It is a difficult feat to find somebody who openly opposes basic human rights, because, as it turns out, most people enjoy having freedom. So, carry this conviction into the marketplace and take notice of rampant, unjust practices that are meant to obtain maximum profit at the expense of other humans’ well-being. For instance, the non-profit Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights noted a report from May of ongoing worker abuse at the fast fashion brand H&M’s supplier factories, corroborated by interviews with factory workers in Cambodia and India. This is not the first time the company has been exposed for such mistreatment: A 2018 report from the worker rights organization Global Labor Justice detailed gender threats and abuse of more than 540 H&M and Gap factory workers. Despite H&M’s announcements after this incident that it had improved working conditions, the company still continues its unethical practices, with many other reports and scholarly articles denoting the same abuses. These kinds of human rights violations continue in the factories of countless other brands, such as SHEIN, which uncovered two instances of child labor in 2023, according to the company’s own sustainability report.
These inhumane working conditions, which cut costs to increase company profits, are the unfortunate source of the lower market prices that catch a consumer’s eager eye. The capacity to reassess this trade-off of ethical practices against monetary gain is a privilege that anyone financially stable enough has and should make use of.
Of course, not everyone makes regular purchases from certain unethical brands. There are undoubtedly many who have never even bought a single item from at least one of them. However, that does not absolve them of the responsibility to research the ethics of the companies they do purchase from. While it is the duty of corporations to prioritize preserving ethics in their practices, it is also the duty of the consumer to educate themselves about where they shop and to make decisions applying that information accordingly, based on a personal moral compass. Buying from a brand provides it with funds not only to support company ventures, but also to financially back organizations that promote certain principles through donations. Therefore, if one does not agree with the principles fiscally supported by a corporation, they should boycott brands to pause personal funding.
Brands are defined by more than just their products — the political affiliations they carry shape the values they project. The current United States administration has severely dismantled long-standing policies for diversity, equity and inclusion, threatening the livelihoods of numerous marginalized groups. In either compliance with these executive orders or anticipation of future ones, powerful companies like Amazon, Target, Walmart and many others have pulled back on their DEI policies, capitulating to and therefore assisting the government in its attempts to hinder the accessibility of financial stability for communities of color.
Certain companies, such as Palantir Technologies, Forensic Logic and again, Amazon, have even helped Immigration and Customs Enforcement track down undocumented immigrants by sharing sensitive data about their customers. Many technology corporations, Palantir in particular, have also signed active contracts with the government agency to carry out this tracking. A general lack of consumer awareness around collaboration with such groups is concerningly widespread. Per an annual conscious consumer spending Index by socially responsible marketing agency Good. Must. Grow., while 64% of surveyed consumers believed buying from socially conscious companies to be important, 28% of respondents could not name a single socially conscious company. This only further stresses the importance of researching the brands one purchases from, and more specifically, where the money spent goes.
This social sensibility is especially crucial now, in times where society has become desensitized to violations of basic human rights. Namely, the attacks on undocumented people by ICE agents have increasingly been rooted in discrimination rather than genuine, reasonable suspicion, leading to an epidemic of immigrant abuse. In August, an investigation led by U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff exposed immigration detention facilities in 25 states to have had 41 cases of physical and sexual abuse, 14 of which involved pregnant detainees and 18 of which involved children. Additionally, after the Supreme Court overturned an order on Sept. 8 that had blocked ICE from basing detainment on race and language in the Los Angeles area, racial profiling has only become more uncontrolled.
Protesters across the country have condemned these injustices, establishing their stance opposite to where the aforementioned brands have placed themselves. In their activism, they have called for boycotts of companies not acting in socially responsible ways, encouraging everyone in favor of social justice to stop funding organizations against it. It is up to each consumer to make this decision for themselves and commit to a cause — whether that be for social justice or a different ethical value — and express their principles by either boycotting a brand or showing it continued support.
That is not to say, however, that the best approach to “voting with your dollar” is to just pause all purchases from a brand upon learning by word of mouth that its ethics do not align with closely held moral values. Always do personal research to cross-check information, as being accurately informed is just as much part of a consumer’s responsibility as it is to cut off “bad brands.” After all, every company has its flaws — consumers must weigh out and compare the pros and cons of policies from multiple brands, deciding who to give their money to based on a “lesser of two evils” mindset rather than an extremist black-and-white mentality.
Given the power, influence and scale of these extensive companies, many feel intimidated, thinking that individual actions are pointless. But most major movements have humble beginnings; they start with small acts of protest that eventually build up to big changes. Look at the 20 years of anti-sweatshop campaigning against Nike as an example. This worker’s rights movement has gradually built up to a major activist movement since the 1990s, with the protests of this campaign forcing Nike to go from denying responsibility for any malpractice in its factories to operating with significantly more transparency. Although it took two decades, these protests ultimately paid off — creating major positive change for Nike factory workers.
Just 25% of people need to take action for social change to occur, according to a 2018 paper by sociologist and University of Pennsylvania professor Damon Centola — so yes, individual actions do matter. But even without the numbers, “voting with your dollar” is not about guaranteed outcomes, but rather integrity. Giving up before even trying to create change is arguably more of a failure than being unsuccessful in an attempt. Choosing to act on principle, even when change feels utterly impossible, transforms impossibility into reality, laying the groundwork for a fuller, more ethical future.
