&gt;but it&#x27;s easy to forget that there is a level of toxins that we prefer, over paying a lot more or not being able to have certain goods at all &#x2F;&#x2F;<p>Profit motive is the part you&#x27;ve missed out there. Often we could have the goods, with less toxic effluent produced, at the same price but with less profit to the capital holders. So yes whilst the poor could forgo more &quot;luxuries&quot; it would in general be far easier for those who are richer to forgo relatively extreme luxuries. The greatest impact is probably made from the top end. I can refuse to buy Nestle products forever but it doesn&#x27;t make a difference to Nestles terrible production and marketing practices at all - yet if one major shareholder takes the same stand then the ethics of the company can be changed rapidly.<p>In the UK we&#x27;ve seen some companies who appeared to be acting not only for profit taken over by larger international corporations that seem to seek nothing else - I&#x27;m thinking Cadbury taken over by Kraft - with [my perception being:] an immediate reduction in quality of produce, apparent manipulation of product weights (thinner bars of chocolate look the same size on the shelf; differently moulded bars have less chocolate but look the same size), apparent reduction in use of Fairtrade ingredients, increased prices. None of that needed to happen, Cadbury were profitable already. It&#x27;s not <i>just</i> down to the consumer; Kraft have after all reduced consumer choice with their takeover.<p>In general if companies with poor ethics get more profit (eg by abusing the environment) then those companies can forceably takeover companies with better ethics.