Buy better, buy less?

One of the things that horrifies me (both in myself and in others) is when I see (or feel) lustful urges to just consume, consume, consume...whether it be food, clothing, anything really.

Now, before you start shouting and accusing me of being all judgey - I'm only talking in extremes here. I like a treat as much as the next girl - croissant, lipstick, new pair of socks with kissing hedgehogs on them...oh, only me?  BUT (and stick with me here, as it's an ideal I've never achieved) if we were forced to buy good quality at a significantly higher price, would we actually begin to buy less (in volume)??? Or would that compulsive sensation take over and, combined with higher expenditure, only result in monumental broke-ness and menacing calls from your bank manager? Does anyone actually have a bank manager these days, with a real name and a face and a voice you can hear if you call them?

Tricky. I wonder?

That said, there are many out there that don't get the overpowering desire to have 'stuff'.

These people confuse and scare me.

Please, teach me your ways...?

Home or away?

If you source locally, are you taking business away from those in poorer countries who may need the income more? Or is your responsibility to local (in this case UK) suppliers in a bid not only to maintain our industries but also to reduce the impact on the environment? And by boycotting those companies that exploit said suppliers in far flung places are you making a point that will lead them to pulling their socks up, or merely to abandoning them entirely?

This conundrum has always genuinely bewildered me, and I regularly ask others their opinions (although rather irritatingly, no doubt, you can always point out the counter-argument to EVERY valid point that can be made).

Behind this is the assumption that the purchaser will have the disposable cash to actually pay more for local (almost always the case). For those that can't afford to pay more, are they doomed to buying goods/services that are cheap and exploitative...?

Does fashion DIY tarnish my ethical halo?

I love fashion DIY - I get to be creative, produce something unique, and try to re-use materials that might otherwise be binned. Pretty good ethical credentials, surely? Brands are increasingly communicating what they are doing (or trying to do) about working conditions in their supply chain, but how many of you ask where those zips were sourced or how much was paid to the person that dyed those feathers, or grew the cotton that ends up on your carefully chosen reel? It is right here that even the most advanced corporate CR falters - getting full visibility all the way down the entire supply chain is almost impossible when you start to try and track every component. All of this may go through an agent or supplier that cannot or won't give details of where their materials are from, and who supplied their suppliers; who mixes the dyes, where the raw materials came from to make the dyes. Tier 2 visibility and beyond is like a never ending ripple outwards (or backwards). So, moral dilemma - do you stick with the big brands that you think put the effort into getting this visibility, or support smaller businesses that often provide more varied and exciting stock but may not ask the questions and wouldn't have the power to effect any change? Where does this leave my industrious halo? I'll have to keep digging on this one, but these kinds of thing don't change overnight sadly...

Are bikers all bad?

I am the last member of my family to get my motorbike license, but get it I will! When I do, will I be joining a group with a seriously dirty habit?

Wanting to pass my test poses something of a moral / environmental dilemma for me. Well, more precisly getting a motorbike does, but what is the point in passing my test if I don't invest in a bike? Back to the more pertinent dilemma. Gas. Or more precisely, petrol. Can I justify swapping my lengthy public transport commute for a speedy motorbike? My route is downright dangerous for bikers, so that's a no. Just for fun? Cue endless guilt about needless (and expensive, let's not forget!) fuel going down the metaphorical drain. F1 makes me shudder - vast amounts of fuel and money being burnt with a bit of demeaning female 'glamour' thrown in. That said, I love to drive fast and would give anything to drive the Nurburgring.

If a motorbike was to replace my car (more environmental shame) there are immediate stumbling blocks. Limited space for passengers, human or feline. Minimal space for luggage, which can be tricky on long journeys (my norm is c.4-5 hours on clear roads), and to start with I wouldn't have the experience to stay on that long. So where does that leave me? Not a clue...

There we have it - I am a hypocrite and my contradicting feelings/beliefs have left my head stuck in the sand.

So where is the magical tipping point when an individual will modify their behaviour...?

Is Christmas' halo tainted?

