consumer boycott essay

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: toward a unified model

It has become commonplace for consumers to judge companies against social responsibility criteria. Along with such judgments, many consumers are also taking up action, often using the Internet to virally spread their views. Such consumer-led campaigns can put at risk years of investments in branding. For firms understanding what drives consumers to engage in boycotts is key to minimizing exposure to such viral risk. To date, the academic literature has offered disparate and disconnected findings with respect to boycott participation. In this research paper, we review relevant literature, confirm its appropriateness using a series of in-depth interviews, and use our findings to identify key antecedents to consumer participation in boycotts. We then test our proposed model through an empirical study, thus revealing key drivers of consumers' intention to participate in such boycotts. Our results offer insight into factors that companies can manage so as to prevent consumers from participating in boycotts.

Related Papers

Tricia Chiam

Journal of Consumer Policy

Stefan Hoffmann

Journal of Business Research

Ulku Yuksel

Maya F Farah

Despite a worldwide growth in the number of boycott campaigns, the results of studies are inconclusive as the motives behind individual participation are still largely ignored. Drawing on a socio-cognitive theory, the theory of planned behavior, this research investigates whether the direct variables of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control, help predict consumers' boycott intention. Conducted in Lebanon, this work employs a survey design administered to a randomized systematic sample of 500 Muslim and Christian consumers. The sample is split into two sub-samples reflecting the main religious groups in the Middle-East. Results show that although the Muslim participants appear more prone to participate in the boycott, still attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are all significant predictors of intentions in both communities with the attitudinal component carrying the most weight. This application of a social psychology theory to the consumers' passive resistance to purchasing yielded significant contributions at the theoretical, empirical, and managerial levels.

Clare Dsouza , Tariq Halimi

Previous animosity studies have been conducted in single-target contexts where the effects of hostility towards one product's country of origin were examined. This current study is an attempt to investigate the animosity construct in the multi-target boycott case of the Middle-East conflict where more than one party (countries and companies) are involved in the political conflict, as reports show that consumers have inconsistent reactions to these involved parties. One-on-one in-depth interviews, supported by documentation, were conducted with Arab consumers who are presumably involved in the conflict. It has been found that animosity is multi-level which belongs to the political relations (thereafter POLR) continuum and performs as a product attribute. POLRs' effects on the consumer are subject to parties' involvement level in the conflict and consumer prioritized needs. Research findings imply that " political positioning " can be applied by brands with " good quality " POLR, while others need to highlight other product attributes.

Journal of Business Ethics

Laura Flurry , Krist Swimberghe

Dursun Yener

Asmat-Nizam Abdul-Talib

Elias Boukrami , Omar Al Serhan

Consumer boycotting behaviour has serious consequences for organisations targeted. In this paper, a review of literature on boycotting from 1990 to 2013 is presented. Several consumer boycotting types are identified based on motivations underlying. These are influenced by religious beliefs, cultural values and political opinions. We have scanned all articles dealing with consumer boycotting behaviour in marketing literature. 115 scholarly articles published in 25 top marketing journals as ranked in the ABS (Association of Business Journal Schools) Review from 1990 to 2013 are reviewed. Along with outlining the research in this area, we also wanted to assess the level of attention paid to brand loyalty in relation to boycotting behaviour. Despite the fact that existing literature listed a number of factors that can potentially trigger consumers’ boycotts i.e. religion, war, political, economic, cultural, environmental, and ethical reasons. Nevertheless, there is no ranking of factors indicating which one are the most influential (e.g. long lasting, most damaging in terms of brand loyalty, etc.). Our review also suggests that boycott campaigns in developed nations are mainly motivated by economic triggers. However, in developing nations boycott calls and campaigns were motivated by religious triggers or by ethical triggers. The impact of boycotting on consumers’ brand loyalty, relation between religion, race, country of origin and the level of regional as well as national development would need to be researched further in order to shed light on its effect on the success or failure of boycott calls from consumers’ perspective and the prevention of such calls from the targeted firms’ point of view.

Breno P A Cruz

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Decomposing the effects of consumer boycotts: evidence from the anti-Japanese demonstration in China

Published: 23 February 2019
Volume 58 , pages 2615–2634, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

Zijun Luo 1 &
Yonghong Zhou 2

1427 Accesses

14 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This paper quantifies the Chinese consumers’ boycott of Japanese cars that immediately followed the anti-Japanese demonstrations in September 2012. We decompose the total boycott effect into two effects: the transfer effect, which refers to consumers switching from Japanese to non-Japanese brands, and the cancellation effect, which captures decline in sales due to consumers exiting the market. We find that the cancellation effect accounts for more than 90% of the total decline in Japanese car sales, implying a small substitution effect in the automobile market, even though brands of all other countries have benefited. This paper provides evidence of both negative and positive impacts of political conflicts for different market participants and includes analysis with welfare implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Do political tensions take a toll? The effect of the Sino-Japan relationship on sales of Japanese-brand cars in China

A Model to Follow? The Impact of Neoliberal Policies on the British Automobile Market and Industry

Japan’s automobile market in troubled times.

Recent literature has also analyzed how political conflicts affect economic relationships. See, for example, Fershtman and Gandal ( 1998 ), Michaels and Zhi ( 2010 ), Fuchs and Klann ( 2013 ), Li and Sacko ( 2002 ) and Davis and Meunier ( 2011 ).

Proxy boycotts can also occur in domestic politics. For example, Cuadras-Morató and Raya ( 2016 ) study the boycotts of Catalan sparkling wine in Spain.

