consumer boycott essay

Consumer Boycotts’ Impact on Brands Essay

Introduction, consumer boycotts are effective, consumer boycotts are not effective.

Residents of the United States are ready to refuse products for any reason. Harsh statements by top managers, low salaries, or the use of harmful products are the most popular reasons for customers to stop buying products. This often has the effect of managers apologizing for the company’s decisions or abandoning their ideas. However, there are also moments when the effect is quite the opposite.

The consumer boycott is often associated with the economic impact on the brand. However, as it will be noted later, this is an ineffective method. Thus, it is worth noting that a boycott should not always be aimed at reducing the company’s profit. Sometimes it is more effective to attack the brand image. Indeed, the more social networks and the media discuss it in a negative way, the more likely it is that the company’s management will change course (Beck, 2019). There is an economic reason for this: studies claim that the share price of a particular company declined every day when the media mentioned a boycott of this brand’s products (Beck, 2019). However, if the goal of the boycotters is to force the company to reconsider its views, then this approach can be called successful.

For example, such a situation happened with Nike in the nineties. The brand of clothing and sporting goods on the rights of a monopolist mercilessly exploited workers in developing countries and answered activists’ questions that they were not involved in this (Birch, 2016). The campaign against Nike became so large-scale that it even affected the brand’s sales, prompting Nike to abandon the sweatshop system of work (Birch, 2016). The American brand still has gaps in ethical reports. It does not make its supply chain and production completely transparent. However, this still does not compare with the beginning of the nineties when production ethics were not even out of the question.

Refusing to make purchases is a common practice for those who want to emphasize their disagreement with specific decisions of managers and employees of the brand. The cases with various companies show how solid and substantial public condemnation can be for an entrepreneur (Watson, 2015). Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between a small family business, where almost every client is essential, and the market’s giants. In this case, it becomes a challenging task to affect the performance of the company significantly.

Actions should confirm the intentions of the boycott: it is difficult to prove a consumer’s determination if it does not go beyond words. This is the reason why boycotts are always difficult to be carried out: over time, the number of people inevitably decreases, and information guides are forgotten (Friedman, 2001). However, even if all these conditions are met, there is no guarantee that everything will work out. An example is the boycott of Nestle, which has been going on for more than forty years, but it is difficult to talk about the results of which, even after almost half a century.

It should be understood whether the Nestle boycott can be considered effective. From an economic point of view, it is unlikely: the company’s revenues are estimated at billions of dollars, today Nestle is one of the wealthiest companies in its segment (Mihai, 2021). However, the widespread and, importantly, negative-public attention made it possible to achieve essential decisions on the ethics of advertising breast milk substitutes on the issue of the easy availability of these substitutes and their actual and potential impact on children. If people take these changes as a starting point, then the Nestle boycott, of course, can bring the solution of all these crucial issues closer.

If a person decides to boycott Nestle, then they need to stop buying any of the company’s products, and this is an impressive list of brands. Certainly, people can find a replacement for each of them for the same money, but the search takes time and desire. It is difficult for customers to change their buying habits, and most people are more concerned about the price-quality ratio than questions of production ethics.

Beck, V. (2019). Consumer boycotts as instruments for structural change. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36 (4), 543-559. Web.

Birch, S. (2016). How activism forced Nike to change its ethical game. The Guardian . Web.

Friedman, M. (2001). Ethical dilemmas associated with consumer boycotts. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32 (2), 232–240.

Mihai, A. (2021). Why Nestle is one of the most hated companies in the world. ZME Science . Web.

Watson, B. (2015). Do boycotts really work? . The Guardian . Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, November 7). Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands. https://ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/

"Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands." IvyPanda , 7 Nov. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands'. 7 November.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands." November 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/.

1. IvyPanda . "Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands." November 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands." November 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/.

• The Article "Cesar Chavez Begins 7-Week Tour of US"
• The USA: From Reconstruction to Civil Rights, 1877 - 1981
• African-Americans Social Reform
• Purchase of Fast Fashion Clothing and Ethical & Personal Values
• Generational Difference in Shopping Methods
• The Covid-19 Pandemic’s Impact on People’s Buying Behaviors
• Should You Less Consume To Be Happy
• Analysis Relation Between Buyers Market and Generations

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• Home Planet
• 2024 election
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

Shopping has become a political act. Here’s how it happened.

Consumer activism and conscious consumerism mean more people are buying from brands they agree with — and boycotting ones they don’t.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Shopping has become a political act. Here’s how it happened.

In August, it was SoulCycle and Equinox . The month prior, Home Depot . Back in 2017, L.L.Bean . These are only a few of the companies to ignite the collective ire of progressive consumers over corporate ties to Trump. In the case of the boutique fitness studios, it was a Trump fundraiser hosted by their majority stake investor Stephen M. Ross; with the home improvement chain, it was co-founder Bernie Marcus’s promise to donate to Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign; with the duck boot and outdoor apparel brand, it was Bean descendant and board member Linda Lorraine Bean’s $60,000 donation to Trump super PAC Making America Great Again, LLC (itself a violation of the Federal Election Commission’s permitted donor limit of $5,000).

For Americans opposed to Trump’s policies — from the inhumane treatment and targeting of detained migrants , to detrimental inaction on climate change , to refusal to regulate guns in the wake of unprecedented mass shootings — shopping at retailers connected to the celebrity-entrepreneur-turned-sitting-president is tantamount to hypocrisy.

Calls to boycott Trump-tainted brands stretch back to the #GrabYourWallet movement that began in the wake of the 2016 election. Organizers Shannon Coulter and Sue Atencio turned outrage into action with a spreadsheet of companies linked to Trump or the Trump family, both explicitly (Trump owned) and implicitly (Trump funders, Trump brand sellers), detailing why those companies are on the list and what they need to do to get off it. “The goal,” Coulter told the New York Times , “came originally from a place of really wanting to shop the stores we loved again with a clear conscience.”

Of course, boycott calls are not unique to Trump’s critics; Trump himself is an avid boycotter , and his MAGA fans follow suit . Nor are boycott calls unique in the Trump era. Consumers have long registered their disapproval of businesses’ practices by refusing to shop them and calling on others to do the same, dating back to this country’s birth (and further back elsewhere in the world, like in ancient Greece and early Christianity, in the form of organized ostracism).

What do you get when consumers takes action? Consumer activism. And by the inverse action, consumers are shopping alternative products and companies that complement their worldview more now than ever before — particularly when it comes to combating climate change. Sustainability-tinged consumer activism is a new flavor of an old tactic, one that falls under the umbrella of what we now call conscious consumerism.

Consumer activism can take the shape of two diametrically opposed actions — buying en masse and boycotting en masse — that are after the same goal

“[Consumer activism is] either grassroots collective organization of consumption or its withdrawal,” explains Lawrence Glickman, an American historian at Cornell University and author of Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism .

Meaning, it’s “Buy Nike!” to express support of Colin Kaepernick’s 2018 pick as brand ambassador following his kneeled protest against police brutality targeting people of color and his collusion lawsuit against the NFL . It’s also, “ Boycott Nike !” and even, “ #BurnYourNikes !” to express outrage over “when somebody disrespects our flag,” as Trump put it in 2017, supposedly provoked by Kaepernick’s peaceful demonstration.

View this post on Instagram @adamcalhoun1 is the man. He’s not afraid to be blunt and show his patriotism and show what a real man is in this world full of pussified people. We need more of this. #fucknike #dontsupportnike #boycottnike #nikeboycott #fuckthenfl #patriot #patriots #adamcalhoun #acal #crazywhiteboy #crazywhiteboytour #wesupportlawenforcement #wesupportthepolice #blueline #supporttheblue #rhec #rhecnation #rednecknation #rednecks A post shared by Oldschoolrooster (@oldschoolrooster) on Aug 12, 2019 at 7:55am PDT

Calls to boycott, though, are a heck of a lot more visible on social media than are rally cries to pledge brand support. Glickman writes in Buying Power that two-thirds of Americans take part in at least one boycott a year.

