This grocery store wants to fix capitalism

Groceries are getting much more expensive - but one Dutch organisation thinks they should cost even more to account for the environmental and social damage they cause.
Neighbourhood store De Aanzet in Amsterdam is the first in the world to implement “true pricing” - a system of extra charges for food products that reflect the negative impacts from their production, from underpaid workers to carbon emissions and land and water use. The lower the “true price” cost, the more sustainable a product is.
The idea is that by putting a price tag on the social and climate costs of our food, consumers and businesses can be nudged towards more sustainable choices.
But at a time when food prices around the world have been at near-record highs, is true pricing the solution to making our economic system fairer and greener?
We visited true prices store De Aanzet to find out.
Subscribe: www.bit.ly/3L0...
Watch more videos: www.bit.ly/3FP...
Visit our site: www.context.news/
-
We make short documentaries, explainers and original series for people who care about the world’s biggest challenges. Context is anchored around three of the most significant and interdependent issues of our time: climate change, the impact of technology on society and inclusive economies. We contextualize how critical issues and events affect ordinary people, society and the environment.
Context is a media platform brought to you by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the corporate foundation of Thomson Reuters, the global news and information services company. Through journalism, media development, free legal assistance, and convening initiatives, we combine our unique services to drive systemic change.

[@Context_news]

Would you pay true prices for your groceries if you had the chance? Let us know in the comments below. Thanks for watching! - Albert

[@kerguelen_cabbage]

Rather than philosophising over responsibility around reparations from developed countries, developing ones could ransom their political cooperation for the differences from true costs, which developed governments could deflect onto businesses. Businesses would be compelled to provide evidence that their negative externalities are less costly than whatever they're asked to pay - or so I'd like the fantasise.

[@loistverberg900]

So they are charging extra to reflect the true price, but not actually sending the extra money to the people who are shortchanged by the transaction? Doesn't that just mean they are pocketing the extra for themselves, or for the one local producer that sources them? It seems like a way to make a big profit while letting shoppers feel righteous. And no actual good is being done to those affected. Wow, very clever!!

[@kerguelen_cabbage]

Money representative of negative externalities is being used to get rid of them. Makes way more sense than hurting people then saying 'keep the change' How do you expect to trace such broad damages?

[@kerguelen_cabbage]

By trace I mean in terms of who should be payed reparations, as you suggest. You can measure the amount of damage produced, but in terms of where that damage lands that's really hard to tell - putting the money into reducing the damage produced on the first place is far more efficient

[@drwalka10]

@5:31 externalities aren’t recorded. So what data are you collecting my guy ? @5:46 NO ONE HAS COUNTED THEM my guy

[@kerguelen_cabbage]

I imagine it's normal that people take measurements to judge averages for research even without a company tracking every negative externality for each specific product, hence how they're getting their prices rn. In terms of theory for the future, if companies were motivated to provide evidence of their negative externalities being under a certain amount for example, they'd probably start taking measurements regularly through out the chain to track truer costs specific to the product being sold