Our data also cover the period of the “Senkaku Event” in 2010 that arisen from disputes over the Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu Islands in China. However, we find no evidence of negative impact resulted from the 2010 “Senkaku Event” in the Chinese automobile market.

We computed the size of Japanese imported cars as a percentage of “Made in China” Japanese cars using data from UN Comtrade (HS code 8703) and our data and find that imported cars account for less than 10% of Japanese car sales in China.

Studies of the automobile industry are abundant in the economics literature. See, for example, Bandeen ( 1957 ), Sheahan ( 1960 ), Hess ( 1977 ), Berkovec ( 1985 ), Bresnahan ( 1987 ), Cooper and Haltiwanger ( 1993 ), Ries ( 1993 ), Berry et al. ( 1995 ) and Park ( 2003 ), covering a variety of topics. In addition, Depner and Bathelt ( 2005 ), Deng and Ma ( 2010 ), Luong ( 2013 ) and Hu et al. ( 2014 ) provide analyses of various aspects of the Chinese automobile industry.

CAAM also reports the sales of Jiaocha cars, which are designed for both cargo and passenger purposes. This type of car is specially designed for the Chinese market, especially in the rural areas. Since they are not general passenger cars, and there is no foreign-brand cars in this category, we exclude them from our sample.

See Heilmann ( 2016 ) for more details of the boycotts of Japanese products.

Tables 7 and 8 in “Appendix B” give results of the relevant unit root tests, as well as AIC and BIC values for the selections of optimal degrees and lags.

The basic fixed effect regression with common trend is

while the regression with unique trends is

where $\alpha _{i}$ and $\lambda _{t}$ indicate the group fixed effect and the time fixed effect and $D_{it}$ is a dummy variable that equals 1 for the treatment group after policy and 0 otherwise. In the second regression, $\bar{\lambda _{t}}$ denotes the collection of trends of the non-treatment groups while $\lambda _t D_{it}$ is the unique trend of the treatment group. With the common trend regression, ${\hat{\rho }}$ gives the estimate of ATE. However, if the unique trend model is the true model, then ${\hat{\rho }}$ would be overestimated because its value is equal to ${\tilde{\lambda }}_t + {\tilde{\rho }}$ from the regression with unique trend.

Please see “Appendix A” for additional detail.

Equation ( 8 ) relies on $t_0$ , a reference time period. In Sect. 4.1 , two specifications of $t_0$ are presented.

Ashenfelter O, Ciccarella S, Shatz H (2007) French wine and the U.S. boycott of 2003: Does politics really affect commerce? J Wine Econ 2(1):55–74

Article Google Scholar

Autor DH (2003) Outsourcing at will: the contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing. J Labor Econ 21(1):1–42

Bandeen RA (1957) Automobile consumption, 1940–1950. Econometrica 25(2):239–248

Baron DP (2001) Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy. J Econ Manag Strategy 10(1):7–45

Baron DP (2003) Private politics. J Econ Manag Strategy 12(1):31–66

Berkovec J (1985) New car sales and used car stocks: a model of the automobile market. Rand J Econ 16(2):195–214

Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (1995) Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica 63(4):841–890

Bown CP, Crowley MA (2007) Trade deflection and trade depression. J Int Econ 72:176–201

Bresnahan TF (1987) Competition and collusion in the American automobile industry: the 1955 price war. J Ind Econ 35(4):457–482

Chavis L, Leslie P (2009) Consumer boycotts: the impact of the Iraq war on French wine sales in the U.S. Quant Market Econ 7(1):37–67

Che Y, Du J, Lu Y, Tao Z (2015) Once an enemy, forever an enemy? The long-run impact of the Japanese invasion of China from 1937 to 1945 on trade and investment. J Int Econ 96(1):182–198

Ciro B, De Mello JMP, Alexandre S (2010) Dry laws and homicides: evidence from the São Paulo metropolitan area. Econ J 120(543):157–182

Clerides S, Davis P, Michis A (2015) National sentiment and consumer choice: the Iraq war and sales of US products in Arab countries. Scand J Econ 117(3):829–851

Cooper R, Haltiwanger J (1993) Automobiles and the National Industrial Recovery Act: evidence on industry complementarities. Q J Econ 108(4):1043–1071

Cuadras-Morató X, Raya JM (2016) Boycott or buycott?: Internal politics and consumer choices. BE J Econ Anal Policy 16(1):185–218

Davis CL, Meunier S (2011) Business as usual? Economic responses to political tensions. Am J Polit Sci 55(3):628–646

Deng H, Ma AC (2010) Market structure and pricing strategy of China’s automobile industry. J Ind Econ 58(4):818–845

Depner H, Bathelt H (2005) Exporting the German model: the establishment of a new automobile industry cluster in Shanghai. Econ Geogr 81(1):53–81

Egorov G, Harstad B (2017) Private politics and public regulation. Rev Econ Stud 84:1652–1682

Google Scholar

Fershtman C, Gandal N (1998) The effect of the Arab boycott on Israel: the automobile market. RAND J Econ 29(1):193–214

Fisman R, Hamao Y, Wang Y (2014) Nationalism and economic exchange: evidence from shocks to Sino-Japanese relations. Rev Financ Stud 27:2626–2660

Fuchs A, Klann NH (2013) Paying a visit: the Dalai Lama effect on international trade. J Int Econ 91(1):164–177

Heilmann K (2016) Does political conflict hurt trade? Evidence from consumer boycotts. J Int Econ 99:179–191