Boycotts stem from anger. Anger spreads faster and farther on social media than any other emotion, as uncovered by computer scientists at China’s Beihang University and reported by MIT Technology Review . And there are many, many ongoing and overlapping boycotts at any given time. AP News even has a feed to track boycotts worldwide.

Consumer activism, boycotts included, puts power in the hands of the people — ”or at least they think it is,” adds Glickman.

We boycotted before there was even a word for it

“Boycotts are as American as apple pie,” #GrabYourWallet co-founder and digital strategist Coulter told Fast Company in 2017, referring to the Boston Tea Party’s 1773 dump of British imports that precipitated the American Revolutionary War. Colonists had boycotted British tea for several years by then; “No taxation without representation,” they demanded. Refusing to purchase British tea was a pointed way to voice their mounting resentment of their decidedly un-independent status. Short of revolt, it was the only power they had — until, of course, they revolted.

Glickman dates the boycott much further back: to ancient Greece. Expedition Magazine cites the city of Athens’ historic boycott of the Olympic Games in 332 BCE as a key turning point. The city had incurred a massive fine after its endorsed athlete attempted, and failed, to fix a match, and refused to attend the games in protest unless the charges were dropped. (They weren’t, and Athens eventually relented.)

The term “boycott” didn’t emerge, however, until 1880, in Ireland. Captain Charles Boycott was a British land agent in County Mayo — and “ the man who became a verb! ” — whose evictions “were many and bloody,” as described by IrishCentral. After Boycott attempted to evict another 11 tenants, the Land League (an Irish political organization of the 1800s that rallied in aid of poor farmworkers) convinced Boycott’s employees to walk out and compelled the community to, essentially, ice him out. Shops and the like refused to do business with him, the post stopped his mail. He left Ireland humiliated.

Boycotts are employed the world over, and not all of them are about consumerism. Just last month, tens of thousands of students in Hong Kong boycotted the first day of school as part of ongoing protests over an extradition bill that could send Hong Kong citizens to China, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a boycott of the Israeli TV channel that co-produced the HBO show Our Boys , and Sweden’s top female hockey players are boycotting the national team over unfair pay and poor working conditions.

Still, there is a certain Americanness to the ubiquity of the boycott today. Take #GrabYourWallet, which at present calls for boycotts of 31 different companies (not including subsidiaries or partners), five over their Stephen M. Ross connections. Says Glickman, Americans “didn’t invent [the boycott], but the frequency with which we use it is somewhat exceptional.”

Consumer activism in 2019 is not a whole lot different from consumer activism in the 1840s — except when it comes to the causes

“A lot of people think that what we’re seeing now is new,” says Glickman. “But there are a lot of parallels with history.” Particularly, America’s history of slavery and abolitionism.

The Free Produce Movement, led by Quaker abolitionists in the 1840s through the Civil War, hinged on boycotting goods made by enslaved people, cotton key among them. Buying these products, as far as Free Produce stalwarts were concerned, was analogous to supporting slavery outright.

The issues are different today, but the strategy remains the same: Vote with your dollar and don’t contribute a cent to the bottom line of companies whose values don’t align with your own. Says Glickman, “That fundamental question of, ‘No one stands outside of moral problems, that we’re all implicated in [them]’ — that’s the essence of consumer activism.”

Voting with your dollar doesn’t just mean not spending your dollars in problematic places (i.e. Amazon , Wayfair , etc.); it also means supporting companies that practice what they preach, both by way of their company culture and by what they sell. Conscious consumerism drives at that very point, particularly when it comes to “voting” for sustainability and humane working conditions.

Says the Nation’s Willy Blackmore of the boycott’s antebellum lineage, where abolitionists bought wool over cotton and maple sugar over cane:

The same thinking—that it’s better to buy products that we believe are made without exceptional suffering—animates some contemporary conscious consumerism. The desire to minimize the harm we cause as consumers has led to a variety of fluffy marketing terms as well as third-party verification organizations, so you can buy everything from cruelty-free makeup to Fair Trade food products.

Conscious consumerism (alternatively called ethical consumption) is today’s catchall to cover consumer dollars invested in a host of progressive values: worker rights, animal rights, low-carbon footprint, recycled and/or renewable materials, organic, local, etc. — your fair-trade fashion, your greenhouse-gas-cutting Ikea , your metal straw. It’s a term that’s caught on in the last 10 years, but it was not only predated by the green consumerism of the 1990s , it’s also the driving argument behind all consumer activism from the tea-in-the-harbor get-go.

What is newish, however, is the phenomenon of sustainable shopping and widespread availability of ethically made, eco-friendly goods — where consumers concerned about climate change, for instance, “live their values” vis a vis their plastic-free purchases.

“It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when we saw consumers trying to make positive environmental change in their shopping,” says Emily Huddart Kennedy, University of British Columbia sociologist and author of Putting Sustainability into Practice: Applications and Advances in Research on Sustainable Consumption. Data analytics company Nielsen called 2018 “The Year of the Influential Sustainable Consumer,” adding that “it’s soon to be the decade of the sustainable shopper.” Sustainable product sales reached $128.5 billion in 2018, up 20 percent from four years prior; Nielsen projects 2021 to cash in on $150 billion worth of sustainability sales.

There are several theories, says Kennedy, on what caused the shift, including mistrust in government to adequately address climate change and the growing “sense of doing something in the face of these huge sustainability crises,” as she puts it. Kennedy’s research has shown that conscious consumerism’s popularity can also be tied to its elite nature — in part because of high price tags, in part because of championing among celebrities, in part because of its en vogueiness, “it’s seen as a ‘high-class’ thing to do.”

Consuming consciously is aspirational, both for individuals and for the planet. University of Toronto sociologist Josée Johnston, a colleague of Kennedy’s, found that nearly two-thirds of consumers resonated with the statement, “shopping is a powerful force for social and environmental change.” Elaborates Johnston’s survey report in the Journal of Marketing Management , “This suggests that the majority of the shopping public believe that their shopping dollars can promote a social and environmental alternative to the status quo.”

Consumer activism, for all its prevalence, might be an unintentional misdirect, say critics

Activists for any one particular cause are in no way united that consumer activism is the most effective way — or even an effective way — to enact change. The main criticism is that individual product swaps do nothing to impact legislation and corporate responsibility.

That’s not a new argument; many abolitionists disagreed with their Free Produce Movement cohorts. As Glickman writes in Buying Power , “Critics accused free produce activists of overvaluing private rectitude to the point where it had little connection with the public good.” Maybe wearing wool and eating maple makes you abolitionists feel better, Free Produce critics seemed to say, but it does squat to end slavery.

Twenty-first century shoppers face, in spirit, the same conundrum.

“Conscious consumerism is a lie,” writes sustainable fashion expert and frequent Vox contributor Alden Wicker for Quartz , quoting a speech she delivered at the 2017 UN Youth Delegation. “Small steps taken by thoughtful consumers — to recycle, to eat locally, to buy a blouse made of organic cotton instead of polyester — will not change the world.” Instead, she argues, conscious consumerism is an expensive distraction from the real work at hand.

Sure, vote with your dollar, the criticism stands — but you do a whole lot more by simply voting for politicians who give a damn that the Earth is melting . Only 46.1 percent of voters aged 18-29 voted at all in 2016, 55 percent of which voted Democrat . Nielsen found that 90 percent of millennials (aged 21-34) are willing to pay more for eco-friendly and sustainable products. These stats don’t necessarily provide a one-for-one since there’s a gap in the age categorizations, but if the entirety of that 90 percent of conscious consumer millennials had gone to the polls and voted how their dollar votes ... We don’t have to spell it out, right?

