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...