Hendel I, Lach S, Spiegel Y (2017) Consumers’ activism: the cottage cheese boycott. RAND J Econ 48(4):972–1003

Hess AC (1977) A comparison of automobile demand equations. Econometrica 45(3):683–702

Hong C, Hu WM, Prieger JE, Zhu D (2011) French automobiles and the Chinese boycotts of 2008: politics really does affect commerce. BE J Econ Anal Policy 11(1):Article 26

Hu WM, Xiao J, Zhou X (2014) Collusion or competition? Interfirm relationships in the Chinese auto industry. J Ind Econ 62(1):1–40

John A, Klein J (2003) The boycott puzzle: consumer motivations for purchase sacrifice. Manag Sci 49(9):1196–1209

Li Q, Sacko D (2002) The (ir)relevance of militarized interstate disputes for international trade. Int Stud Q 46(1):11–43

Luo Z, Tian X (2018) Can China’s meat imports be sustainable? A case study of mad cow disease. Appl Econ 50(9):1022–1042

Luong TA (2013) Does learning by exporting happen? Evidence from the automobile industry in China. Rev Dev Econ 17(3):461–473

Magee CS (2008) New measures of trade creation and trade diversion. J Int Econ 75:349–362

Michaels G, Zhi X (2010) Freedom fried. Am Econ J Appl Econ 2(3):256–281

Pan Y, Zhou Y (2018) War memory: evidence from assistance during Great East Japan earthquake. Defence Peace Econ Forthcoming

Pandya SS, Venkatesan R (2016) French toast: consumer response to international conflict-evidence from supermarket scanner data. Rev Econ Stat 98(1):42–56

Park BG (2003) Politics of scale and the globalization of the South Korean automobile industry. Econ Geogr 79(2):173–194

Peck J (2017) Temporary boycotts as self-fulfilling disruptions of markets. J Econ Theory 169:1–12

Ries JC (1993) Windfall profits and vertical relationships: Who gained in the Japanese auto industry from VERs? J Ind Econ 41(3):259–276

Sheahan J (1960) Government competition and the performance of the French automobile industry. J Ind Econ 8(3):197–215

Waldinger F (2010) Quality matters: the expulsion of professors and the consequences for Ph.D. student outcomes in Nazi Germany. J Polit Econ 118(4):787–831

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented at the Chinese Economists Society 2015 North America Conference, the 2016 CEC Workshop, and seminars at Fudan University and Peking University. We thank conference and seminar participants, especially Le Wang, Zhao Chen, Wei Huang, Lixing Li, Yongqian Li, Pinghan Liang, Tianyang Xi, Yiqing Xu, and Shilin Zheng for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics and International Business, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, 77341-2118, USA

Department of Economics, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

Yonghong Zhou

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yonghong Zhou .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Zhou acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 71803064) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Jinan University (Grant Numbers: 12JNYH002, 12JNKY001, and 15JNQM001).

1.1 Appendix A

To further separate ${\mathsf {CE}}$ and ${\mathsf {TE}}$ and express them as percentages of total changes in sales, we need information on the substitutability between sales of Japanese cars and other cars. Let $\delta $ denote the marginal rate of substitution (MRS), which is conditional on the information set $\varLambda _{t}$ ; we then have

which may be rewritten into a discrete form as Footnote 11

The MRS, as conventionally defined, measures the substitutability between sales of Japanese versus other cars, based on the information set. We envisioned the information set to contain not only observable market conditions, but also unobservable attitudes of the Chinese customers towards foreign countries especially Japan. There are three main assumptions for the set up of $\delta $ in Eq. ( 8 ). First, consumer preferences are stable. It is especially important that consumers’ attitudes towards Japan are stable, which is arguably true because of the long unhappy history between the two countries. This is also why Eq. ( 8 ) does not have a time dimension. Second, non-Japanese and Japanese cars, especially those of similar sizes, are close substitutes, if not perfect substitutes, in the sense that a family may purchase only one car at a time. As a result, the utility function of consumers is a linear combination of consumptions of all cars with a consumer buying the car that gives the highest utility. Last, although price information is unavailable in our data, the prices of new cars in China are stable and can be anticipated almost perfectly. This can be the case because the used car market in China is underdeveloped and most consumers choose to buy new cars from dealership or flagship stores.

1.2 Appendix B

See Tables 7 and 8 .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Luo, Z., Zhou, Y. Decomposing the effects of consumer boycotts: evidence from the anti-Japanese demonstration in China. Empir Econ 58 , 2615–2634 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01650-3

Download citation

Received : 27 February 2017

Accepted : 28 November 2018

Published : 23 February 2019

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-019-01650-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Decomposition
Substitution
Political conflict
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Consumer Boycotts

DOI link for Consumer Boycotts

Get Citation

Despite the increasing occurrence of consumer boycotts, little has been written about this form of social and economic protest. This timely volume fills the knowledge gap by examining boycotts both historically and currently. Drawing on both published and unpublished material as well as personal interviews with boycott groups and their targets, Monroe Friedman discusses different types of boycotts-from their historical focus on labor and economic concerns to the more recent inclusion of issues such as minority rights, animal welfare, and environmental protection. He also documents the shift in strategic emphasis from the marketplace (cutting consumer sales) to the media (securing news coverage to air criticism of a targeted firm). In turn, these changes in boycott substance and style offer insights into larger upheavals in the social and economic fabric of 20th century America.

