A common objection to boycotts is based on sympathy for the workers. If you call for a boycott on Amazon, for example, a substantial portion of the population will argue “good people work for bad companies”.
This rationale essentially attempts to take the boycott option off the table entirely for all mid-size companies and larger. So I wonder to what extent this widespread way of thinking damages activist movements to correct harmful companies.
Recently in Belgium there was a boycott on the grocery chain Delhaize for their employment practices. So I can’t help but notice this boycott is purely out of sympathy for the employees, effectively a 180° contradiction to the mentality that boycotts harm employees.
Good people work for bad companies, but also good people are negatively impacted by companies. NOT boycotting hurts other good people. Or sometimes the same good people, if you’re boycotting for better labor conditions.
It will in 99.9% of the cases be cheaper for a company to give some concessions to the boycotters before it kills off otherwise profitable segments of its operation. If they weren’t profitable they were on the chopping block anyway and any concessions made can easily be reversed later once the dust settles.
So even if the short term cost would eat up the profit (it most likely won’t), long term the venture can still be profitable by weaseling around or even outright reversing any sort of concessions made. See for example the whole green washing debacle most companies engage in.
Indeed I agree… boycotts would not cause impact on workers.
I would like to get to the bottom of why boycotts are so under utilized. Non-activists always have a common list of excuses claiming:
- boycotts don’t work (dozen different reasons they think this)
- employees are harmed as collateral damage
- the “all companies are bad” excuse
The “all companies are bad” excuse is easily dismissed by a comparison of wrongdoing among competing corps, but still hard to counter because those with that reasoning don’t likely care about the harm being fought in the first place. The first two bullets are contradictory. Thus non-activists are likely to believe one or the other. It’s hard to turn around the thinking of people who think boycotts don’t work, but perhaps activists can reach those who worry about collateral damage because those in that group are more likely to intrinsically care enough to take actions.