Spending Truth to Power: The History and Impact of Consumer Boycotts (Part Two)

Consumer boycotts have become a widespread way of challenging food systems and corporations. But is their ubiquity limiting their impact?

Hi friends! Yesterday, I sent out Part One of my piece on boycotts, detailing the history of the practice (did you know that they were named after a person?) and exploring how they impact companies.

Today, I’m following up with Part Two, where I discuss why boycotts remain salient and powerful tools to this day, and what the markers of a successful boycott are. You do need to read Part One to understand some of the references here, so I suggest going back and giving that a glance. 

Thank you!  

Photo by Raygar He on Unsplash

WHY BOYCOTTS NOW?

Although the concept of boycotting was formalized in Ireland in the 19th century, and while boycotts continue to be utilized worldwide, there is something very American and capitalistic about using money—or withholding money—to exercise one’s values. “Americans have come to understand, based upon the way that the courts have defined boycotts for them, that boycotts are extensions of their rights as citizens,” says historian Allyson P. Brantley. “They have a right to consume, they have a right not to consume, and boycotts have come to be seen as part of First Amendment speech.”

Brayden King, a professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University, writes that activists use tactics like boycotts “when they lack access to legitimate channels of change or when their influence has been muffled by insider politics,” particularly when the “target of change is a business corporation.” Boycotts are used when people calling for change don’t have a seat at the table or are not being listened to, and the rise in collective action within food systems might explain why we’re seeing more boycotts directed toward food corporations today.

The food and beverage industry has been notoriously difficult to unionize—just 1.4% of workers in the “food services and drinking places” industry were unionized in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But in the 2023 fiscal year, the National Labor Relations Board reported that “2,594 union representation petitions were filed,” many of which were affiliated with food and service unions. 167 petitions were filed through the Service Employees International Union; 131 through the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; and 144 through Workers United, which represents Starbucks workers.

With many of these unions facing pushback—Starbucks only recently came to an agreement with the union to bargain and work towards a contract—or seeing delays in the bargaining process, boycotts can be a tool to spur movement when organizers feel their voices are being ignored or silenced. 

Brantley also postulates that the commodification of food systems has enabled boycotts. “There’s something there about the shift towards commodified food consumption and that so many consumer food brands have very visible names, so they’re very easy to boycott,” she says. 

It’s also easier to boycott items when there is a “substitutable product that’s easily accessible,” said King. “You definitely saw that with the Bud Light boycott,” he says. “If you go to your grocery store, to the beer aisle, you’re going to find 20 different products that are essentially the same thing as Bud Light. It’s really easy to switch.” 

It’s unclear if the consolidation of food brands complicates the effectiveness of boycotting. If a consumer boycotts Bud Light, as many did in 2023 when the brand partnered with transgender activist and influencer Dylan Mulvaney, will they boycott the other 500 beer brands owned by Bud Light’s parent company, Anheuser-Busch InBev? Nearly every branded grocery store item is owned by a multinational corporation with dozens or hundreds of other brands in its portfolio. 

An investigation published by The Guardian shows that “a handful of powerful companies control the majority market share of almost 80% of dozens of grocery items bought regularly by ordinary Americans.” For example, the investigation shows that four brands own 76.6% of all beers consumed; AB InBev owns 41.6%, ranging from global brands like Corona and Michelob to “craft” beer brands like Goose Island and Golden Road. 

Can a consumer easily be asked to boycott hundreds of beer brands? Probably not, and the factors that make boycotts such a powerful tool—including the fact that anyone can call for one—can also weaken their impact. “The effectiveness of the boycott has really been diluted as a tool because everyone wants to boycott everything,” says Brantley. “You can say, ‘Boycott Starbucks,’ but if you don’t tell people why or tell people when to stop boycotting Starbucks, it becomes an empty call.”

Having a clear goal and timeline for a boycott is critical. Perhaps that’s why the Bud Light boycott only had a limited impact: There was no stated terminus. “Boycotts are only as successful as their organizers are successful at communicating what’s going on,” says Brantley. 

For Glaive Perry and their coworkers at Ultimo Coffee in Philadelphia, the goal was to get owners Aaron and Elizabeth Ultimo to finally settle their union contract—but without a concrete aim like this, it can be difficult for consumers to sign onto a boycott. “And I think one of the things that makes boycotts unsuccessful is when they don’t specify the endpoint,” says Brantley. “Like, what is the desired endpoint of the boycott?”

VICTORY IN THE END

Early in her book, “Brewing a Boycott: How a Grassroots Coalition Fought Coors and Remade American Consumer Activism,” Brantley includes a quote from UFW organizer Eliseo Medina: “The boycott teaches. He who learns the boycott can organize anything.”

While boycotts can be called for a number of reasons, successful ones are often defined by their concision and organization. “When I’m understanding of why the Coors Boycott was effective, it was about clear messaging and good organizing,” says Brantley. She says that the boycott was “super focused” and that organizers “would send teams across the West to cities to do hyper-local boycotting. They would have flyers, contacts, key talking points where they would lay out why they were boycotting, what were the stakes of it, and what they hope to achieve.” 

“It’s at those moments,” she says, “where the boycott is most effective, because you can make the argument to the consumers walking by that they need to boycott.” 

Perry says that she and her coworkers distributed handouts outlining the goals of the union and explaining why Ultimo workers were calling for a boycott. “I think the difference was leafleting—that we were there talking to people face to face,” they say. “Had we just put out a call on Instagram and if we had just emailed people and texted people in some mass email chain, these indirect and very alienated forms of communication, I don’t think it would have worked as effectively as it did.”

Not every customer jumped in on the union’s boycotting efforts. Some declined to engage, but she was touched by the number of people who went above and beyond to boost the union’s message. “A surprising number of folks helped us directly to notify people about the boycott,” she says. “People were down to put in time.” 

But that doesn’t mean going forward with the boycott wasn’t scary. “It was a little nerve-wracking at first just because you don’t know,” says Perry. “There’s a risk that you run personally and collectively when you take part in any kind of collective action in your workplace.” 

Perry acknowledges the incredible amount of work she and her colleagues did to orchestrate the Ultimo boycott, but she’s also clear that this is work worth doing—and work that can be replicated. “Labor organizing is, in some ways, simple,” they say. “One of the biggest reservations is this idea that it is something more abstract or esoteric or something that’s so out of reach.”

But she says that, despite the work and the nervousness, organizing your workplace—and boycotting if necessary—is something workers can do, and shouldn’t feel deterred from. “If you can talk to your roommates, if you can talk to your neighbor,” they say, “you can organize your workplace.”