Chapter 1 | 20 pages, consumer boycott basics, chapter 2 | 12 pages, factors affecting boycott success, chapter 3 | 30 pages, labor boycotts, chapter 4 | 26 pages, consumer economic boycotts, chapter 5 | 42 pages, minority group initiatives: african american boycotts, chapter 6 | 28 pages, boycott initiatives of other minority groups, chapter 7 | 22 pages, boycotts by religious groups, chapter 8 | 20 pages, ecological boycotts, chapter 9 | 12 pages, consumer “buycotts”, chapter 10 | 14 pages, boycott issues and tactics in historical perspective.

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Taylor & Francis Online
Taylor & Francis Group
Students/Researchers
Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

“Consumer Boycotts: An Essential Method of Peaceful Protest” – Philip Kotler

September 1, 2020

Consumers normally show their attitude toward a company by patronizing or ignoring the company. Or they might actively dislike the company.

What can a disappointed consumer do about a “bad” company or brand? Not use anymore? Send a complaint to that company asking for an answer? Tell Facebook friends to avoid the company? Take out an Internet ad complaining about the company?

Some angry consumers go further. Consider the members of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA is an animal rights organization with more than 6.5 million members and supporters. PETA members focus their animal rights activities in four areas: in laboratories, the food industry, the clothing trade, and the entertainment industry. PETA’s aim to discourage consumers from buying products which have come from companies that violated animal rights. Against “bad” companies, PETA uses public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and boycott campaigns.

Business historians, company leaders and marketers need to consider the role and power of boycotts in the protection of consumer rights. Boycotts have occurred throughout history.

In the evening of December 16, 1773 in Boston Harbor, a group of Massachusetts colonists disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded three British tea ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor. They complained “no taxations without representation.” Not long after, American colonial merchants called for boycotting all British products. The Boston Tea Party and the Revolutionary War ended up creating a new country, the USA.

The term “boycott” didn’t come into use until 1880. An English land agent, Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott, chose to raise rents and evict a lot of his tenants in Ireland. The local community rebelled and joined together and refused to pay or work with Captain Boycott. He was forced to leave. Boycott left his name to history.

We define a boycott as “a concerted refusal to do business with a particular person or business…in order to obtain concessions or express displeasure.”

To examine the role and power of boycotts, we ask:

What are the main types and examples of boycotts?
Why do people organize boycotts?
How to organize a successful boycott?
How can the boycotting entity respond to the boycott?

Types and Examples of Boycotts

A group can decide to boycott a large number of entities: an industry, product, brand, company, person, country, practice or idea. The motive might be economic, political or social. Here are some of the best known boycotts in American history.

Boycott against an Industry: Alcohol and the WCTU

As a product, alcohol is a stimulus as well as a curse. Women started temperance leagues in the early 1800s aiming to limit drinking and “demon rum.” By 1830, the average American over 15 consumed at least 7 gallons of alcohol a year. Male drunkenness led to family abuse of wives and children and health problems of all kinds. The World Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was organized in 1873. Its second president, Francis Willard, helped to grow the WCTU into the largest women’s religious organization in the 19th century and helped the drive toward establishing women’s voting rights. Alcoholics Anonymous later was formed with the aim of teaching “teetotalism” or total abstinence to victims of alcoholism. .

Boycott against a good product – Grapes and Chavez

In 1965 on Mexican Independence Day, Cesar Chavez organized Filipino American grape workers to protest for better wages and working conditions in Delano, California. The workers were paid a pittance. Consumers decided to boycott grapes. This decision led to an international boycott of grapes. Grape growers were left with the choice of paying more or letting their grapes rot. The boycott led to the organization of the U.S.’s first farm workers union, The United Farm Worker of America. The strike lasted for five years before reaching a settlement.

Boycott against a bad product – Nestle and Instant Formula

Nestle advertised its infant formula to be “better than breast milk” and more convenient to use. Infant formula was a powder to which water is added. In 1977, many consumers worldwide complained and boycotted the infant formula saying that Nestle mislead customers with inaccurate nutritional claims. In poor countries sadled with infected water, babies often got sick. Nestle refused to compromise for seven years. The boycott ended when Nestle agreed to comply with the World Health Organizations (WHO) standards concerning the marketing of infant formula.

Boycott against a dangerous product – Dow Chemical napalm

The U.S. dropped napalm incendiary bombs in Vietnam in 1979. This led to international outrage against the U.S. and Dow Chemical. Though napalm accounted for only about one-half of 1% of Dow’s $1.6 billion annual sales, the company had become a target for acrimony. Clergymen led picket lines at Dow’s annual meetings.

Boycott against a company – British Petroleum (BP) the Gulf Coast Oil Spill

An explosion on British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010 resulted in the largest U.S. oil spill. The explosion caused 11 deaths and the spilling of 30 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf. The spill lasted 87 days when the well was finally capped on July 15, 2010.

Boycott against a company – Coors Brewing Company and LGBT Rights

In hiring people, Coors Brewing Company discriminated against persons from the LGBT community. In 1973, labor unions organized a boycott to protest Coors antagonistic practices. The boycott was joined by African Americans, Latinos, and the LGBT community. Finally, 14 years later the AFL-CIO and Coors came to an agreement in 1987, ending the official union boycott. But Coors continued to carry a bad name in certain communities.

Boycott against a company – Chick-fil-A

In 2012 the CEO of the restaurant Chick-fil-A publically blamed the country’s woes on accepting gay marriage and continued donating money to anti-LGBT groups. Many Christians kept dining at this restaurant chain and others boycotted Chick-fil-A. The company finally gave into pressure in 2019 to stop donating to companies that supported anti-LGBT talk and turn over more of their donations to promoting youth education, combating youth homelessness, and fighting hunger.

