An inherent aspect of democracy is freedom of speech and therefore freedom of protest: a key part of this is boycotting. Today, The Student discusses whether or not this is effective, or if boycotts become trends, often causing more harm than good.
Understood as refusing to buy (or use products from) a specific business or brand, boycotting has been a mode of social action for decades. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, for example, triggered the desegregation of public transport in the United States’ Deep South, making it clear that they can be highly effective. Today, pro-Palestine boycotts have gained much attention, centring around four main corporations which are funding Israel: McDonald’s, Disney, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks. However, given the scale of these businesses, is it realistic to expect any group’s actions to successfully influence capital turnover for these businesses?
Boycotting is a practical and manageable level of political action which feels effective, at least in the short-term, often in contrast to other political acts, such as writing to your MP or MSP, which frequently feels redundant. Furthermore, it is sustainable: if done effectively, boycotts can have a long-term influence on a company’s profit, hopefully causing a change to whatever the boycott is for. These sort of grassroots protests can demonstrate the political or economic wants and needs of normal people, and if done effectively they can have an impact in return – for example, Starbucks is set to cut 900 jobs and close one per cent of its stores in North America following consumer boycotts. This means that boycotting is, in theory, both a sustainable and effective mode of protest for many, meaning its influence should not be understated.
However, the danger with boycotting particular businesses is that it becomes a trend: avoid something for a few months, return to it when the boycott is no longer circulating on social media. This can almost have the inverse effect of boycotting: rather than causing a negative effect on a business’ profit, it can show the necessity of their products and the weaknesses of the cause or movement the boycott is for. This is to say, whilst boycotts are an effective means of social protest, mindful boycotting may be more important in the long term. Rather, consider if it is possible for you to continue boycotting the product or service in question, and will you continue to do so?
University action, however small, should also not be forgotten. EUSA has been boycotting Nestle since 1982, for their baby formula marketing in developing countries, as well as The Sun since 2012 for publishing page 3 girls. With this in mind, it is important to recognise how boycotting comes in many shapes and forms, varying from institution to person.
It is also important to consider the impact of boycotting on the market more broadly. For example, if chain companies are avoided, does this mean that indie shops are more likely to benefit? Given the plethora of local coffee shops and homeware stores in Edinburgh, we are likely to notice this first hand, especially as corporations such as Airbnb or Starbucks are boycotted.
The fear that boycotts are becoming a trend is further linked to people choosing when and where to support a boycott. Consistency towards specific businesses is important and this has already been seen for businesses such as McDonald’s and Starbucks who are noticing a decline in their profits. Therefore, the role of committing to a cause to boycott and following through is imperative. The effect of boycotting is truly important, especially to ensure political autonomy in any democracy.
Photo by Athar Khan on Unsplash