Earlier this week, it was announced that McDonald's had a weak quarter in sales in large part due to boycotts surrounding the crisis in Gaza. The concept behind a boycott is that if an organisation is taking an action or has a stance with which one disagrees, that person chooses to no longer use that good or service in an effort to reduce the companies profitability and in turn shine a light on their perceived indiscretion. The advent of social media has expanded their use, sometimes to their detriment as too many boycotts are called for by various groups which lessens the impact and participation of each individual one. Yet this announcement is one of the few occasions where the impact has been financial, indicating that consumerism could enhance the arsenal of activists at a time where UK legislation seeks to lessen it.
This marks a turning point in this form of political action. Historically, boycotts have caused repetitional damage for businesses, but rarely impacted their revenue. This damage can cause a fall in stock price and therefore a change in direction, but rarely does it have the initially intended economic consequence. This is due to several factors including people's habitual nature, the size of the boycotting group, and whether consist of the company's target consumers.
Given the recent trend of disruptive protest used by groups like Just Stop Oil, it would seem like this more peaceful method would be less relevant as it will grab fewer headlines. However, the former risks turning public sentiment against the cause and alienating decision makers who do not wish to be associated with such actions. In contrast, the latter is perhaps the ultimate example of using the system to an advantage. Consumer choice is often championed by political and economic establishments in capitalist countries; therefore the exercise of this choice cannot be criticised. In a society where power is often concentrated, consumerism offers a rare instance where collective action by the otherwise powerless can make a serious change.
The great irony is that brands and companies have played directly into this narrative through increased politicisation. Messages of racial equality, climate responsibility, and fair working practices are espoused the largest companies, not just those smaller ones whose initial identity is founded on such a concept. This idea of companies having a moral stance has extended to people attempting to associate themselves with brands that share their political beliefs.
This is a false concept, as while companies are collections of people and these people certainly have a collective sense of morality, the company itself cannot. It is merely a marketing tactic - it is political because a particular political stance will increase profitability. This is not to necessarily criticise those organisations or the people within, but to point out that a corporation is not a person (despite what the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC attempts to claim). Yet this choice to present themselves as moral agents seems to have backfired on companies. If they pass moral judgement, then they are open to judgement themselves.
The question that remains then is whether this ability to effectively boycott is beneficial for society. Some would argue this is a democratisation of capitalism - a sentiment which suggests that this political philosophy can be used to make meaningful change. This article is not aiming to promote consumerism as necessarily good. But given its existence and hold in capitalist countries, the usage of it to affect meaningful change could seem like the ironic turning of a societal flaw to a societal saviour.
Yet there is a danger in this, as attractive as the initial concept may seem. The rise of populism across the world has led to some incredibly damaging geopolitical changes. The ability of the populace to implement mob rule and destroy businesses which employ countless working people could not only have economic consequences but discourage businesses from taking an ethical stance. In increasing the power of the well intentioned, we increase the power of the hateful and bigoted. For many boycotts there are so-called "buycotts" where those on the opposing side of the issue increase their use of brand.
Perhaps then, like many things, the problem is not the action itself but the application of it. Boycotting is an increasingly effective way to use your individual choice in a peaceful manner to make a political statement that could cause a change in policy for an organisation or even a country. Whether that change is positive comes down whether the people deciding to use it are fighting for a positive outcome.
It is also worth noting that the initial impetus for this article was the McDonald's boycott. Despite the economic damage, their position remains the same, and the conflict in Gaza continues. Boycotting may be an effective weaponisation of capitalism by activists, but too often it fails to deliver on its intended outcome beyond increasing outrage. However, it certainly offers a path worth exploring when activists consider how they can use the current socio-economic system to their advantage.
Comentários