Boycott against a State law – Religious Discrimination against Same-Sex Couples

The state legislature of Indiana passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 2015 allowing state businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples based on religious grounds. The business community strongly and swiftly reacted against this law. The state legislature reversed course and modified the law a week later. The RFRA cost Indianapolis more than $60 million.

Boycott against Segregation: Montgomery Bus Boycott, Rosa Parks and Racial Discrimination

In 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested when she refused to give up her seat to a white passenger. Her act of civil disobedience launched the Montgomery Bus Boycott , a 13-month protest during which black residents refused to ride city buses. Martin Luther King Jr and the Montgomery Improvement Association organized the boycott, which launched civil rights into the national spotlight. The Supreme Court ultimately outlawed segregation on public buses.

Boycott against a country – India, the Salt March and Mahatma Gandhi

In 1930, Mahatma Gandhi l ed a 240-mile march in India to the Arabian Sea to protest Britain’s colonial salt laws. Britain didn’t allow Indians to process or sell their own salt. Gandhi and his followers, in front of thousands, broke the law by evaporating seawater to make salt. He encouraged others to do the same. Gandhi reached an agreement with India’s British viceroy in 1931 in exchange for an end to the salt tax and the release of political prisoners. Colonial rule remained, but the act of civil disobedience stoked the fires of independence. In 1947, the British rule ended and the country was divided into India and Pakistan.

Boycott against a Country – Russia and the Summer Olympics

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter refused to send American athletes to the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow as a protest of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More than 60 nations joined the U.S. The Soviet-Afghan War continued until 1989. The Soviets subsequently led their own boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles.

Boycott against a Country – Israel and the Arab League Boycott

In 1945, the Arab League (Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) launched an economic boycott of Israel. In the 1970s, the U.S. adopted two laws that prohibited U.S. companies from furthering or supporting the boycott of Israel. Today a new boycott comes in the B.D.S. (boycott, divest, and sanction) movement that seeks to pressure Israel into ending its occupation of the West Bank.

Boycott against a Political Practice – South Africa and the Anti-Apartheid Movement

An international campaign against the oil company Royal Dutch Shell was launched in 1986 to protest apartheid in South Africa. There were nationwide calls in America from labor and civil rights groups asking the public not to buy gas from Shell stations. Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 that banned South African imports, airlines, and foreign aid from the U.S. The end of apartheid began in the early 1990s , when Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners were freed. Apartheid officially ended in 1994, when Mandela became the country’s first black leader.

Boycott for Animal Rights – Protecting whales at SeaWorld

In 2013, a documentary was released which criticized marine parks for its practice of keeping orcas in captivity. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) called for boycotts of the park SeaWorld, and SeaWorld’s public attendance declined. In 2016, SeaWorld announced that it would no longer breed or feature shows with orcas.

Boycott against Men – Women Withhold Sex to End Violence

In 2003, Liberian women went on a successful sex strike to end the country’s civil war. Leymah Gbowee won a Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts. In 2006, female partners of gang members in Pereira, Colombia, withheld sex as they demanded fewer guns and less violence in their city. By 2010, Pereira’s murder rate had fallen by 26.5%.

Boycott against Consumerism – International Buy Nothing Day

Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, is one of the busiest shopping days of the year. With big crowds, sometimes violence ensues. An anti-consumerist group in Canada launched an anti-shopping movie, “Buy Nothing Day,” in 1992. Some retailers, but very few, decided to stay closed on Black Friday,

Boycott – President Donald Trump as an Active Boycotter of Companies

President Donald Trump has launched personal political attacks of several U.S. companies and people hoping to persuade U.S. citizens to avoid these companies. He attacked Nike for running a successful ad in September 2018 favoring the quarterback Colin Kaepernick who took to his knee during the national anthem in protest to racial injustice. Trump in 2018 lashed out at Google and CNN saying that these media are rigged and report only bad stories or no stories about Republican/Conservatives. He recommended boycotting Apple products for refusing to give cellphone information about a radical group and making most of their products abroad. He attacked Goodyear for banning MAGA hats in the company and tweeted “Get better tires for far less,” and recommended replacing the Goodyear tires on his Presidential car. He issued an executive order to ban the Chinese-owned TikTok unless it found an American buyer for its U.S. operations.

Why Do People Organize Boycotts?

Boycotts are often the result a clash of values between a company and some members of the consuming public. Consumers, in choosing a product, consider two things:

Value of the product . Does the product and its price and accessibility deliver high value to the potential consumer?
Values of the company . Are the values of the company acceptable to the values of the consumer?

Most consumers put the most weight on the value of the product. However, some consumers also consider the company’s values. Many grape lovers stopped buying grapes to protest the low wages that grapefield owners paid to grape workers.

We are living in an era of increasing political polarization. If a company isn’t careful, it could offend the values of the blues (Democrats) or the reds (Republicans). If a company shows that it favors stricter gun control, it will offend gun owners. The best thing is for the company not to take any position about guns. If most companies remain quiet, their sales and profits are safer.

Yet many other companies are proud and open about their values. Coors Brewery’s leadership had very conservative values and did not want to hire persons from the LGBT community. A boycott started and lasted until Coors finally agreed in 1987 to not discriminate in their hiring practices.

Boycotts are often organized to further social change of the value of some group. The Montgomery Bus boycott aimed to advance the rights of black Americans. The more the boycott can widen and sustain a Common Good message, the more the chance of changing social values.

