Ethical decision-making in consumption choices and corporate sustainability practices

Personal Consumption:

Question 1: The ethics of my individual consumer choice from a personal perspective

Although I might not always succeed, my individual consumer choices are guided by a desire to act responsibly. I try to select products that do the least harm to the environment. I always try to make a little waste. My actions always reflect fairness towards workers and the environment. I really think about how much I buy, wondering if I truly need something, and looking at all the effects of my purchase, not just what’s easy for me. At the same time, I know that sometimes I have to select things that are not as good for the environment. I do not have much money or better options. Basically, my beliefs focus on balancing my personal needs with a commitment to reducing the bad effects on society and the environment.

Question 2:

When I consider consuming resources, the ethical principles that are most relevant to me are acting responsibly. I always try to protect possessions and divide things equally. These principles are key because of how people everywhere use resources, which shows that one person's actions can create issues for everyone. The average person wastes 30% of the food they purchase. Global food waste produces 8-10% of the total greenhouse gases. Therefore, using resources wisely is morally correct, not a personal preference. Protecting our stewardship becomes crucial when the world’s freshwater demand is expected to exceed availability by 40% by 2030 (openknowledge, 2025). It signifies that if we do not conserve water daily, we increase future water scarcity. Sharing fairly impacts my perspective because some people have far more resources than others. The richest 10% of the global population produce almost 50% carbon emissions worldwide (Gore, 2020). Poorer countries face the worst climate change consequences. These principles really make me consider whether my choices improve or worsen these inequalities. It signifies that using resources is a moral decision rather than a neutral routine.

Question 3:

Ethical Dilemmas Encountered

A frequent issue for me involves selecting between buying items that do not have a high price, and the production method does not harm the environment. It has been noticed that many low-cost goods are associated with significant carbon emissions. It uses excessive water and treats its employees unfairly. Another difficult issue arises regarding the quantity of energy consumed (Niinimäki et al. 2020, p.90). I frequently depend on practices that are convenient but consume a lot of energy. I use an air conditioner in summer for my comfort, and I frequently use disposable products in coffee shops. I know very well that global energy consumption is increasing and harming the environment. These scenarios force me to carefully consider whether to prioritize convenience and affordability. It is more important than considering the broader consequences for the environment and the community.

What I did

I put different plans into action to handle these tough problems. I began to get a lower number of items that were of better quality to create less waste and not support unethical work conditions. I also changed to using bags, water containers, and food containers that could be reused to lessen the disposable materials. I became more conscious of electricity use by limiting unnecessary appliances. Although I still make mistakes, these actions reflect my effort to balance personal needs with ethical responsibility.

Question 4:

Decisions and their global impacts

I think a lot about how the things we select, like our food, power, and shopping, affect the world. What we choose to eat, as an example, relates to problems everywhere, such as pollution from farms, land use, and water shortages. Buying new clothes affects a huge amount of material that’s thrown away, and how people are treated where those clothes are made (Vandenbroucke et al. 2023, p.89). The energy I use every day is closely associated with the amount of carbon released into the air around the world, leading to changes in the climate.

Effect on my decision-making process

When I actively examine global impacts, I make more responsible decisions. I buy fewer unnecessary products and avoid food waste. I always choose energy-efficient solutions because I realize the long-term impacts. When I neglect or forget about these global consequences, I make less sustainable decisions. This demonstrates that knowledge strongly influences my behavior. But a lack of awareness frequently leads to decisions that contribute to environmental disturbance.

Corporate Consumption:

Question 5:

Example of corporate sustainability Choice

A great example of a company making a sustainable choice is Nike's commitment to using recycled polyester. It reduces carbon emissions across its supply chain. Nike shared that they have reached a point where they put recycled parts in more than 70% of the things they now sell (Niskanen, 2019, p.189). It reduces their waste materials, along with lower dependence on plastic.

Ethical Implications of the Decision

The ethical questions of this choice mostly deal with the way companies should care for the environment. Nike's choice to use recycled items indicates there is a use of less plastic waste. They also use less energy to create new things (Shulman, 2024, p.98). This also allows customers to know that the company understands its effect on the environment. Looking at this ethically, it creates trust and strengthens the idea of reducing damage while promoting long-term sustainability across the industry.

How Consumption practices influence the decision

Nike's handling of resources, especially its large use of materials, water, and energy, is very important for becoming more sustainable. Nike makes so many clothes and shoes each year. When Nike uses recycled stuff to make its products, it helps us use fewer natural resources. Their action produces fewer pollutants and helps with sustainability. It also provides business stability.

Question 6:

How the code addressed the global environment in the past

It has been noticed that Nike’s earlier code of ethics mainly focused on labor rights and their factory condition. This company offers only limited guidance on its environmental protection. They treated environmental concerns as secondary (Samson, 2025, p.195). They mostly focus on obeying the rules and handling trash in a basic way. Sustainability was not yet a major part of the company’s ethical framework.

How the code has been updated throughout the years

As people around the world became more aware of environmental problems. Nike made its code wider to include getting materials in a responsible way. They make fewer carbon emissions, using safer materials and setting targets to reduce waste. These updates clearly support actions that Nike use recycled polyester. It shows Nike is working toward sustainability in its ethical standards.  

Reference List

Gore, T. (2020). Confronting carbon inequality. Oxfam International.

Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., & Gwilt, A. (2020). The environmental price of fast fashion. Nature reviews earth & environment, 1(4), 189-200.

Niskanen, H. (2019). Sustainability in the sporting goods industry: How Nike, Adidas and Puma have developed company sustainability.

openknowledge (2025). The State of Food and Agriculture Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction Retrieved from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/11f9288f-dc78-4171-8d02-92235b8d7dc7/content [Retrieved on: 04.12.2025]

Samson, V. (2025). Nike and Industry 4.0: Driving Innovation, Efficiency, and Sustainability. Current Research in Next Generation Materials Engineering, 1(2), 1-4.

Shulman, S. (2024). Corporate sustainability due diligence: Combining human rights and the environment. Colum. J. Env't L., 49, 479.

Vandenbroucke, S. E. M., Erkens, M. Y. H. G., Groot, C. D., & van Oostrum, C. H. A. (2023). Codes of conduct, a tool to regulate supply chain labor practices?. M.. HG Erkens, C. de Groot, & CH. an Oostrum (Eds.), 31-46.