With more opportunities to be a conscious consumer — thanks to more and more “leading brands that compete to see who is greener,” as Joel Makower, author of 1990’s The Green Consumer, writes for GreenBiz — so too do opportunities for economic existential angst mount. Ditching plastic straws, in the grand scheme of things, will do diddly for the planet, representing less than 1 percent of our sweeping plastic problem.

And as such, conscious consumerism can deliver unearned complacency, house-on-fire calm akin to “This Is Fine” dog . As Jim Leape, co-director of the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions told Stanford Report , “The risk is that banning straws may confer ‘moral license’ — allowing companies and their customers to feel they have done their part. The crucial challenge is to ensure that these bans are just a first step.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren homed in on this very point during CNN’s recent climate change forum, following a series of questions to Democratic candidates on regulating lightbulbs, banning plastic straws, and encouraging people to cut down on red meat, as reported by Vox’s Li Zhou :

“Oh, come on, give me a break,” Warren said in response to the lightbulb question, in one of the breakout moments of the night. “This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants us to talk about. ... They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers, when 70 percent of the pollution, of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air, comes from three industries.”

There’s an added tension when it comes to green shopping and movements like Fridays for Future and the Sunrise Movement , that conscious consumerism’s prescribed solution is antithetical to sustainability’s aims.

“The idea of ‘shopping’ your way to sustainability is fundamentally flawed,” says sociologist Kennedy. “That is, if we need to slow down growth to protect the environment, then we can’t rely on ‘better’ consumption — we also have to reduce consumption.” To her point, climate activist Greta Thunberg’s speech at the UN’s Climate Action Summit on September 23 addressed world leaders but zeroed in on an oft-repeated delusion that cutting emissions by 50 percent in 10 years will do the trick. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you.”

There are alternative ways that consumers can “do something” impactful with their money, writes Wicker in Quartz: Donating to activist organizations and donating to politicians who vow to vote for green initiatives (i.e. passing a Green New Deal ) and holding big corporate offenders accountable are good places to start.

Okay, okay, but does consumer activism do … anything?

In a word: sometimes! In more words, whether or not consumer activism and conscious consumerism “work” depends, really, on the definition of success.

Historian Glickman likes to differentiate between short-term and long-term goals. Sociologist Kennedy separates material benefits from ideological gains.

“Almost every boycott fails to achieve its punitive goal,” says Glickman. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, he adds, is a rare example of an “unambiguous victory,” where the boycott attained its demands : hiring black drivers, promising respectful drivers, and first-come first-seated policy. The SoulCycle boycott is another: Last month’s consumer activism over Ross’s Trump fundraiser did in fact dent SoulCycle’s attendance . But these are notable exceptions (the former inarguably more impactful than the latter) to the rule.

Adds Glickman, “A lot of times boycotts of big corporations don’t really affect the bottom line of that corporation. Oftentimes the boycott starts with a great deal of enthusiasm and ends with a whimper.” For instance, Amazon: Despite calls year after year to boycott Amazon Prime Day over factory conditions (and this year over contracts with ICE ), the retail behemoth repeatedly manages to smash its sales record .

In terms of the material benefit of product swaps, “the jury is out,” says Kennedy. Yes, phosphate-free dish detergent can curb water pollution, she says; but Kennedy’s research shows that conscious consumers often maintain very large carbon footprints themselves. “Conscious consumers tend to be well-educated,” explains Kennedy, “and well-educated people typically earn a good income,” income that buys them nice cars and tickets on commercial planes and air conditioning units and so on.

“The ideological benefits are not much more conclusive, unfortunately,” adds Kennedy. “I think it’s fair to say that conscious consumption has made more people think about the resources that go into the stuff we buy and about what happens to our stuff when we throw it away.” This, in effect, is consumer activism’s long-term goal, what historian Glickman calls “a transformation of consciousness.” On the other hand, Kennedy says, “When people obsess about the environmental impact of their goods, that can let companies and governments off the hook. So it’s a mixed bag.”

Where and how we spend our money does matter. But how much it matters depends on what else we do with our money and what governments and corporations do with their (considerably larger) pots. At best, the rising popularity of conscious consumerism, for instance, suggests that the buying public will at least spend their way to a healthier world; the big problem, though, is that individual monetary action — even when performed collectively — is only the beginning.

“I can’t imagine that the world is worse off because of conscious consumerism,” says Kennedy, “but I doubt it will be enough to save the planet.”

Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Money

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

So, what was the point of John Mulaney’s live Netflix talk show?

UFOs, God, and the edge of understanding

Israel’s other war

What we know about the police killing of Black Air Force member Roger Fortson

Inside the bombshell scandal that prompted two Miss USAs to step down

How to listen to Today, Explained on the radio

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: toward a unified model

It has become commonplace for consumers to judge companies against social responsibility criteria. Along with such judgments, many consumers are also taking up action, often using the Internet to virally spread their views. Such consumer-led campaigns can put at risk years of investments in branding. For firms understanding what drives consumers to engage in boycotts is key to minimizing exposure to such viral risk. To date, the academic literature has offered disparate and disconnected findings with respect to boycott participation. In this research paper, we review relevant literature, confirm its appropriateness using a series of in-depth interviews, and use our findings to identify key antecedents to consumer participation in boycotts. We then test our proposed model through an empirical study, thus revealing key drivers of consumers' intention to participate in such boycotts. Our results offer insight into factors that companies can manage so as to prevent consumers from participating in boycotts.

Related Papers

Tricia Chiam

Journal of Consumer Policy

Stefan Hoffmann

Journal of Business Research

Ulku Yuksel

Maya F Farah

Despite a worldwide growth in the number of boycott campaigns, the results of studies are inconclusive as the motives behind individual participation are still largely ignored. Drawing on a socio-cognitive theory, the theory of planned behavior, this research investigates whether the direct variables of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control, help predict consumers' boycott intention. Conducted in Lebanon, this work employs a survey design administered to a randomized systematic sample of 500 Muslim and Christian consumers. The sample is split into two sub-samples reflecting the main religious groups in the Middle-East. Results show that although the Muslim participants appear more prone to participate in the boycott, still attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are all significant predictors of intentions in both communities with the attitudinal component carrying the most weight. This application of a social psychology theory to the consumers' passive resistance to purchasing yielded significant contributions at the theoretical, empirical, and managerial levels.

Clare Dsouza , Tariq Halimi

Previous animosity studies have been conducted in single-target contexts where the effects of hostility towards one product's country of origin were examined. This current study is an attempt to investigate the animosity construct in the multi-target boycott case of the Middle-East conflict where more than one party (countries and companies) are involved in the political conflict, as reports show that consumers have inconsistent reactions to these involved parties. One-on-one in-depth interviews, supported by documentation, were conducted with Arab consumers who are presumably involved in the conflict. It has been found that animosity is multi-level which belongs to the political relations (thereafter POLR) continuum and performs as a product attribute. POLRs' effects on the consumer are subject to parties' involvement level in the conflict and consumer prioritized needs. Research findings imply that " political positioning " can be applied by brands with " good quality " POLR, while others need to highlight other product attributes.

Journal of Business Ethics

Laura Flurry , Krist Swimberghe

Dursun Yener

Asmat-Nizam Abdul-Talib

Omar Al Serhan , Elias Boukrami

Consumer boycotting behaviour has serious consequences for organisations targeted. In this paper, a review of literature on boycotting from 1990 to 2013 is presented. Several consumer boycotting types are identified based on motivations underlying. These are influenced by religious beliefs, cultural values and political opinions. We have scanned all articles dealing with consumer boycotting behaviour in marketing literature. 115 scholarly articles published in 25 top marketing journals as ranked in the ABS (Association of Business Journal Schools) Review from 1990 to 2013 are reviewed. Along with outlining the research in this area, we also wanted to assess the level of attention paid to brand loyalty in relation to boycotting behaviour. Despite the fact that existing literature listed a number of factors that can potentially trigger consumers’ boycotts i.e. religion, war, political, economic, cultural, environmental, and ethical reasons. Nevertheless, there is no ranking of factors indicating which one are the most influential (e.g. long lasting, most damaging in terms of brand loyalty, etc.). Our review also suggests that boycott campaigns in developed nations are mainly motivated by economic triggers. However, in developing nations boycott calls and campaigns were motivated by religious triggers or by ethical triggers. The impact of boycotting on consumers’ brand loyalty, relation between religion, race, country of origin and the level of regional as well as national development would need to be researched further in order to shed light on its effect on the success or failure of boycott calls from consumers’ perspective and the prevention of such calls from the targeted firms’ point of view.

