Cluster IV — Chapter 61

Boycotts and Buycotts

Keywords: cancel culture, civic engagement, corporate social responsibility, lifestyle politics, political consumerism

On this page

Definition
History
Different Perspectives
Application
Further Reading

Definition

Boycotts and buycotts are collective actions by citizen-consumers aimed at influencing the behavior of firms or, less frequently, governments to act in favor of public good. These actions involve the motivation of private consumers to choose or avoid one product, brand, or manufacturer based on their ethical, social, or environmental record. Both actions are considered political consumerism as they introduce political considerations into private decisions, with consumers aspiring to create a more socially and environmentally just social order. They rely heavily on word-of-mouth though more organized campaigns are also used.

Boycotts can take different forms. The most common is a rejection of products, brands, supplies, or manufacturers who harm the wider interests of society. Other forms include engaging in culture jamming directed at certain brands (see Subvertising); activism online or offline negatively affects the reputation or market share of specific brands, producers, sources of production, or products/services. These practices largely take place as private, individual, silent behaviors, but there are also boycotts centrally organized and planned, such as factory sit-ins or blocking access to production or distribution (see Box 61.1).

Box 61.1 Examples of boycotting

Companies that pollute, disrespect social rights, or engage in corruption typically drive individual consumers to engage in boycotts. Avoidance of brands involved in labor or human rights scandals, sitting in front of stores to raise awareness about the company’s social or environmental misbehavior, and denouncing products that harm animals in their production processes are examples of boycotting.

Buycotting involves supporting companies or products for ethical, social, or environmental reasons. Usually, this is associated with rallying around brands that align their advertising, portfolio, or internal policy with valuable goals, or companies producing environmentally benign goods, engaging in philanthropy, or having active and cogent Corporate Social Responsibility and social inclusiveness programs (see The Role of Business). While such support can be criticized for indirectly supporting corporate opportunism or greenwashing, buycotting can also extend beyond individual brands, by supporting social movements that challenge business-as-usual. The case in point is creating consumer preference for foodstuffs that are certified as organic, ecolabeled, or Fair Trade as well as those produced through community supported agriculture. It is also about buying products that are locally sourced or handmade, produced by a minority, or through family-based manufacturing. The goals of these actions include ecological sustainability, redress of market imbalances, empowerment of small-scale producers, and strengthening local economies.

Ultimately, both boycotts and buycotts reflect consumers’ allocation of incentives in response to agents’ perceived role in facilitating or thwarting public benefit through their institutional behavior or their product portfolio. By doing so, boycotts and buycotts influence the distribution of power among companies in the form of reputation, market share, and social license to operate.

History

Interest in individual boycotts and buycotts emerged in the political action literature as scholars identified a shift in civic engagement from formal to unconventional forms of participation. Public opinion studies, such as the World Value Surveys conducted since the mid-1970s, consistently show that, after voting, these forms of political consumerism are among the leading modes of individual participation in industrialized democracies. Initial concerns that boycotting and buycotting would undermine traditional democratic involvement, such as petitioning or street protests, proved unfounded.

Citizens historically targeted states or governments rather than corporations in boycotting behaviors. Early forms of boycotting in Europe targeted goods produced by enslaved people, such as sugar, to protest against violations of human rights and thereby make a political statement. Colonies used the same tactics to gain autonomy or independence. For example, Gandhi’s campaign against British textiles persuaded Indians to avoid buying British products and rely on manufacturing their own clothing. Consumers in Nazi Germany, meanwhile, were mobilized by their government to sabotage Jewish stores based on political and moral claims that equated purchasing decisions with an alleged national benefit.

A few examples stand out as acts of consumer mobilization that have successfully raised awareness and pressured corporations and governments to change their practices. This includes high-profile global boycotts of South African products aimed to put pressure on the Apartheid government in the 1970s and 1980s. The highly publicized boycott of Nestlé products, which started in 1977, was a response to the company’s unethical advertising of their powdered milk formula to new mothers in the Global South. Other high-profile cases include boycotts over Nike’s tolerance for sweatshops and violation of labor rights in their supply chain; the 1988–1990 boycott of yellowfin tuna, driven by concerns over fishing technologies that also killed dolphins; and the 2010 boycott of bluefin tuna, aimed at preventing overfishing and the species’ potential extinction.