The lesson is clear. A company has to think about what values it will represent and how these values would impact different consumer groups and how the company should express its values.

How to Organize a Successful Boycott

A boycott organizing group must make sure that the boycott is not breaking any laws. The boycott is an attack that will hurt the value of a particular entity. It may involve picketing in front of a certain entity. If the entity is a hotel, the boycotters cannot block people from entering or exiting the hotel. Some states might require approval of any planned boycott before the boycotters go into action.

The organizing group must raise enough money to buy ads, picket the company, and sustain the campaign until the entity concedes. It doesn’t pay to start a boycott without the means to keep it going. The company’s response to the boycott will partially be influenced by the company’s estimate of the boycotter’s resources. If quite limited, the company may prefer to take a hit for a short time and not give in to the boycotters.

A nonprofit group, called the Ethical Consumer, is organized to watch for and spot unethical companies. Ethical Consumer was formed in Hulme, Manchester, UK in 1989. In 2009 Ethical Consumer became a full nonprofit multi-stakeholder co-operative consisting of worker members and investor/subscriber members. The group’s aim is to apply pressure on an unethical company to change its way or otherwise face a boycott. Ethical Consumer lists a number of companies that they might target for a boycott unless the company changes its ways. Their targets include a number of well-known companies such as Wendy’s and Amazon.

How Can the Boycotted Entity Respond to the Boycott

If a company gets forewarned of an imminent boycott, the first step is to contact the party and try to settle the issue. If the boycotting group is just trying to extract money from the company to avoid a boycott, the company should report this to the police. If the boycotting group is serious, the company should sitdown and try to work out an agreement. If the offense is not very serious, the company might agree to make a change that would be acceptable by the boycotting group.

If no agreement can be reached and the boycott gets started, the company needs to explain its position to the press and seek the understanding of its customers, employees and other stakeholders. The company needs to estimate how long the boycott might last and how much harm it would do to the company. If it will last a long time and badly damage the company’s reputation, sales and profits, the company should give in on the issue and negotiate an agreement.

The company knows that the boycotting group needs to attract a lot of supporters and keep them interested. The earliest supporters are highly engaged in the cause. It gets harder for the boycott to get additional supporters who have a lower level of interest and may even believe that the boycott doesn’t need more supporters.

The company is in a better position to resist the boycott if it has built up a reputation as a caring company, caring for its customers, employees, and other stakeholders. If it has given a lot to charity and fought for high consensus issues such as a healthy environment, it might less often be the target for a boycott. Companies such Coca Cola and McDonald’s have curried a halo image of good prosocial behavior partly because some groups regularly complain that these companies products, if used in excess, are injurious to health.

Consumers have the right to expect companies to be ethical in their behavior. Fortunately, consumers who get angry enough at a company can send complaints to the company or take out negative ads or organize a boycott. Boycotts have a long history not only against companies but against industries, products, brands, countries, or ideas. Many past boycotts, especially those pressing for prosocial change, have had success. Success depends largely on the resources of the boycotting group and the resources of the targeted entity. The boycott organizing group needs a well-thought out attack strategy and the targeted entity needs a well-thought out defense strategy.

All said, consumers generally benefit from the fact that boycotts are possible and legal. Boycotts call upon the boycotting group to present strong reasons for the boycott and the targeted entity presenting strong reasons for either resisting or reaching an agreement.

Sources: There are many lists of boycotts. One excellent list is Chare Carlile, “History of Successful Boycotts,” May 5, 2019. An excellent discussion on why boycotts occur and how companies can deal with them is found in Jim Salas, Doreen E. Shanahan, and Gabriel Conzalez, “Are Boycotts Prone to Factors That May Make Them Ineffective?” in Strategies for Managing in the Age of Boycotts , 2019 Volume 22, Issue 3.

Philip Kotler is the “father of modern marketing.” He is the S.C. Johnson & Son Distinguished Professor of International Marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. He was voted the first Leader in Marketing Thought by the American Marketing Association and named The Founder of Modern Marketing Management in the Handbook of Management Thinking. Professor Kotler holds major awards including the American Marketing Association’s (AMA) Distinguished Marketing Educator Award and Distinguished Educator Award from The Academy of Marketing Science. The Sales and Marketing Executives International (SMEI) named him Marketer of the Year and the American Marketing Association described him as “the most influential marketer of all time.” He is in the Thinkers50 Hall of Fame , and is featured as a “guru” in the Economist .

B2B Marketing /

“Go-to-Market (GTM): A New Definition” – Karthi Ratnam

B2C Marketing /

“Understanding Hallyu: The Impact of Korean Pop Culture” by Sanya Anand and David Seyheon Baek

Brand Activism /

“Regeneration or Extinction?” – a discussion with Philip Kotler, Christian Sarkar, and Enrico Foglia

Shopping has become a political act. Here’s how it happened.

Consumer activism and conscious consumerism mean more people are buying from brands they agree with — and boycotting ones they don’t.

by Stephie Grob Plante

Protesters hold signs that read, “Honk for accountability,” “EquiNOT,” and, “Equinox supports a white supremacist.”

In August, it was SoulCycle and Equinox . The month prior, Home Depot . Back in 2017, L.L.Bean . These are only a few of the companies to ignite the collective ire of progressive consumers over corporate ties to Trump. In the case of the boutique fitness studios, it was a Trump fundraiser hosted by their majority stake investor Stephen M. Ross; with the home improvement chain, it was co-founder Bernie Marcus’s promise to donate to Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign; with the duck boot and outdoor apparel brand, it was Bean descendant and board member Linda Lorraine Bean’s $60,000 donation to Trump super PAC Making America Great Again, LLC (itself a violation of the Federal Election Commission’s permitted donor limit of $5,000).

