The Guardian (UK): Should I ... support a consumer boycott? “In recent years, many household names have been forced into high-profile U-turns - Shell's climbdown over the proposed deep-sea sinking of its Brent Spar platform is a memorable example.”: Tuesday October 4, 2005
Leo Hickman's guide to a good life
Where do we pack the biggest punch: at the polling booth or at the checkout? Who listens to us more and values our patronage more highly: the politician, or the company director? Anyone wishing to affect some positive change on the world might be downbeat about the chances of either inclining their ears in our direction. They're all in it for themselves, cry the cynics. Politicians are basically the same these days, and big business has most politicians firmly by the ballots anyway. Right?
It's hard sometimes to resist the temptation to view the world like this, but there is actually plenty of evidence that, as consumers at least, we Davids can nobble miscreant Goliaths if we all gang up together against them.
Yes, the consumer boycott is often a blunt and rather crude weapon of combat, but it has claimed many notable successes. From the boycott of slave-produced goods called for by the National Negro Convention in 1830, to the boycott of South African goods during the apartheid years, consumer boycotts have repeatedly helped to change minds as well as history. Built on the sensible belief that you will get anyone's attention if you threaten their profits, boycott calls have now become one of the first options campaigners turn to when they see an injustice. In some cases, it is the only recourse. Letter writing, petition signing and even global email campaigns somehow don't seem to have quite the same bite as a well organised boycott. In recent years, many household names have been forced into high-profile U-turns - Shell's climbdown over the proposed deep-sea sinking of its Brent Spar platform is a memorable example.
But beyond these big successes, how many of the many hundreds of boycotts called over the years have really achieved their aims? Each year the Co-operative Bank sponsors research that tries to put a figure on how much money targeted firms are missing out on each year through boycotts by UK consumers. In 2004, this figure stood at £3.2bn, an increase of £600m on the previous year (the leap is attributed to increased anger at the US in general over the Iraq war and by association some US firms). This may sound impressive, but it actually only accounts for about 0.5% of what UK consumers spend each year. And it seems even less impressive when you consider that surveys have shown that more than half the population state they are currently boycotting a firm or country. Why isn't this huge collective force having more of an effect? It could be argued that one of the highest profile boycotts of recent decades, the ongoing International Baby Food Action Network campaign against Nestlé, has not achieved its aims. While Nestlé has admitted that its recruitment of graduates is made harder because of the boycott, it remains one of the largest food companies in the world and still sells infant formula to developing nations in a manner that upsets the campaigners. Why hasn't this boycott achieved all its goals yet? Determined company directors? A list of products to boycott that is too long for most consumers to remember? Or a cause that is quite hard to get across in a few pithy words?
Analyse most successful boycotts and they boast a highly emotive and instantly "gettable" cause: dolphins killed by tuna fishermen; the "support breasts, not dictators" campaign against Triumph bras' Burmese factory; and similarly Burma Campaign UK's plea for tourists not to visit the country. That's obviously not to say that a boycott is only worth supporting just because it's easy to explain or PR friendly - many don't necessarily have a defined end-goal - but it is always worth researching any boycott to establish if it is really the best option for voicing your concerns. For example, Cafod and Oxfam are worried that boycotts of companies committing workers' rights abuses potentially put the workers' livelihoods at risk, as has been the case with football stitchers in Pakistan. Such boycotts should only be supported if the workers themselves call for it.
There is also little point supporting a boycott if you don't tell the firm why you are boycotting their products or services. And, in addition to the boycott, double your power via the "buycott" by giving your cash to firms and services that are notably behaving themselves · You say ...
Frankie Green, Whitstable, Kent The South African boycott helped to end apartheid. In the absence of ethical responses from the international community, it falls to civil society - you and me - to take a stand against human rights violations, which is why I don't eat Israeli fruit and veg.
Martin Wren, Cheshire Boycotts are totally ineffective. Tesco opened a small supermarket in Heaton Moor just over a year ago against the protests of local residents. I have been boycotting Tesco since and they still haven't closed it.
Next week: is it OK to use a patio heater? Send your views to ethical.living@guardian.co.uk
Click here for ShellNews.net HOME PAGE