What do Amazon, Tönnies and gorillas have in common? Exactly, in a competition for the most popular company of the year, the three companies would probably not take home a trophy. Not only, but also because of the way they deal with employees, the companies attract a lot of criticism. One drives his employees to high performance with sophisticated monitoring systems, the other lets Eastern European slaughterhouses live in collective shelters, and the third chases his bicycle couriers through the city with inadequate equipment, which is quite dangerous, especially in bad weather. If you ask around, you will hardly find anyone who says of their own accord: Books – only from Amazon! Schnitzel – only the cheapest! And if someone still wants two beers, they can have them brought to them at half past ten in the evening, on the fifth floor, in the rain.
It’s just funny that all three companies are reasonably successful in what they do, sometimes very successful. In this respect, they seem to be quite popular, even if many certainly do not want to identify themselves as customers. The dynamic behind it is always the same: If grievances in a company or in an entire industry they stand for become known, a consensus of social ostracism arises. And this is not only directed against the questionable companies, but inevitably also against their customers, who keep the business going. Consumers who know about the shortcomings but turn a blind eye when buying, therefore often wrestle with their guilty conscience. After all, they could just buy the gift in the nice little bookstore downtown or think about taking the beer with them in the supermarket.
But individual responsibility is a tricky business. The responsibility exists, no question about it, but it just doesn’t work. Because basically everyone is not only a consumer, but also a citizen. Unfortunately, only one of the two thinks about what their buying behavior will affect in the long term and which business models they support with it. The other person sits on the couch after a long day at work and then chooses the comfortable route again. The companies know this and make it easy for their customers to suppress reality with sophisticated image campaigns. The decision has to be made elsewhere if the working conditions are to really improve.
Similar questions arise in relation to climate, environmental and animal protection
There are plenty of examples to prove this. For years it was known under which inhumane conditions Eastern European workers toil in German slaughterhouses, including starvation wages and overtime (not to mention the suffering of the animals). Consumers just took it. It was only when the corona outbreaks in the accommodations endangered public safety that politicians reacted. At least the notorious works contracts have been a thing of the past this year, even if there are still shabby accommodations and many other things are still in a mess. But why is it even up to consumers to decide what is ethically justifiable and what is not? Of course, there are always economic arguments against better working conditions, in the end it is simply a cost factor. But too often these arguments are given in to instead of asking: Do you even want these jobs?
If a business model only works in such a way that the customer is ashamed of it, then perhaps it shouldn’t be allowed under these circumstances. Politicians would have to set clear minimum standards and ensure compliance with them much more often. So it is good that the EU now wants to strengthen the rights of so-called platform workers such as bicycle couriers. And it is good that the minimum wage of twelve euros comes for them too. But more will be needed than that. Similar questions arise in relation to climate, environmental and animal welfare. Here, too, political action does not release the individual from his or her responsibility. But politics shouldn’t leave it to him to decide what is and what is not. Because the consumer will not fix it.