Since "going green" should ultimately reduce operating costs, I would expect honest manufacturers to absorb the costs initially, and raise prices minimally, if at all.

    Reply

• August 20, 2008 by Sally G

  The real solution, to me, seems to be transparency in environmental practices and costs. If a consumer is informed about a company's environmental policies and costs compared to those of a competitor, that person can make an informed decision as to with whom they want to do business. "Going green" doesn't necessarily involve higher costs—sometimes it involves an upfront expense that reduces costs over the long term (purchasing a composter that cuts the number of garbage pickups), sometimes it can even be a new profit stream or cost reduction. For instance, cabinet makers can, instead of paying to dispose of raw, untreated sawdust and wood chips, sell or give them to a school that composts its food scraps and needs woody materials as part of the mix. The school then has free mulch, lowering its landscaping costs. This is actually happening as a demonstration project at a university near me.

  Reply

  • August 21, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

    I like the option you presented, Sally. With the changes taking place with all big companies, trying to go green, a resourceful way to re-use product, is a great way to convince these companies to make the change. I expect that we will all, as consumers, be confronted with the cost of companies going green and, as such, I personally would be willing to accept the additional cost if the company was complying with this country's best efforts to change the environment. With deregulation, we now have the choice to move to another company if we are not happy with the price, but as consumers, I think we should be ready to take on some extra expenses to save the planet for our children. I do feel that the companies should do everything possible to re-coup their losses before presenting the change in price to the consumer. And they should definitely not be "hiding" it in the price increase. We should all be well informed and notified about price increases along with what changes the companies will be making, in order to make a reasonable choice. We are "all" responsible to make changes in our lives to make the planet better for our children, and their children, and if it comes down to money, then it comes down to money, and we should be willing to share the cost with companies. One way to share the responsibility with companies is to present more suggestions like the one you mentioned in your post.

    Reply

• August 20, 2008 by Pasquale Bottiglieri

  Bill Gates said it best in his recent discussion about a moral form of capitalism that provides benefit to everyone involved, rather than just a few. I'd say that pollution of the environment is a benefit to be considered in that discussion. The road to where we are now was paved by avarice and greed on everyone's part and still is. Why did it take an emergency to wake people up to the impact of more and more bigger and bigger cars when alternatives have been available for quite some time. This is to say nothing of the McMansions that popped up all over the place. If there was no demand for constructs that degrade the environment, they would not be produced. I think the best thing that could happen to the environment is that a cure for status anxiety is found and implemented. A laxative for uncontrolled greed and, hopefully, a long lasting truth serum would undoubtedly produce great rewards if administered to the right people.

  Reply

• August 21, 2008 by Sally G

  Thanks for the kind words. I recently encountered a quotation, the source of which I didn't make note, but which says "Capitalism without heart is evil". Capitalism isn't inherently evil, nothing else has been shown to work better, but those two words, "without heart", are the key, as the earlier comment pointed out about Bill Gates' moral, all-inclusive capitalism. It's the same as the old Golden Rule on which I was brought up: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If employers treated employere, and vendors treated customers, in the way in which they themselves want to be treated, we would have many fewer problems.

  Reply

  • August 21, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

    The idea that 90% of the wealth in this country is held by only 30% of the population validates both your statements. There are days when I wonder, why are actors, and athletes paid so much money, when children are starving, homeless, going without the best education possible, and the environment is still out of control? No one is willing to take responsibility for the state we are in. Most believe that "one voice will never be heard," but they are not willing to make an effort to add more to the one and take a stand against the injustice of having to "go green" We never seem to find a balance. I have been a fan of socialized medicine, and education for a long time and why not throw "going green" in there too? A balance of wealth is needed in the world to make things safe for everyone. Shouldn't every child breath fresh air, shouldn't every child be warm, and safe? "http://wecansolveit.org/" is a project to aid in going green. I wrote a blog about it the other day and I am taking an active role. http://ourgratitude-rosee285.blogspot.com/ We "all" have to take responsibility for everything that takes place around us, and YES, I do believe we are responsible for what we are experiencing right now with global warming; and the cost of "going green" The cost should be equally shared by all, but in the mean time organizations like "We can solve it," have to be created and activated for change. Let me just make this point "shared by all" when we are all equal, when there is a shift in the wealth of the world, yes, GLOBALLY.

    Reply

• August 21, 2008 by Pasquale Bottiglieri

  Just for the record, I too decided to do what I could rather than sit around complaining about it. First, I got rid of my gas lawn mower and now have an old fashioned push mower like the one we used back in the 40's. Then, I got rid of one of our cars. I know not everyone can do that, but I could and did. The big one is my retirement dream. I intend to own a few acres somewhere if I can ever afford it. My wife and I are both farmers, she having been born on a farm while I chose the rural life over the urban. When and if we get that small farm, I intend to do all the work with mules, including pulling a clipper. We are also looking at alternate electrical power.

  Reply

• August 22, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

  I believe if "everyone" makes just one move toward a healthier environment we will make a difference. I changed all my light bulbs as soon as I heard about it, and the best thing about that is that they never seem to blow out. I was spending a ridiculous amount of money on light bulbs and now with the new ones, I am personally saving money. It's a twofer. Going back to a push lawn mower is a brave change, and think of the physical aspects of it. You have to use more physical energy to mow the lawn...another twofer. If we "all" try, I'm sure that is what we will find, the blessing on the other side, the benefit we never expected. Making change for the environment can only benefit us in the end.