Breno P A Cruz

RELATED PAPERS

Dale W Russell

Laure LAVORATA

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

Cristel Russell , Heather Honea , Dale W Russell

Nazlida Muhamad

Journal of Consumer Research

Zeynep Gurhan Canli

Advances in Consumer Research, V. 40, eds. Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, Cele Otnes, and Rui (Juliet) Zhu, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research

Elif Izberk-Bilgin

Journal of Consumer Affairs

Riswan E F E N D I Tarigan

Kartini Aboo Talib , Suraiya Ishak , Nidzam Sulaiman

Kartini Aboo Talib , Nidzam Sulaiman , Suraiya Ishak

Crina Mitran

Nikhilesh Dholakia

Michael S W Lee , Denise Conroy

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Krist Swimberghe , Laura Flurry

Omar Al Serhan

RBGN Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios

Safirah Abadi

Michael S W Lee , Muhammad Asif Khan

Felicia Miller , Chris Allen

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

Rozita Mohamed

Karin Braunsberger

Lindsay J Benstead

Stefan Hoffmann , Michael S W Lee

Dominique Roux

Journal of Social Marketing

Sergio Rivaroli , Arianna Ruggeri

Delane Botelho

Monica Shirley

Bastian Popp

Fernanda Burjack

Rohit Varman

Lisa Neilson , Social Problems

Ahir Gopaldas

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

“Consumer Boycotts: An Essential Method of Peaceful Protest” – Philip Kotler

September 1, 2020

Consumers normally show their attitude toward a company by patronizing or ignoring the company.  Or they might actively dislike the company.

What can a disappointed consumer do about a “bad” company or brand?  Not use anymore?  Send a complaint to that company asking for an answer?  Tell Facebook friends to avoid the company?  Take out an Internet ad complaining about the company?

Some angry consumers go further.  Consider the members of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  PETA is an animal rights organization with more than 6.5 million members and supporters.  PETA members focus their animal rights activities in four areas: in laboratories, the food industry, the clothing trade, and the entertainment industry. PETA’s aim to discourage consumers from buying products which have come from companies that violated animal rights.  Against “bad” companies, PETA uses public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and boycott campaigns.

Business historians, company leaders and marketers need to consider the role and power of boycotts in the protection of consumer rights. Boycotts have occurred throughout history.

In the evening of December 16, 1773 in Boston Harbor, a group of Massachusetts colonists disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded three British tea ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor.  They complained “no taxations without representation.” Not long after, American colonial merchants called for boycotting all British products.  The Boston Tea Party and the Revolutionary War ended up creating a new country, the USA.

The term “boycott” didn’t come into use until 1880.  An English land agent, Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott, chose to raise rents and evict a lot of his tenants in Ireland.  The local community rebelled and joined together and refused to pay or work with Captain Boycott. He was forced to leave. Boycott left his name to history.

We define a boycott as “a concerted refusal to do business with a particular person or business…in order to obtain concessions or express displeasure.”

To examine the role and power of boycotts, we ask:

• What are the main types and examples of boycotts?
• Why do people organize boycotts?
• How to organize a successful boycott?
• How can the boycotting entity respond to the boycott?

Types and Examples of Boycotts

A group can decide to boycott a large number of entities:  an industry, product, brand, company, person, country, practice or idea.  The motive might be economic, political or social.  Here are some of the best known boycotts in American history.

Boycott against an Industry: Alcohol and the WCTU

As a product, alcohol is a stimulus as well as a curse.  Women started temperance leagues in the early 1800s aiming to limit drinking and “demon rum.”  By 1830, the average American over 15 consumed at least 7 gallons of alcohol a year.  Male drunkenness led to family abuse of wives and children and health problems of all kinds.  The World Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was organized in 1873. Its second president, Francis Willard, helped to grow the WCTU into the largest women’s religious organization in the 19th century and helped the drive toward establishing women’s voting rights.  Alcoholics Anonymous later was formed with the aim of teaching “teetotalism” or total abstinence to victims of alcoholism.  .

Boycott against a good product – Grapes and Chavez

In 1965 on Mexican Independence Day, Cesar Chavez organized Filipino American grape workers to protest for better wages and working conditions in Delano, California.  The workers were paid a pittance.  Consumers decided to boycott grapes. This decision led to an international boycott of grapes. Grape growers were left with the choice of paying more or letting their grapes rot. The boycott led to the organization of the U.S.’s first farm workers union, The United Farm Worker of America. The strike lasted for five years before reaching a settlement.

Boycott against a bad product – Nestle and Instant Formula

Nestle advertised its infant formula to be “better than breast milk” and more convenient to use. Infant formula was a powder to which water is added. In 1977, many consumers worldwide complained and boycotted the infant formula saying that Nestle mislead customers with inaccurate nutritional claims. In poor countries sadled with infected water, babies often got sick. Nestle refused to compromise for seven years.  The boycott ended when Nestle agreed to comply with the World Health Organizations (WHO) standards concerning the marketing of infant formula.

Boycott against a dangerous product – Dow Chemical napalm

The U.S. dropped napalm incendiary bombs in Vietnam in 1979. This led to international outrage against the U.S. and Dow Chemical. Though napalm accounted for only about one-half of 1% of Dow’s $1.6 billion annual sales, the company had become a target for acrimony. Clergymen led picket lines at Dow’s annual meetings.

Boycott against a company – British Petroleum (BP) the Gulf Coast Oil Spill

An explosion on British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010 resulted in the largest U.S. oil spill. The explosion caused 11 deaths and the spilling of 30 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf. The spill lasted 87 days when the well was finally capped on July 15, 2010.

Boycott against a company – Coors Brewing Company and LGBT Rights 

In hiring people, Coors Brewing Company discriminated against persons from the LGBT community. In 1973, labor unions organized a boycott to protest Coors antagonistic practices. The boycott was joined by African Americans, Latinos, and the LGBT community.  Finally, 14 years later the AFL-CIO and Coors  came to an agreement in 1987, ending the official union boycott. But Coors continued to carry a bad name in certain communities.

Boycott against a company – Chick-fil-A

In 2012 the CEO of the restaurant Chick-fil-A publically blamed the country’s woes on accepting gay marriage and continued donating money to anti-LGBT groups.  Many Christians kept dining at this restaurant chain and others boycotted Chick-fil-A.  The company finally gave into pressure in 2019 to stop donating to companies that supported anti-LGBT talk and turn over more of their donations to promoting youth education, combating youth homelessness, and fighting hunger.

Boycott against a State law – Religious Discrimination against Same-Sex Couples

The state legislature of Indiana passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 2015 allowing state businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples based on religious grounds. The business community strongly and swiftly reacted against this law. The state legislature reversed course and modified the law a week later. The RFRA cost Indianapolis more than $60 million.

Boycott against Segregation: Montgomery Bus Boycott, Rosa Parks and Racial Discrimination

In 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested when she  refused to give up her seat  to a white passenger. Her act of civil disobedience launched  the Montgomery Bus Boycott , a 13-month protest during which black residents refused to ride city buses. Martin Luther King Jr and the Montgomery Improvement Association organized the boycott, which launched civil rights into the national spotlight. The Supreme Court ultimately outlawed segregation on public buses.

