top of page

Boycott 101

Boycott: A VERY Brief Guide 

Have you been trying to update yourself on current events? Are you active on the activism side of Instagram and X? Do you retweet and bookmark every thread about Palestine, petitions, GoFundMe goals, and links to resources to better inform yourself about the demands for justice? 


Whether you answer one or all of these questions with ‘yes’, this might be the guide to help you understand how to take part in activism under capitalism. One of the key methods of tackling capitalism, and remaining active and aware of financially driven immorality, is to avoid spending your money on those companies. Don’t be an active consumer of theirs, be inactive. To boycott is action with inaction. 


Defining a Boycott


According to Cambridge Dictionary, a boycott can be defined as: 

“the action of refusing to buy a product, do business with a company, or take part in an activity as a way of expressing strong disapproval:

  • […] Pressure groups urged a consumer boycott of clothing brands made using child labour.”


What we can assess from this definition in particular are three things: 

  1. Boycotts aim to communicate a ‘strong disapproval’. 

  2. Boycotts are often used to target products, businesses, or companies, as the desire for profit can be used against them by making a dent in their earnings. A drop in sales equates to getting a brand’s attention on a group’s strong disapproval of their action/inaction. 

  3. The reasons why people boycott often involve unjust events or activities, in which brands may be involved or complicit with. 


Similar to how the definition of a strike is a refusal “to continue working because of an argument with an employer about working conditions, pay levels, or job losses” or, broadly speaking, “to cause a person or place to suffer severely from the effects of something very unpleasant that happens suddenly” (Cambridge Dictionary), boycotts aim to use inactivity as an active way of communicating to higher-ups how groups of people can drive the smooth running of business and their profits, then take it away. The ones responsible for revenue are underappreciated until it becomes too inconvenient to ignore. 


However, it should be highlighted that for the case of Palestine support, the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions movement (BDS), argues that effective boycotts require targeted and collective strategy. BDS iterates that, 


“[t]he passion and commitment to justice behind the will to boycott every company that’s complicit with the genocidal Israeli regime are commendable [...] But, to be effective, our efforts, must be collective.


The BDS movement strategically focuses on a small number of targets to mobilise mass pressure against them, ensuring that our efforts are impactful. By forcing a strategic target to end complicity, we teach many other complicit companies a lesson.”


Understanding the intentions, motivations, and strategies of a boycott, particularly with the BDS movement, we can be better informed about how grand and significant change often requires as many individuals as possible targeting one unified goal.


With this in mind, we now know that Boycotts use inaction, such as not spending money on a product or brand, as action against injustice. It is one of the simplest ways to participate in activism and can be one of the most effective with enough people behind it. 


How to Boycott


The simple answer is: don’t buy anything. However, it could be argued that this is the first, or at least one of the steps involved in a boycott. An example of how to be involved in a boycott could also include redirecting your money, which would have gone to an unjust brand, to a charity, brand, organisation, or crowdfunding project that supports the cause you want to support. 


Other examples could be:

  • Taking part in marches

  • Signing petitions

  • Getting in contact with your local representative about the cause

  • Continuing to educate yourself about the current event(s) and/or cause(s)

  • Teaching your peers/social circle/anyone uninformed about previous or active boycotts and why they are happening


More knowledge can equate to more power in numbers to dismantle global injustices. To show that citizens aren’t alone in their suffering, they have people who are willing to back them and communicate their disapproval when they are not able to – such as buying e-sims for Palestinians because their access to worldwide communication is largely cut off to silence them from communicating about the genocide or to their loved ones. 


Case study: McDonald’s


McDonald’s is one of the big brands, alongside Disney+, that people are boycotting due to their support and/or financial involvement with Israel.* Starbucks is another example of a boycotted brand, but specifically for suing its union [SBWU, The Starbucks Workers United] for posting on social media “Solidarity with Palestine”. For this specific case study, the focus will be McDonald's and the boycott’s impact on the brand. 


According to a Time article by Astha Rajvanshi and Yasmeen Serhan, 

“[t]he boycotts nod to the wider Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to mobilize international pressure on Israel to end its occupation of the Palestinian territories.” (2024). 


In terms of McDonald’s specifically, Rajvanshi and Serhan report that the chain’s Israel-based locations, 

“advertised their decision to offer free and discounted meals to Israeli soldiers and rescue forces in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack. According to an Oct. 22 X post, McDonald’s Israel has given 100,000 free meals to security and rescue forces worth 5 million shekels ($1.3 million).” (2024). 