  Reply

• August 22, 2008 by Pasquale Bottiglieri

  The thought occurred to me after I signed off last time to mention that an excellent source of logic for "going green" might be our Native American neighbors. I have read a great deal about their culture. It is an understatement to say that they relied upon and respected the environment that ultimately provided them with all the necessities of life. It's not hard to see that we are so far removed from the natural world because of our modern conveniences that we probably have lost our emotional touch and conscience. It doesn't take much to get it back, just the desire to do it.

  Reply

  • August 22, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

    Excellent point. Native Americans treated the earth as a God. They believed that all of their life was lived "from" the land. They did not just show respect, they honored it and held it in high esteem with chants and dances. They lived off the land and let the land be the judge of how well they preserved it. We gave up so much when we persecuted them and fought to take their land away, in hindsight, I wonder, how many see what a huge mistake we made. I guess many did, or else they would not have received "restitution", for what was taken from them. It is a shame we see so much in hindsight, maybe if we spent more time collecting knowledge about the environment and studying the history, we would find greater solutions than we have today. Everything Native Americans ate or used, came from the land, maybe we should be asking them how to preserve the environment, how to slow global waring, how to find other sources of energy, and also food.

    Reply

• August 22, 2008 by Randy Yale

  The comments that make an analogy between charity and going green are troubling. Companies doing their part to maintain a livable planet are substantially different from companies donating to the local SPCA or Boys and Girls Club (those both should be supported). Even the more subtle point that making a distinct surcharge is problematic doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Many companies are currently adding fuel surcharges to their bills. So ask yourself, would you rather pay a surcharge that reflects our poor management of resources thus far or a surcharge that, if followed by more companies, might actually begin to address our problems related to fossil fuel consumption?

  Reply

  • August 22, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

    I do not think anyone is making an analogy between charity and going green. The word contribution is used as "action," although most of these organizations are privately funded. Of course we would want to see companies change the use of our current resources and expect to pay additional surcharges for that to take place, and it should only be toward a solution to our fossil fuel consumption. But, let's not let rhetoric by people like this guy, who makes a living by suggesting that "global warming is a scam and is being manipulated by the government," http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/ lead people in the wrong direction. All I am saying is that we should be looking for alternative resources, adapt the resources we have now to use less, and to educate others to the only direction that will save this planet, and we should be willing to take responsibility "and take on additional surcharges" to get it done.

    Reply

• August 22, 2008 by Pasquale Bottiglieri

  Several years ago, while an undergraduate student in Management Science, I wrote a paper for a Society and Technology course titled "Hindsight: In refutation of the John Henry Syndrome". In that paper, written somewhere around 1974, I made the statement that the corporations, most of them with multi-national roots, had demonstrated little or no allegiance to any purpose or set of values other than the expansion of their own power and financial strength. I used the term corporate molecule to describe individuals who had completely immersed themselves in a corporate system. In short, the corporations, taken collectively had then and have the power now to do far more harm and, conversely, good to the environment than any individual. True, we as citizens can talk together and collectively do a lot of good but, on balance, our effect is overshadowed by decisions made behind closed corporate doors. The term corporation somehow suggests a living system, a collective, profit centered system. The term corpus implies a humanization of a large scale collective cognitive process that we are now demanding must have a conscience, must be held to the same ethical values that individuals must adhere to. In short, in my opinion the greatest good can be achieved in the matter of "Going green" if we all, corporations included take sufficient environmentally healing measures to balance our environmental impact. Having said that, I see no harm in our accepting reasonable and just costs and/or surcharges attached to commodities we need provided we have the absolute assurance that the corporations supplying those goods and services are also doing their share in cleaning up their act especially where abject pollution is concerned. I draw the line however at asking the consumer to pay now for the avarice, greed and abject lack of conscience of those corporations that knowingly and for extended periods of time allowed their processes to continue to corrupt and pollute the earth. I advise pass through liability in those cases and applaud the legal action of those agencies dedicated to bringing those corporate entities to justice.

  Reply

• August 23, 2008 by AnnMarie Cunniff

  I bow to your foresight. I completely agree that the corporations should be accountable to consumers to show that what they have committed to, and we have consented to contribute to their cost increase, is legally monitored. There should be in place, a legal system to monitor the commitments made by corporations and to protect the contribution of the consumer. These are the kind of conditions that end up on the cutting room floor, when it comes to monitoring the commitments of corporations, which is one of the reasons why we are having this discussion...still, or again. The legal systems that monitor big business are lax, and unfortunately, usually overlooked. But, that is a long standing condition. The recovery of our planet depends on something pro-active, taking place yesterday, but will still remain unmonitored for the period of time it takes to put a system in place that the consumer has faith in, and that usually takes so long that, again, the matter is put on the back burner. How can we accelerate the necessary fail safes to bring about the results we so desperately need to save the planet? Oh, wait...is that where we started? Catch 22.

  Reply

• August 23, 2008 by Christina Wasniski

  Hello to everyone! I have a budding cleaning business and I wanted to share my thoughts about paying extra or not for "green" businesses. As I perused the web concerning the best cleaners to use for my business, I came to the conclusion that it is in everyone's best interest, whether they realize it or not, to use products that are environmentally safe. I am choosing to go "green" with my cleaning business after doing my homework. However, I also realize that the cost of "green" cleaners can be more costly. In my business, I supply the cleaning products, not just the labor. I have to say that I will have to adjust my prices for the additional cost of the products. I truly believe that if a person is truly concerned about the environment, he or she will be willing to take on the financial burden if it applies. In other words, I feel that, in an effort to put to a halt or reverse environmental dangers, we all need to take the burden financially, not just the businesses themselves. We are all responsible for our environment, we should all share in the cost of a cleaner, safer environment.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.