Boycott against a country – India, the Salt March and Mahatma Gandhi

In 1930, Mahatma Gandhi l ed a 240-mile march  in India to the Arabian Sea to protest Britain’s colonial salt laws. Britain didn’t allow Indians to process or sell their own salt. Gandhi and his followers, in front of thousands, broke the law by evaporating seawater to make salt. He encouraged others to do the same.  Gandhi reached an agreement with India’s British viceroy in 1931 in exchange for an end to the salt tax and the release of political prisoners. Colonial rule remained, but the act of civil disobedience stoked the fires of independence. In 1947, the British rule ended  and the country was divided into India and Pakistan.

Boycott against a Country – Russia and the Summer Olympics

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter  refused to send  American athletes to the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow as a protest of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More than 60 nations joined the U.S. The Soviet-Afghan War continued until 1989.  The Soviets subsequently led their own boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

Boycott against a Country – Israel and the Arab League Boycott

In 1945,  the Arab League (Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) launched an economic boycott of Israel. In the 1970s, the U.S.  adopted two laws  that prohibited U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel. Today a new boycott comes in the B.D.S. (boycott, divest, and sanction) movement that seeks to pressure Israel into ending its occupation of the West Bank.

Boycott against a Political Practice  –  South Africa and the Anti-Apartheid Movement 

An international campaign against the oil company Royal Dutch Shell was launched in 1986 to protest apartheid in South Africa.  There were nationwide calls in America from labor and civil rights groups asking the public not to buy gas  from Shell stations.   Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 that banned South African imports, airlines, and foreign aid from the U.S. The end of apartheid  began in the early 1990s , when Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners were freed. Apartheid officially ended in 1994, when Mandela became the country’s first black leader.

Boycott for Animal Rights – Protecting whales at SeaWorld

In 2013, a documentary was released which criticized marine parks for its practice of keeping orcas in captivity. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)  called for boycotts  of the park SeaWorld, and SeaWorld’s public attendance declined. In 2016, SeaWorld announced that it would no longer breed or feature shows with orcas.

Boycott against Men – Women Withhold Sex to End Violence

In 2003, Liberian women went on a successful sex strike to end the country’s civil war. Leymah Gbowee won a Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts. In 2006,  female partners of gang members  in Pereira, Colombia, withheld sex as they demanded fewer guns and less violence in their city. By 2010, Pereira’s murder rate had fallen by 26.5%.

Boycott against Consumerism – International Buy Nothing Day

Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, is one of the busiest shopping days of the year. With big crowds, sometimes  violence ensues.   An anti-consumerist group in Canada launched an anti-shopping movie,  “Buy Nothing Day,”  in 1992. Some retailers, but very few,  decided to stay closed on Black Friday,

Boycott – President Donald Trump as an Active Boycotter of Companies

President Donald Trump has launched personal political attacks of several U.S. companies and people hoping to persuade U.S. citizens to avoid these companies.  He attacked Nike for running a successful ad in September 2018 favoring the quarterback Colin Kaepernick who took to his knee during the national anthem in protest to racial injustice.  Trump in 2018 lashed out at Google and CNN saying that these media are rigged and report only bad stories or no stories about Republican/Conservatives.  He recommended boycotting Apple products for refusing to give cellphone information about a radical group and making most of their products abroad.  He attacked Goodyear for banning MAGA hats in the company and tweeted “Get better tires for far less,” and recommended replacing the Goodyear tires on his Presidential car.  He  issued an executive order to ban the Chinese-owned TikTok unless it found an American buyer for its U.S. operations.

Why Do People Organize Boycotts?

Boycotts are often the result a clash of values between a company and some members of the consuming public.  Consumers, in choosing a product, consider two things:

• Value of the product . Does the product and its price and accessibility deliver high value to the potential consumer?
• Values of the company . Are the values of the company acceptable to the values of the consumer?

Most consumers put the most weight on the value of the product.  However, some consumers also consider the company’s values. Many grape lovers stopped buying grapes to protest the low wages that grapefield owners paid to grape workers.

We are living in an era of increasing political polarization. If a company isn’t careful, it could offend the values of the blues (Democrats) or the reds (Republicans).  If a company shows that it favors stricter gun control, it will offend gun owners.  The best thing is for the company not to take any position about guns. If most companies remain quiet, their sales and profits are safer.

Yet many other companies are proud and open about their values.  Coors Brewery’s leadership had very conservative values and did not want to hire persons from the LGBT community.  A boycott started and lasted until Coors finally agreed in 1987 to not discriminate in their hiring practices.

Boycotts are often organized to further social change of the value of some group.  The Montgomery Bus boycott aimed to advance the rights of black Americans.  The more the boycott can widen and sustain a Common Good message, the more the chance of changing social values.

The lesson is clear.  A company has to think about what values it will represent and how these values would impact different consumer groups and how the company should express its values.

How to Organize a Successful Boycott

A boycott organizing group must make sure that the boycott is not breaking any laws. The boycott is an attack that will hurt the value of a particular entity. It may involve picketing in front of a certain entity.  If the entity is a hotel, the boycotters cannot block people from entering or exiting the hotel.   Some states might require approval of any planned boycott before the boycotters go into action.

The organizing group must raise enough money to buy ads, picket the company, and sustain the campaign until the entity concedes. It doesn’t pay to start a boycott without the means to keep it going.  The company’s response to the boycott will partially be influenced by the company’s estimate of the boycotter’s resources.  If quite limited, the company may prefer to take a hit for a short time and not give in to the boycotters.

A nonprofit group, called the Ethical Consumer, is organized to watch for and spot unethical companies. Ethical Consumer was formed in Hulme, Manchester, UK in 1989. In 2009 Ethical Consumer became a full nonprofit multi-stakeholder co-operative consisting of worker members and investor/subscriber members. The group’s aim is to apply pressure on an unethical company to change its way or otherwise face a boycott.  Ethical Consumer lists a number of companies that they might target for a boycott unless the company changes its ways. Their targets include a number of well-known companies such as Wendy’s and Amazon.

How Can the Boycotted Entity Respond to the Boycott

If a company gets forewarned of an imminent boycott, the first step is to contact the party and try to settle the issue.  If the boycotting group is just trying to extract money from the company to avoid a boycott, the company should report this to the police.  If the boycotting group is serious, the company should sitdown and try to work out an agreement.  If the offense is not very serious, the company might agree to make a change that would be acceptable by the boycotting group.

If no agreement can be reached and the boycott gets started, the company needs to explain its position to the press and seek the understanding of its customers, employees and other stakeholders.  The company needs to estimate how long the boycott might last and how much harm it would do to the company.  If it will last a long time and badly damage the company’s reputation, sales and profits, the company should give in on the issue and negotiate an agreement.

The company knows that the boycotting group needs to attract a lot of supporters and keep them interested.  The earliest supporters are highly engaged in the cause.  It gets harder for the boycott to get additional supporters who have a lower level of interest and may even believe that the boycott doesn’t need more supporters.

The company is in a better position to resist the boycott if it has built up a reputation as a caring company, caring for its customers, employees, and other stakeholders.  If it has given a lot to charity and fought for high consensus issues such as a healthy environment, it might less often be the target for a boycott.  Companies such Coca Cola and McDonald’s have curried a halo image of good prosocial behavior partly because some groups regularly complain that  these companies products, if used in excess, are injurious to health.

Consumers have the right to expect companies to be ethical in their behavior.  Fortunately, consumers who get angry enough at a company can send complaints to the company or take out negative ads or organize a boycott.   Boycotts have a long history not only against companies but against industries, products, brands, countries, or ideas.  Many past boycotts, especially those pressing for prosocial change, have had success. Success depends largely on the resources of the boycotting group and the resources of the targeted entity.  The boycott organizing group needs a well-thought out attack strategy and the targeted entity needs a well-thought out defense strategy.

All said, consumers generally benefit from the fact that boycotts are possible and legal.  Boycotts call upon the boycotting group to present strong reasons for the boycott and the targeted entity presenting strong reasons for either resisting or reaching an agreement.