Different Perspectives

Major factors currently shaping political consumerism and thus boycott and buycott actions include (1) the major shift in values and priorities among younger generations; (2) the growing influence of consumption practices on social identity and citizenship; and (3) the increasing power of corporations as key agents in shaping public and economic life, making them political targets; see Copeland & Boulianne, 2022. These factors reinforce one another.

Regarding the value shift, a substantial transformation is taking place in social and political values: from materialism, utilitarianism, and hedonism to postmaterialism, self-expression, and transcendence (see Alternative Hedonism). The value-change theory attributes this shift to the younger generations, who, by living with lower future material and physical security than the elderly, prioritize expressive self-actualization over material abundance. Their growing concern about ecological sustainability also plays a role. As individuals feel less dependent on hierarchical authorities and more empowered to act independently, the authority vested in traditional institutions corrodes. They express growing mistrust of conventional institutions and modes of expression of political representation and action.

The above value shift among younger generations finds an expression in the individualization of political activities and personal engagement through the so-called lifestyle politics, that is, the attribution of fundamental political meaning to day-to-day activities such as shopping, eating, dressing, and spending leisure time. Consumer activities increasingly overlap with civic engagement. In addition to boycotts and buycotts, other forms of participation and bringing about social change have become prominent, such as volunteering and community involvement (see Alternative Consumer Cooperatives).

Many scholars argue that younger generations see citizenship more through the consumption of goods and media than through traditional political organizations. The prevailing political discourse equates citizenship to individual access to material goods, improved living standards for the middle classes, and market inclusion of the poor. It creates a convincing narrative that promotes participation in a consumer society as an indication of civic involvement. Individuals exposed to situations where their interests, rights, and values are perceived as better served by endorsing certain products or brands (or by opposing organizations causing negative externalities) easily connect the consumption and the citizenship spheres.

Confronting corporate power is another trend in political consumption. In the processes of economic liberalization and privatization, corporations became more politicized as both actors and targets, mostly because of their visibility as providers of public utility services. Furthermore, the growing corporate disregard for public well-being ignited consumer activism. This led to the institutionalization of legal protections for consumer rights through government policies and to programs in corporate self-regulation, such as the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), codes of conduct (for example, CERES), standardized reporting (e.g., Global Reporting Initiative, GRI) and Socially Responsible Investing (see also The Role of Business). These processes educated younger generations of citizens to bridge seemingly private consumer issues to wider public affairs and to vote with their wallets to influence corporate policies.

Research suggests that companies deploy symbolic and substantive sustainability performances, such as advertising their CSR programs and adopting rhetoric promoting shared responsibility among consumers and businesses, to gain consumers’ favor. This approach uses the institutional ecosystem of market-oriented NGOs, corporate-backed grassroots networks, pro-business think tanks, and business media platforms. Together, these entities disseminate new criteria for market valuation and purchasing decisions. One of the results is that consumers confront their relationship with brands as an exercise of citizenship. For some, it leads to increased political consumerism.

Application

Boycotts and buycotts have created a significant legacy for paving the road toward a sustainable society and disciplining market forces toward a progressive direction. They have played major roles in ending injustices like apartheid and labor rights violations, improvements in environmentally responsible manufacturing and waste management, and driving corporations to align themselves with principles of social responsibility and public accountability for their actions.

Skepticism may abound regarding the durability of this effect. Even when commitments fall short and greenwashing or social-washing persist, the codes of conduct, sustainability pledges, and public scrutiny continue to drive companies to improve their performance or avoid misconduct. This is largely motivated by the need to protect brand value, maintain a good reputation, and safeguard their market share. Similarly, the continued growth of organic, ecolabeled, traceability-based products and brands reflects the long-term positive impact of leveraging consumer power to reward pro-sustainable options in the market. While boycotts and buycotts may often be limited to individualized, focused, and temporary actions, they nonetheless may play a significant role in a gradual transition to a more equal, inclusive, ecofriendly, and economically democratic future.