My sister loves fairy lights. As in, she would live in a fairy land lit only by little twinkly lights forever if she could. Especially if you threw in a unicorn for good measure, preferably delivered by warship. It makes sense, in that case, that she loves Christmas for all its accompanying twinkly decorations.  So I knew my opinions had had an effect on someone when, a few years ago, she admitted that the first thing she thought when the Oxford Circus lights were switched on was that it was a waste of electricity.

Oops (for stealing part of her Christmas joy) and yet hurray (for her thinking about the impact of energy use that is essentially only decorative). I am cautious of sounding like Scrooge and a hypocrite at a time of year when joy, generosity and love for others should dominate, but I wonder should I be trying to make my Christmas more responsible, more sustainable? What with all of the cards, wrapping paper, gifts that may end up in the bin or cluttering a dark cupboard, and all the extra travel, that makes for some pretty heavy consumption.

A lot of this I wouldn't dream of giving up - showing someone that you care should never be bumped down the priority list. But it does make me think about the areas I could cut back on. Reuse wrapping paper, public transport or car sharing, asking people what they want rather than buying a gift they'll never use. Eating less food...erm, do I have to do that one? Doesn't the January diet balance it out?! This is a classic example of me being genuinely concerned, but like many people I don't quite know how to tackle the problem and am probably too lazy too.

Oh dear, that's a bit of a downer to start 2013 with. Better start thinking some happy thoughts...x

The Big Turn Off: 'professionalising' charities

If you ever over hear someone from 'business' say that charities need to become more 'professional', the immediate bristling response from said charity bods is almost audible. Imagine frozen lemon slices magically appearing in c-bods' mouths. And fair enough, really - it smacks of being told you are unprofessional, not good at your job. This rarely goes down well, least of all with those who do their job because they genuinely care and not for the end of year bonus they will never get.

That said, I do see where businesses are coming from too (can't resist straddling a fence when I see one). Constant - and arguably increasing - begging bowls from innumerable worthy causes that tug at your heart strings but give you no real link to your business, service or product, employees, customers, current agenda, or ideas on possible new initiatives or collaborations could drive anyone to distraction. I know, constraints on time and resource make it tricky to tailer every bid or request, but there must be some middle ground?

I heard some great advice yesterday, however, that got me thinking. It went like this. Charities need to realise that they are (or should be) the experts in their area. Corporates will pay generously for services such as employee training and development, team building, market research, product innovation - is this not exactly what an expert can provide? Charities' IP can be just as valuable as other 'professional' service providers, and this often untapped resource is worth paying for. This spurred me to realise that corporates need to get out of the mindframe that because it is a charity you are dealing with they should do it for free out of the kindness of their hearts.

The moment was somewhat spoiled by someone piping up that they would advise all charities to stop asking for money, full stop. Hmm, yes. Well. With no money to pay employees, there would be nobody there to do the asking, so I see what you did there you cheeky monkey. I get your point, but you over-cooked it a little. Kind of like 'positive' (pah!) discrimination - please don't take a good point and ruin it for the rest of us...

CSR goes kite surfing

My heart literally leapt for joy when I recently had a quick check on Acre's news summary and saw this - a German based company is using kite surfing as inspiration to create new technology that harnesses wind energy in a more efficient way than turbines.

GET IN. Work time passion combined with play time obsession.

Apparently the energy harnessed by kites increases eight times over when wind power increases only twice. Sounds like a pretty good investment return! Although remote controlled (and soon to be computer controlled - eek!) kites attached to 700m long cables conjures some VERY weird images in my head.

Kite surfing seems to be everywhere, even more so than  normal of late, what with its entry into the 2016 Olympics (kite racing, mind, which is rather different to what you'll see on your typical coastal windy day). Not surprising for a sport that has been, I believe, the fastest growing in the world for some years now. This news is awesome enough to prompt me out of my rather negligent absence from wittering on about CR. Oops. Too much time being dragged around the water by a kite attached to a paltry sounding 25 metres worth of lines...