Sources:  There are many lists of boycotts.  One excellent list is Chare Carlile, “History of Successful Boycotts,” May 5, 2019.  An excellent discussion on why boycotts occur and how companies can deal with them is found in Jim Salas, Doreen E. Shanahan, and Gabriel Conzalez, “Are Boycotts Prone to Factors That May Make Them Ineffective?”  in Strategies for Managing in the Age of Boycotts , 2019 Volume 22, Issue 3.

Philip Kotler  is the “father of modern marketing.”  He is the S.C. Johnson & Son Distinguished Professor of International Marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He was voted the first Leader in Marketing Thought by the American Marketing Association and named The Founder of Modern Marketing Management in the Handbook of Management Thinking. Professor Kotler holds major awards including the American Marketing Association’s (AMA) Distinguished Marketing Educator Award and Distinguished Educator Award from The Academy of Marketing Science. The Sales and Marketing Executives International (SMEI) named him Marketer of the Year and the American Marketing Association described him as “the most influential marketer of all time.” He is in the Thinkers50  Hall of Fame , and is featured as a “guru” in the  Economist .

Related Posts

B2B Marketing /

“Go-to-Market (GTM): A New Definition” – Karthi Ratnam

B2C Marketing /

“Understanding Hallyu: The Impact of Korean Pop Culture” by Sanya Anand and David Seyheon Baek

Brand Activism /

“Regeneration or Extinction?” – a discussion with Philip Kotler, Christian Sarkar, and Enrico Foglia

Ethical Dimensions of Consumer Boycotts

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 24 November 2021
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Valentin Beck 3  

120 Accesses

Boycott ethics ; Ethical consumerism ; Ethics of boycotting ; Ethics of commercial boycotts ; Ethics of consumer boycotts ; Ethics of consumption

Introduction

Consumer boycotts are a recurrent form of social protest. This entry sheds light on ethical issues and controversies concerning the practice, with the aim of contributing to a better understanding of its potential benefits and drawbacks. But first, a few conceptual clarifications are in order. What is a boycott ? According to the Oxford English Dictionary , a boycott is a “[w]ithdrawal from social or commercial interaction or cooperation with a group, nation, person, etc., intended as a protest or punishment.” This broad understanding is consistent with the observation that boycotts are not restricted to the market sphere. The targets of boycotts – the boycottees – may also include individuals in the political realm, as well as other organized groups, including states and various nongovernmental organizations. The boycotter –...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Barry C, MacDonald K (2018) Ethical consumerism: a defense of market vigilantism. Philos Public Aff 46(3):293–322

Article   Google Scholar  

Beck V (2010) Theorizing Fairtrade from a justice-related standpoint. Glob Justice Theory Pract Rhetor 3(2010):1–21

Google Scholar  

Beck V (2019) Consumer boycotts as instruments for structural change. J Appl Philos 36(4):543–559

Beck V, Ladwig B (2020) Ethical consumerism: veganism. WIREs Clim Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.689

De Shalit A (2016) The ethics of academic boycott. J Polit 78(3):642–652

Friedman M (2001) Ethical dilemmas associated with consumer boycotts. J Soc Philos 32(2):232–240

Hussain W (2012) Is ethical consumerism an impermissible form of vigilantism? Philos Public Aff 40(2):111–143

Mills C (1996) Should we boycott boycotts? J Soc Philos 27(3):136–148

Peled Y (2019) The ethics of boycotting as collective anti-normalisation. J Appl Philos 36(4):527–542

Radzik L (2017) Boycotts and the social enforcement of justice. Soc Philos Policy 34(1):102–122

Weinstock D (2019) Dissidents and innocents: hard cases for a political philosophy of boycotts. J Appl Philos 36(4):560–574

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Philosophy and Humanities Department, Free University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Valentin Beck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valentin Beck .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Ottawa, ON, Canada

Deborah C Poff

Alex C. Michalos

Section Editor information

Past President, Brandon University, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Deborah Poff CM, PhD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Beck, V. (2022). Ethical Dimensions of Consumer Boycotts. In: Poff, D.C., Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_1290-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_1290-1

Received : 08 October 2021

Accepted : 12 October 2021

Published : 24 November 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-23514-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-23514-1

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Loblaws boycott: What consumer psychology can tell us about the success of consumer activism

Associate Professor of Marketing, Toronto Metropolitan University

Disclosure statement

Eugene Y. Chan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Toronto Metropolitan University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

Toronto Metropolitan University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

Loblaws has found itself at the centre of public frustration due to soaring food prices. Canadians have expressed their discontent on social media , venting about the high cost of groceries at grocery stores like Loblaws.

Loblaws has reported rising profits and seen its stock value climb over the past year. The planned boycott , organized by a Reddit group with 75,000 members called “Loblaws is out of control ,” aims to reduce grocery prices and increase food security for Canadians.

Their list of demands includes having the company sign a grocers’ code of conduct and reduce food prices by 15 per cent. The founder of the Reddit page met with Loblaws CEO Per Bank on May 2 to discuss grocery prices.

History suggests the success of such movements often hinges on widespread public support and sustained momentum. However, whether out of convenience or habit , the nature of consumer behaviour may pose challenges to the effectiveness of this particular boycott. Consumer psychology can help explain why boycotts sometimes fail, and predict when they will be successful.

In-group bias

Psychologically, in-group bias is one reason why consumer boycotts are not always successful. Loyal customers tend to perceive themselves as part of a brand’s community — in this case, loyal Loblaws customers may feel themselves a part of the “Loblaws community.”

This sense of belonging creates emotional attachment and loyalty toward the brand. Loyal consumers identify with the brand and prioritize their in-group affiliation. In-group bias fosters a strong desire to support the brand , especially when the brand is faced with criticism.

The phenomenon of in-group bias can shed light on why public boycotts and venting about Loblaws may paradoxically strengthen the company’s core customer base.

As the boycotts unfold and criticism mounts, Loblaws’ core customers may feel a heightened sense of loyalty and solidarity with Loblaws. This is just like how a close group of friends may even draw closer to each other when facing external pressures and criticism by outside parties.

In Loblaws’ case, loyal customers’ in-group affiliation leads them to resist external pressure and maintain their autonomy in choosing where to shop. In essence, the very act of boycotting by others may reinforce the bond between Loblaws and its core customers, making them more likely to continue supporting the brand especially in face of the public outcry.

The bystander effect

Another possible psychological explanation for consumer boycotts failing comes from the bystander effect . With the public venting and highly-publicized planned boycotts, paradoxically, consumers assume that others will take action, leading to diffusion of responsibility and reduced individual motivation to participate.

In this scenario, consumers may privately agree with the reasons for boycotting Loblaws, such as dissatisfaction with rising food prices, but hesitate to join the boycott due to the perception that others will address the issue. This diffusion of responsibility can result in a collective inertia, wherein individuals refrain from taking action, ultimately hindering the effectiveness of the boycott efforts as each consumer relies on others to initiate change.

One final possibility comes from how participating in boycotts is often interpreted as a political act , as it involves taking a stance on a social or ethical issue and aligning oneself with a particular ideology.

Yet, to engage in political activism means one is not simply standing up to what’s right but to deviate from normative standards and mainstream opinions — and people generally don’t like to be seen as part of the out-group.

Moreover, political activism changes how people define their own self-concept , yet self-concept changes are uncomfortable and tend to be avoided. Thus, consumers may avoid the political activist nature of boycotts even if they might otherwise agree with the boycott’s goals.

The Loblaws case underscores the fact that boycotts may not always work. Examining the psychology behind consumer choices — whether to boycott or not — provides valuable insights. Understanding these motivations is key to understanding the drivers behind calls for social change.

When do boycotts work?

Psychology can also provide insights into factors predicting boycotts’ success, with the perception of injustice being central. When individuals perceive wrongdoing by a company, they feel morally compelled to act, forming a strong emotional connection to the cause.

