Unless ethical shopping becomes embedded in legislation many will continue to buy at the lowest price

That is one approach. But historically we and other countries have favoured the opposite approach of regulating the producers to try to limit those effects. "The Polluter Pays principle", for example. Or requirements on fire safety in buildings to minimise one aspect of human cost. Animal welfare standards, and so on. These are regulations imposed on businesses that do increase their costs but we have as decided (we being the government, or the EU, or the local authority or whatever) that is the best way of sharing the cost-benefit.

This is why I am worried about "bonfire of the regulations" ideas. Certainly, they will typically reduce business costs. But that comes at an unstated price of risks, mainly to individual workers of customers.

Let me illustrate: there are regulations about fire doors in buildings like clubs. It is by no means rare to learn after a fire in such a building that the fire doors were chained shut. This happens because the fire doors are a potential way people can enter the clubs without paying, so to protect profits the more unscrupulous chain the doors (and unchain them when fire inspections take place.)

The regulation is there to protect. Faced with protecting people or protecting their profits, too many go for the profit. And the solution to this according to some? Get rid of the regulations.