In this article, Jess Worth discusses the limitations of ethical consumerism.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with her views? How far do you think your society practises ethical consumerism?

Worth's argument that the efficacy of ethical consumerism peaks when there iscooperation amongst business and political leaders is broadly applicable in Singapore. However her sketchy explanations that firms are less inclined to omit environmentally damaging products and that firms are motivated to be environmentally friendly to survive in a climate that is not pro-business would not hold water in the Singaporean context.

Worth makes a timely and valid point in describing the effectiveness of ethical consumerism when there is a collaborative and well thought out process. An alteration of consumers' behavior and mentalities is required for the success of this policy. Legislative measures – tariffs, boycotts or bans of harmful products –deter any purchases that may compromise the environment and on the other end businesses and activist groups have campaigns that change the mentalities of these consumers. In Singapore, this is exemplified by the National Environmental Agency (NEA), a ministry in Singapore, working in tandem with hypermarkets like NTUC to roll out schemes such as the Green Reward Schemes. This incentivizes shoppers to bring along their own paper and reusable bags and make them refrain from using plastic bags; this earns them a 10 cent rebate each shopping trip. Activist groups such as Singapore Environmental Council have also made fervent attempts to educate the public of the benefits in using recyclable bags through campaigns such as “Bring your own bag day”. The collaborative effort was executed adroitly – NTUC has given out 600,000 dollars worth of rebates or saved 43 million bags in the process. There is a prevalence of many such initiatives in Singapore and this requires governmental outfits to be closely tethered to businesses and NGOs to continue the trend of success.

Worth asserts that corporations are motivated to be environmentally friendly sothat they can pre-empt and elude the legislation that would harm their profits. The claim while applicable to certain countries would be inapplicable to Singapore on two fronts. The United Kingdom's conservative party campaigned assiduously for and subsequently rolled out taxations on environmentally unfriendly products – Sports utility vehicles, which emit the most carbon dioxide hence contribute immensely to global warming, were slapped with hefty tariffs. However, green policies have not gained momentous traction in Singapore. While there are concerted efforts to be conserve the environment, the importance of having an attractive pro-business climate still precedes that concern. In the “Ease of Doing Business” index by the World Bank, Singapore has retained the top spot since 2006. Thus Singapore is still upholding its ethos of being a prime destination for businesses to set up shop; tightening regulations and hefty tariffs would conflict with that vision. Secondly, Singapore's economy is not powered by manufacturing industries. In manufacturing hubs such as China, there is a perpetuating problem of air and water quality. Factories emit high level of smog and discharge toxic waste. Eco-

taxes, bans and a plethora of other legislative measures would be required to curb such practices. However, Singapore's major industries – financial services (legal and accounting), biomedicine and semi conductors – do not contribute adversely to the environment. Thus Worth's view may be true in certain countries but such a scenario has not manifested in Singapore yet.

Worth is haphazard in assuming that companies do not omit environmentally harmful products because it contravenes the profit making objective. Ironically,omitting these products would cause a surge in profits for corporations that operate on a smaller scale. They differentiate their products from those on the market with a distinction of being environmentally friendly. This targets a niche market of conscientious consumers. In Singapore, we have brands such as Etrican and BGO – local fashion labels that incorporate organic cotton into their clothing. Furthermore, with the advent of technology such as web hosting advertisements, these labels have a platform to showcase their fashion line. In Singapore, GreenStore.sg is a website that shortlists eco-friendly companies and displays the stores' products. Sales have soared through the roofs with the proliferation of such companies and the promotion that they get from the website. Thus it is myopic for us to conclude that companies are disregarding profit margins as a result of excluding harmful products.

To conclude, if there is unity when tackling environmental degradation, Singapore would be able to overcome such an ailing problem. However, the current trajectory of Singapore suggest that the tightening of regulations and laws for business practices would be unrealistic.