Tasmanian Senator Colbeck wants to introduce a law to prevent boycotts of companies led by environmental groups. Such a move is an extraordinary illiberal attack on consumers’ rights
I have never met anyone who personally wants to kill an orangutan. Nor have I ever met anybody who prefers a complimentary side of dead dolphin with their tuna sandwich. The truth is, we want to be able to go about our ordinary business as consumers without inadvertently slaughtering wild animals or destroying their habitat.
But it seems that Tasmanian Liberal senator and parliamentary secretary to the minister for agriculture Richard Colbeck wants to deny us that choice. As has been widely reported this week, the Coalition government is considering changes to Australian law to prevent “secondary boycotts” of companies by environmental and consumer groups. This would significantly impede such groups trying to highlight bad business practice. In other words, senator Colbeck seems to want to keep Australian consumers in the dark.
Markets-based campaigns are often used by consumer and environmental groups. Such campaigns are highly effective because customers don’t generally want to buy products that unnecessarily harm the environment. But individuals do not always have the time or capacity to research every single product they buy – which is where environmental campaigners come in, providing data to inform purchasing decisions.
So for example in Australia this year, after markets pressure, virtually the entire tinned tuna industry converted to more sustainable catch methods to avoid unnecessary killing of marine wildlife. Also earlier this year, Asia Pulp and Paper – once the greatest destroyer of the orangutan and tiger rainforests in Indonesia – agreed to eliminate deforestation from its supply chains. The company then went on to publically thank Greenpeace for the exposure that led to the change being made. And the good news for Asia Pulp and Paper is that deserting consumers have flocked back once the company made credible commitments to cleaning up its supply chain.
Corporations generally don’t act out of the goodness of their hearts. Their purpose is to make a profit, and expecting them to do anything else is just wishful thinking. This analysis is neither radical nor anti-business; it is just recognising how commercial corporations are legally mandated to function. However, corporations may be prepared to change how they act when a change in information shifts the business environment. So while it may once have been “good business strategy” to buy the cheapest raw material at the expense of animals and landscapes, once the scandal is exposed the existing commercial logic is no longer sound.
But Colbeck seems to want to deny consumers information, which would ensure that unscrupulous commercial conduct continues.