For Americans opposed to Trump’s policies — from the inhumane treatment and targeting of detained migrants , to detrimental inaction on climate change , to refusal to regulate guns in the wake of unprecedented mass shootings — shopping at retailers connected to the celebrity-entrepreneur-turned-sitting-president is tantamount to hypocrisy.

“The goal came originally from a place of really wanting to shop the stores we loved again with a clear conscience”

Calls to boycott Trump-tainted brands stretch back to the #GrabYourWallet movement that began in the wake of the 2016 election. Organizers Shannon Coulter and Sue Atencio turned outrage into action with a spreadsheet of companies linked to Trump or the Trump family, both explicitly (Trump owned) and implicitly (Trump funders, Trump brand sellers), detailing why those companies are on the list and what they need to do to get off it. “The goal,” Coulter told the New York Times , “came originally from a place of really wanting to shop the stores we loved again with a clear conscience.”

Of course, boycott calls are not unique to Trump’s critics; Trump himself is an avid boycotter , and his MAGA fans follow suit . Nor are boycott calls unique in the Trump era. Consumers have long registered their disapproval of businesses’ practices by refusing to shop them and calling on others to do the same, dating back to this country’s birth (and further back elsewhere in the world, like in ancient Greece and early Christianity, in the form of organized ostracism).

What do you get when consumers takes action? Consumer activism. And by the inverse action, consumers are shopping alternative products and companies that complement their worldview more now than ever before — particularly when it comes to combating climate change. Sustainability-tinged consumer activism is a new flavor of an old tactic, one that falls under the umbrella of what we now call conscious consumerism.

Consumer activism can take the shape of two diametrically opposed actions — buying en masse and boycotting en masse — that are after the same goal

“[Consumer activism is] either grassroots collective organization of consumption or its withdrawal,” explains Lawrence Glickman, an American historian at Cornell University and author of Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism .

Meaning, it’s “Buy Nike!” to express support of Colin Kaepernick’s 2018 pick as brand ambassador following his kneeled protest against police brutality targeting people of color and his collusion lawsuit against the NFL . It’s also, “ Boycott Nike !” and even, “ #BurnYourNikes !” to express outrage over “when somebody disrespects our flag,” as Trump put it in 2017, supposedly provoked by Kaepernick’s peaceful demonstration.

Calls to boycott, though, are a heck of a lot more visible on social media than are rally cries to pledge brand support. Glickman writes in Buying Power that two-thirds of Americans take part in at least one boycott a year.

Boycotts stem from anger. Anger spreads faster and farther on social media than any other emotion, as uncovered by computer scientists at China’s Beihang University and reported by MIT Technology Review . And there are many, many ongoing and overlapping boycotts at any given time. AP News even has a feed to track boycotts worldwide.

Consumer activism, boycotts included, puts power in the hands of the people — ”or at least they think it is,” adds Glickman.

We boycotted before there was even a word for it

“Boycotts are as American as apple pie,” #GrabYourWallet co-founder and digital strategist Coulter told Fast Company in 2017, referring to the Boston Tea Party’s 1773 dump of British imports that precipitated the American Revolutionary War. Colonists had boycotted British tea for several years by then; “No taxation without representation,” they demanded. Refusing to purchase British tea was a pointed way to voice their mounting resentment of their decidedly un-independent status. Short of revolt, it was the only power they had — until, of course, they revolted.

Glickman dates the boycott much further back: to ancient Greece. Expedition Magazine cites the city of Athens’ historic boycott of the Olympic Games in 332 BCE as a key turning point. The city had incurred a massive fine after its endorsed athlete attempted, and failed, to fix a match, and refused to attend the games in protest unless the charges were dropped. (They weren’t, and Athens eventually relented.)

Boycotts are employed the world over, and not all of them are about consumerism

The term “boycott” didn’t emerge, however, until 1880, in Ireland. Captain Charles Boycott was a British land agent in County Mayo — and “ the man who became a verb! ” — whose evictions “were many and bloody,” as described by IrishCentral. After Boycott attempted to evict another 11 tenants, the Land League (an Irish political organization of the 1800s that rallied in aid of poor farmworkers) convinced Boycott’s employees to walk out and compelled the community to, essentially, ice him out. Shops and the like refused to do business with him, the post stopped his mail. He left Ireland humiliated.

Boycotts are employed the world over, and not all of them are about consumerism. Just last month, tens of thousands of students in Hong Kong boycotted the first day of school as part of ongoing protests over an extradition bill that could send Hong Kong citizens to China, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a boycott of the Israeli TV channel that co-produced the HBO show Our Boys , and Sweden’s top female hockey players are boycotting the national team over unfair pay and poor working conditions.

Still, there is a certain Americanness to the ubiquity of the boycott today. Take #GrabYourWallet, which at present calls for boycotts of 31 different companies (not including subsidiaries or partners), five over their Stephen M. Ross connections. Says Glickman, Americans “didn’t invent [the boycott], but the frequency with which we use it is somewhat exceptional.”

Consumer activism in 2019 is not a whole lot different from consumer activism in the 1840s — except when it comes to the causes

“A lot of people think that what we’re seeing now is new,” says Glickman. “But there are a lot of parallels with history.” Particularly, America’s history of slavery and abolitionism.