This moral outrage motivates participation in collective action and sacrifices to support the boycott. By emphasizing how Loblaws’ high prices affect consumers’ finances, boycott organizers can further motivate the public to join their cause.

Read more: Online outrage can benefit brands that take stances on social issues

Furthermore, the visibility and public awareness surrounding Loblaws appear to be having an impact. Indeed, even CEO Per Bank had to push back and say that criticisms of the company are “ misguided .”

Loblaws has claimed that its high food prices are due to supplier issues , but this has done little to assuage the frustrations of Canadians who see the chain as maximizing profit at the expense of Canadians’ financial well-being.

It is clear that it is getting more difficult for the company to ignore the boycotts given their media attention, prompting at least some consumers to reconsider where they do their weekly grocery shop.

• Food prices
• Cost of living
• Grocery stores
• Consumer boycotts
• Cost of living crisis
• Inflation and food prices
• Rising food prices

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, do consumer boycotts really matter with global companies the moderating effect of gender differences.

International Journal of Emerging Markets

ISSN : 1746-8809

Article publication date: 29 March 2022

Issue publication date: 12 December 2023

Drawing on the theory of planned behavior, this study aims to conduct an empirical investigation on whether and how psychological and motivational factors (i.e. attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control) affect actual purchase behavior. It does so through the lens of boycott intention and gender differences in the context of boycott campaigns.

Design/methodology/approach

Focusing on the South Korean boycott campaign against Japanese companies, this study employs a structural equation model using survey data from 571 South Korean consumers to test the hypotheses.

While the three psychological and motivational factors inhibit all three dimensions of actual purchase behavior (i.e. purchase frequency, number of items purchased and purchase amount) through increased boycott intention, perceived behavioral control of boycotts directly curb South Korean consumers from purchasing Japanese products. Additionally, the effect of boycott intention on overall actual purchase behavior is stronger for men than for women, suggesting a moderating role of gender.

Practical implications

To mitigate the devastating impact of unexpected consumers' boycott campaigns, this study advises that global brand management and attractive online channels are essential while considering the differential impact of gender.

Originality/value

By conceptualizing three dimensions of actual purchase behavior capturing behavioral changes before and after a boycott, this study highlights the linkages between psychological and motivational factors, intentions and behaviors. Additionally, this study attempts to clarify the previously conflicting evidence on gender's role in boycott campaigns while taking a culture-inclusive psychologies approach to gender.

• Boycott campaign
• Theory of planned behavior
• Gender difference
• Culture-inclusive psychologies
• South Korea–Japan relationship

Kim, C. , Yan, X. and Park, S. (2023), "Do consumer boycotts really matter with global companies? The moderating effect of gender differences", International Journal of Emerging Markets , Vol. 18 No. 12, pp. 5707-5726. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-03-2021-0312

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Can consumer boycotts change the world?

Life for the Russian LGBT community is becoming increasingly perilous with President Putin signing anti-gay laws , authorities banning gay pride events, the persecution of gay activists, and a rise in homophobic hate crimes.

To show their support for those facing persecution in Russia , LGBT activists in the US decided to implement a boycott of Russian exports. Russia's big three - oil, iron, and fertiliser – are not easily boycotted by high street consumers so a more accessible Russian resource was chosen. Vodka. With Smirnoff British-owned and Absolute French-owned, activists picked Stolichnaya vodka - more commonly known as Stoli - as the high profile target of their Russia boycott.

A campaign began on Twitter: #dumpstoli. Photographs circulated of Stoli being poured into gutters outside New York bars, and a social media storm erupted. This invoked an almost instant response from Stolichnaya, and a widespread discussion on the effectiveness of such boycotts.

After the boycott was announced, Stolichnaya's owners, Luxemburg holding company SPI Group, posted a supportive letter from CEO Val Mendeleev emphasising the brand's links with the LGBT community. It concluded: "We fully support and endorse your objectives to fight against prejudice in Russia. In the past decade, SPI has been actively advocating in favor of freedom, tolerance and openness in society, standing very passionately on the side of the LGBT community and will continue to support any effective initiative in that direction." Despite the ingredients for Stolichnaya being grown on Russian SPI owned farms, the company sought to distance itself from claims that it is a Russian brand, as it's Latvian made and Luxembourgian owned.

Claims that Stolichnaya was being unfairly targeted came from many, including LGBT activists in Russia and Latvia who called on people not to follow the boycott because it would damage both workers and campaigns in Russia and Latvia. All Out, a US based LGBT campaigning group with 1.7 million members, did not participate in the vodka boycott, choosing instead to continue to put pressure on the International Olympic Committee over the Winter Olympics being held in Sochi.

Andre Banks, the organisation's co-founder explains: "Boycotts are a chance for people to take their power as consumers and turn it into a social good. But the challenge is making sure it puts real pressure on Putin and projects a positive image of the LGBT community. We do not want to send the message that we are anti-Russian or anti-Russian business. The problem is Putin not Russia."

Similarly in Britain neither Stonewall or the vocal National Union of Students LGBT campaign chose to support the boycott. Both organisations share concerns that this kind of boycott is merely symbolic and symptomatic of the rise of 'clickivism' – individualised computer activism for the digital age.

"People mustn't think that if they have one less vodka at G.A.Y. or click 'like' on Facebook then that is their activism done," explained Richard Lane at Stonewall, "campaigning is about more than just Twitter storms, change needs long-term commitment from people."

Sky Yarlett at the NUS agrees that real change comes at a higher price than foregoing flavoured vodka. "It is good to have a company like SPI make supportive statements but it has not changed anything in Russia. People must go deeper and look for the systemic problems. Stoli is not the enemy – the Russian government hurting LGBT people is the enemy."

So how to reach an overseas government that your own government has very little sway over? Campaigners agree that it involves building an international campaign and supporting and listening to those campaigning in Russia. While the international LGBT community is extremely diverse, it is good at pulling itself together as a protest movement. SPI's instant response is testimony to the depth of anger towards Russia felt by LGBT people around the world.

Boycotts were famously used by the campaign for civil rights in the US and in the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Neither of these campaigns had a different kind of consumption as their end game, instead they used this tactic to magnify their calls for change by using well chosen targets.

While governments can be difficult to get at, companies – with their increasing use of social media and consumer engagement – make softer targets. The #dumpstoli message for businesses is that no brand is safe if they are viewed as being hypocritical.

As Andre Banks makes clear: "No matter how pure your intentions it is very dangerous to market yourself as LGBT friendly in one part of the world whilst having different business practises in another part of the world. If you have a different public face in the West than in other countries people will connect the dots, they will figure you out. Companies need to align their policies across the board or get caught out."

• Guardian sustainable business
• Social impact
• Sustainability
• Social media

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

Is the Loblaw boycott privileged? Here's why some people aren't shopping around

The boycott is fuelled by people fed up with high prices. but some say avoiding loblaw stores is pricey, too.

Social Sharing

Location. Costs. Time and convenience.

There are many reasons that people aren't participating in the  Loblaw boycott , a movement fuelled by customers fed up with high prices at the grocery retailer .

The boycott was started by a Reddit group with about 70,000 members called "Loblaws is out of control." It calls for shoppers to avoid the retailer's Loblaws stores, along with its offshoot brands, such as No Frills, Atlantic Superstore and Shoppers Drug Mart, throughout May.

It comes as Loblaw and other major grocers such as Sobeys and Metro have faced intense scrutiny for reporting higher profits as some Canadians struggle to pay for food. On Wednesday, Loblaw reported  its quarterly profit was $459 million, marking a 9.8 per cent increase.

Kirsten Marzitelli, 30, of Ottawa, said she considered participating in the boycott, but that the price matching at No Frills — a subsidiary of Loblaw — is one of the very few things keeping her grocery bill manageable.

And there's also the matter of time, she told CBC News.