As specified by the Chicago-headquartered McDonald’s Corporation, they consider this unrepresentative of the brand as a whole, 

“that the company “is not funding or supporting any governments involved in this conflict” and that “any actions from our local Developmental Licensee business partners were made independently without McDonald’s consent or approval.” Suggestions to the contrary, the company adds, amount to “disinformation.” (The impact of the boycott is being acutely felt by franchisees in Muslim-majority countries. In Malaysia, the franchise operator is seeking $1.3 million in damages from the BDS movement for alleged defamation that it claims has hurt business.)” (Rajvanshi and Serhan, 2024).


Arguably, seeking $1.3 million in damages for alleged defamation reveals more about the character of McDonald’s as a corporation: they continue to centralize their own money even in times of global crisis. Given that McDonald’s largely makes its earnings from real estate rather than ‘real’ beef, it is difficult to sympathize with McDonald’s with this decision (2021). 


What will they gain from this? Not a trust, certainly not an improved reputation, and definitely not the hearts and souls of Palestinians. Money. They want to solve alleged misinformation by being given money they are not hugely suffering without. And even if they did get the money back, where is it going towards? Palestinian aid? Overworked and underpaid staff working at their 24-hour drive-throughs? Doubtful. 


Boycotts against Apartheid did not start October 7th


"The British public have a lot to learn from the sorts of consumer boycotts that we've had in Africa [...] concessions have been made, victories have been won from the boycott campaigns." 

– Boycott South African Apples, a film produced for the Anti-Apartheid Movement’s ‘Boycott Apartheid 89’ campaign.


This is not the first time that the general public has boycotted in effort to protest against Apartheid, examples include boycotts in the 1980s concerning the Apartheid in South Africa. According to the AAM [Anti-Apartheid Movement] Archives, 


“In the 1980s the Anti-Apartheid Movement grew from a small but determined pressure group into Britain’s biggest ever mass movement on an international issue. It mobili[z]ed hundreds of thousands of people all over Britain in demonstrations for sanctions against South Africa and the release of Nelson Mandela. It created a broad coalition of students, trade unionists, churches, political parties and community organi[z]ations to work for an end to all forms of British collaboration with apartheid.”


For the isolation of South Africa, the AAM set up “the World Campaign against Military and Nuclear Collaboration, protested against rugby and other sports tours and called for an oil embargo.” This included relaunching the consumer boycott of South African goods in 1984.


Something important to note about this is that the AAM called for “the people’s sanctions” as a response to Margaret Thatcher, Conservative leader and Prime Minister of the UK at the time, refusing to impose sanctions. This highlights a pattern of behavior of the British Government, particularly led by Conservative party members, not calling to action against Apartheid. Whilst the British Government has and continues to behave as an ongoing product of historic and systemic oppression, there were campaigns calling for British consumers to “act responsibly” by boycotting South African products, which helped result in one in four Britons participating in the boycott by the mid-1980s.


History has demonstrated three specific truths: 

  1. There is a noticeable pattern of Western leadership, such as the British Government, not actively utilizing its platform to support liberation in non-Western regions. 

  2. Boycotts can be an effective way of using inaction as action, especially considering how contemporary society is largely driven by capital, consumption, and commerce. 

  3. We are capable of collective change when we work together with united goals and forms of protest. 


Examining the BDS highlights these truths as they emphasize how “[t]argeted boycott campaigns were crucial in the international pressure movement that helped bring down the apartheid regime in South Africa”. Therefore, it is fully possible for Palestine to be liberated from apartheid “if done right” (2024).


Conclusion: Why?


It may feel like your boycott will make an insignificant dent in a brand(s)’s profit margin, but the impact of learning and teaching others about boycotts can make a difference. 


When you are doing your best to be involved in a boycott, remember that a brand is not a heart. A company is not a soul. A product is not a person. Starbucks is not upset you didn’t buy your regular anymore because they miss you, they miss your money. 


The Palestinian men, women, children, and journalists – the livelihoods Israel tries to suffocate with bombs and bullets – they are hearts, they are souls, they are people. 


Whether it may be a celebrity not making their stand on a current event clear or a boycott damaging a brand’s bottom line, inaction is just as loud as action. 


Bibliography



Editors: Patrick E., Joyce P., Rajeshwari T.


Comments

bottom of page