Maybe we'd make more progress if we stopped denigrating people for trying to do what they can. It may not be enough, but at least some people are trying to do _something_. But when you put people down this way, it makes them less likely to do anything, because no one wants to be labeled as vacuous and superficial (AKA "hipster").
I've been surprised, at times, that others can interpret this personal decision about my own behavior and beliefs as some "social cudgel" that I am wielding against them. I guess it doesn't take much to leap from "oh, are you a vegetarian?" to "you must think eating meat is unethical," to "you must think I'm evil for eating this burger," to "annoying snobby vegetarians, always acting superior and rubbing it in your nose."
Anyway. That hipster buying his fair-trade coffee might not be doing it to insult you. It might be something he's read about, thought about, and decided he cares about. He might figure that mostly it's an empty gesture, but maybe it'll do some good. If you want to buy some other coffee, he might be totally OK with that. Of course, YMMV.
That said, I think the "socially-conscious hipster" is less likely to be vegetarian or vegan and more likely to buy "free range" eggs and eat "happy meat". The thing that makes them hipsters is their lack of commitment and their willingness to abandon the position once something more hip comes along.
Some people do care. Enough for an ever-growing range of products that are part of the Fairtrade scheme.
In the UK, the Fairtrade logo is almost universally recognised by consumers because you can find fair trade products in just about every supermarket (obviously the number of products varies by supermarket, but even discount Supermarkets like Lidl and Aldi stock a few items).
One major supermarket in the UK (Sainsbury's) sources all it's bananas under the fair trade scheme.
Fair trade has its critics and perhaps the scheme fails at times to live up to its ideals, but it's still a scheme worthy of support. And I'm glad it's going strong (at least in the UK - I think other countries have their own versions).
Here's an excellent blog post from the Fairtrade foundation on some common misconceptions about fair trade
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/media-centre/blog/2015/july/d...
The same regulatory policy regularly subverted by small bribes in the article?
Also, couldn't small bribes also be a problem in things like fair trade certification?
well, except that in a way.. regulation comes from the government, which is the collective us. I prefer that the government spends some money to work out what regulation would be useful so that the collective us can spend our money on fairly traded goods (as an example) rather than every person in the collective having to do that research constantly to overcome the hard sell and marketing lies that are produced to facilitate somebody making a quick buck and externalising costs which I wouldn't otherwise wish to pay.
As an example, if the government says that in truth, gravestones imported from India are largely produced by slave labor and then it refuses to admit them into the country. That means, that when my relative died and I am not really in a frame of mind to research the supply chain of the headstones and the sellers lay on the hard sell, I can still be assured that I am not funding this terrible system. I would welcome that..
You can't depend on people to do the right thing. That's why we have laws. International labor laws will hopefully one day become a thing. In the meantime we have trade agreements. We shouldn't allow import of slave produced goods to western societies. IMHOP.