Frustrated shoppers boycott Loblaw stores for month of May

"With a two- and three-year-old at home, I just don't have the time to go to all of these different stores. I need as few stops as possible," Marzitelli said.

Boycotts are for people with privilege and time, said Shawn Chandler, who lives in Wallaceburg, Ont., a town of about 12,000 people.

There are two grocery stores in the southwestern Ontario town about 50 kilometres south of Sarnia: No Frills and Walmart, Chandler, 52, told CBC News. There's also a Shoppers Drug Mart, which carries some grocery items. 

Each week, Chandler's wife goes through the flyers to look for the best deals, he said. And this week, that's No Frills.

"I'm not going to spend more just to go to Walmart," he said.

Weston pushes back on 'misguided criticism'

Loblaw chairman Galen Weston, as well as the company's new chief executive, pushed back Thursday on what they called "misguided criticism" of the grocer as the boycott gained steam online. While the movement started on Reddit, it gained traction on other social media platforms like X, formerly Twitter, and TikTok, and has made headlines coast to coast .

"As a well-known company and Canada's largest grocer, it is natural that Loblaw would be singled out as a focal point for media and government and of course consumer frustrations," Weston said at the grocer's annual meeting.

He said although shareholders "may be troubled by these often-repeated stories," they should be assured that Loblaw will continue to act with integrity.

• Loblaw reports $13.58B in Q1 revenue, as Reddit group's boycott kicks off
• People are fed up with Loblaw stores' rising prices. Would a boycott accomplish anything?

President and CEO Per Bank said there's a lot of misinformation online about Loblaw, and reiterated the company is not responsible for higher food prices. Inflation is a global issue, he added. Canadians are under pressure and frustrated, said Bank.

The Reddit group's founder, Emily Johnson, told CBC News Network Wednesday that the boycott focuses on Loblaw because it has the largest market share.

Loblaw is a massive company, extending into groceries, as well as pharmacy, health and beauty, apparel, general merchandise, financial services and wireless mobile products and services.

According to  a July 2023 report  by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Loblaw had 27 per cent of the market share of Canadian grocery sales in 2021, followed by Sobeys at 19 per cent and Metro at 11 per cent.

"Our community felt that it was not the only problem, but definitely the biggest one," Johnson said.

In a previous interview with CBC News, she said she recognizes that Loblaw's market share leaves some people without many other shopping options. For them, the group has posted a list of other ways people can get involved, including writing a letter to their MP and donating time or money to food banks.  

In Canada's North, for instance, where high food prices are away of life , choices are even more limited. The Loblaw boycott came up in a Yukon subreddit  with 15,000 members last month. The original poster asked if people planned to participate, and most of the 30 people who responded said no.

"I gotta eat. I understand the point of the boycott but there's no viable alternative here and food isn't exactly optional," one person wrote.

"The other grocers in town are even more expensive. No chance," wrote another.

'Really comes down to convenience'

Vanessa Baker-Murray, a lawyer living in Ottawa, said she wanted to participate in the boycott, and that she supports the idea behind it. It's the kind of thing she would have done when she was younger, she said (and in fact, she and her husband participated in a boycott of Dunnes grocery stores when they lived in Dublin in 2015).

But now, she has a young child and she and her husband both work full-time. She said a boycott just isn't as feasible as it was when her father-in-law used to drive them further afield in Dublin just to avoid the local chain.

"It really comes down to convenience. I don't shop at Loblaws because I love the store particularly, but it's very close to us, the pickup is so easy, we're on a schedule," Baker-Murray said.

"I hate supporting that and I hate supporting the companies, but it's just so hard to break out of that routine and to know that you have to go to multiple stores, potentially, and it's just so much more time."

• Despite backlash, some Loblaw stores still discount perishable food by 30% — not 50%
• Looking to save money on food? There's an app for that: Jasmine Mangalaseril

Paul Landry, 75, said he's not participating for a few reasons. First, there are only two major grocery stores close to him in Stratford, P.E.I., and one is an Atlantic Superstore.

Second, he said he doesn't believe the boycott will actually make a difference for food prices.

"Overall, Loblaw's prices are very high, not unlike the other major food retailer here, Sobeys. When these stores display two steaks for $76.97 or a lesser cut for $45.95, it's a problem for most Canadians," Landry said.

"What are these cattle being fed — gold dust? Prices will not decrease until they are forced to by government action."

Marzitelli said she feels the boycott is "absolutely privileged," noting that she already doesn't shop at Loblaws, Your Independent Grocer or Shoppers Drug Mart because of the high prices. No Frills is her best option, even if it's Loblaw-owned, she said.

"I feel like the only people who are actually able to commit to the boycott don't have a family of mouths to feed or weren't hurting that badly to begin with."

Why these Nova Scotians say they won't shop at Superstore this month

Corrections.

• A previous version of this story misidentified the Reddit group's founder as Erica Johnson. Her name is Emily Johnson. May 03, 2024 7:28 PM ET

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Senior writer and editor

Natalie Stechyson is a senior writer and editor at CBC News. She's worked in newsrooms across the country, including the Globe and Mail, Postmedia News, Calgary Herald and Brunswick News. Before joining CBC News, she was the Parents editor at HuffPost Canada, where she won a silver Canadian Online Publishing Award.

With files from The Canadian Press

Related Stories

• Why these Londoners are joining the Loblaw boycott
• Some Islanders are boycotting Loblaw — but it won't be easy
• Grocery store boycott won't fix food system, some N.B. farmers say

Battered by boycott and backlash, Target will not sell Pride collection in all stores

T arget will no longer sell its Pride Month collection in all stores after conservative blowback over LGBTQ+ themed merchandise, including bathing suits designed for transgender people, harmed sales. 

The retailer told USA TODAY the collection will be available on its website and in “select stores” depending on “historical sales performance.”

Target – which has a decade-long track record of featuring LGBTQ+ merchandise during Pride Month – was one of the corporations assailed for “rainbow capitalism” last June during Pride Month. 

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

Conservative activists organized boycotts and some threatened Target employees over LGBTQ+ displays in stores, prompting the chain to pull some of the Pride merchandise. 

Advocacy groups condemned Target for bowing to pressure.

Target said that this year it will carry adult apparel, home products, and food and beverages in its Pride collection that it has curated “based on guest insights and consumer research.”

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that this year's Pride collection is smaller .

The Pride merchandise will be sold in half of Target’s nearly 2,000 stores , Bloomberg reported. Usually, Target sells the collection in all of its stores.

Target said in a statement to USA TODAY that it remains committed to "supporting the LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month and year-round."

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said Target’s decision "is disappointing and alienates LGBTQ+ individuals and allies at the risk of not only their bottom line but also their values."

“Pride merchandise means something. LGBTQ+ people are in every ZIP code in this country, and we aren’t going anywhere," Robinson said in a statement.

More than 120,000 people have signed a MoveOn  petition since last year urging the chain to restore the Pride collection to all locations.

"It’s time for Target to stop caving to right-wing radicals and honor its commitments to the LGBTQ+ community," MoveOn campaign director Jensine Gomez said in a statement.

The Target boycott contributed to lower overall sales, Target executives said in earnings calls last year.

"The reaction is a signal for us to pause, adapt and learn so that our future approach to these moments balances celebration, inclusivity and broad-based appeal," Christina Hennington, Target's chief growth officer, told analysts in August. 

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Battered by boycott and backlash, Target will not sell Pride collection in all stores

Summer of sport to help revive global beer sales

• Medium Text

• Olympics and Euros among factors likely to drive consumption
• Easing of Bud Light boycott also helping sales
• Breweries seeing better volumes after declines

PRICE DOMINATED

Sign up here.

Reporting by Emma Rumney; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Business Chevron

Apple's Maryland store workers vote to authorize strike

Workers at Apple's store in Towson, Maryland, have voted in favor of authorizing a strike, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (AIM) said in a statement late on Saturday.