The Free Produce Movement, led by Quaker abolitionists in the 1840s through the Civil War, hinged on boycotting goods made by enslaved people, cotton key among them. Buying these products, as far as Free Produce stalwarts were concerned, was analogous to supporting slavery outright.

The issues are different today, but the strategy remains the same: Vote with your dollar and don’t contribute a cent to the bottom line of companies whose values don’t align with your own. Says Glickman, “That fundamental question of, ‘No one stands outside of moral problems, that we’re all implicated in [them]’ — that’s the essence of consumer activism.”

“‘No one stands outside of moral problems, that we’re all implicated in [them]’ — that’s the essence of consumer activism”

Voting with your dollar doesn’t just mean not spending your dollars in problematic places (i.e. Amazon , Wayfair , etc.); it also means supporting companies that practice what they preach, both by way of their company culture and by what they sell. Conscious consumerism drives at that very point, particularly when it comes to “voting” for sustainability and humane working conditions.

Says the Nation’s Willy Blackmore of the boycott’s antebellum lineage, where abolitionists bought wool over cotton and maple sugar over cane:

The same thinking—that it’s better to buy products that we believe are made without exceptional suffering—animates some contemporary conscious consumerism. The desire to minimize the harm we cause as consumers has led to a variety of fluffy marketing terms as well as third-party verification organizations, so you can buy everything from cruelty-free makeup to Fair Trade food products.

Conscious consumerism (alternatively called ethical consumption) is today’s catchall to cover consumer dollars invested in a host of progressive values: worker rights, animal rights, low-carbon footprint, recycled and/or renewable materials, organic, local, etc. — your fair-trade fashion, your greenhouse-gas-cutting Ikea , your metal straw. It’s a term that’s caught on in the last 10 years, but it was not only predated by the green consumerism of the 1990s , it’s also the driving argument behind all consumer activism from the tea-in-the-harbor get-go.

What is newish, however, is the phenomenon of sustainable shopping and widespread availability of ethically made, eco-friendly goods — where consumers concerned about climate change, for instance, “live their values” vis a vis their plastic-free purchases.

“It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when we saw consumers trying to make positive environmental change in their shopping,” says Emily Huddart Kennedy, University of British Columbia sociologist and author of Putting Sustainability into Practice: Applications and Advances in Research on Sustainable Consumption. Data analytics company Nielsen called 2018 “The Year of the Influential Sustainable Consumer,” adding that “it’s soon to be the decade of the sustainable shopper.” Sustainable product sales reached $128.5 billion in 2018, up 20 percent from four years prior; Nielsen projects 2021 to cash in on $150 billion worth of sustainability sales.

There are several theories, says Kennedy, on what caused the shift, including mistrust in government to adequately address climate change and the growing “sense of doing something in the face of these huge sustainability crises,” as she puts it. Kennedy’s research has shown that conscious consumerism’s popularity can also be tied to its elite nature — in part because of high price tags, in part because of championing among celebrities, in part because of its en vogueiness, “it’s seen as a ‘high-class’ thing to do.”

Consuming consciously is aspirational, both for individuals and for the planet. University of Toronto sociologist Josée Johnston, a colleague of Kennedy’s, found that nearly two-thirds of consumers resonated with the statement, “shopping is a powerful force for social and environmental change.” Elaborates Johnston’s survey report in the Journal of Marketing Management , “This suggests that the majority of the shopping public believe that their shopping dollars can promote a social and environmental alternative to the status quo.”

Consumer activism, for all its prevalence, might be an unintentional misdirect, say critics

Activists for any one particular cause are in no way united that consumer activism is the most effective way — or even an effective way — to enact change. The main criticism is that individual product swaps do nothing to impact legislation and corporate responsibility.

That’s not a new argument; many abolitionists disagreed with their Free Produce Movement cohorts. As Glickman writes in Buying Power , “Critics accused free produce activists of overvaluing private rectitude to the point where it had little connection with the public good.” Maybe wearing wool and eating maple makes you abolitionists feel better, Free Produce critics seemed to say, but it does squat to end slavery.

Twenty-first century shoppers face, in spirit, the same conundrum.

“Conscious consumerism is a lie,” writes sustainable fashion expert and frequent Vox contributor Alden Wicker for Quartz , quoting a speech she delivered at the 2017 UN Youth Delegation. “Small steps taken by thoughtful consumers — to recycle, to eat locally, to buy a blouse made of organic cotton instead of polyester — will not change the world.” Instead, she argues, conscious consumerism is an expensive distraction from the real work at hand.

A crowd of Amazon employees at a walkout carry signs that read, “Amazon, let’s lead: Zero emissions by 2030!” and “Amazon, let’s raise the bar, not the temperature.”

Sure, vote with your dollar, the criticism stands — but you do a whole lot more by simply voting for politicians who give a damn that the Earth is melting . Only 46.1 percent of voters aged 18-29 voted at all in 2016, 55 percent of which voted Democrat . Nielsen found that 90 percent of millennials (aged 21-34) are willing to pay more for eco-friendly and sustainable products. These stats don’t necessarily provide a one-for-one since there’s a gap in the age categorizations, but if the entirety of that 90 percent of conscious consumer millennials had gone to the polls and voted how their dollar votes ... We don’t have to spell it out, right?

With more opportunities to be a conscious consumer — thanks to more and more “leading brands that compete to see who is greener,” as Joel Makower, author of 1990’s The Green Consumer, writes for GreenBiz — so too do opportunities for economic existential angst mount. Ditching plastic straws, in the grand scheme of things, will do diddly for the planet, representing less than 1 percent of our sweeping plastic problem.

And as such, conscious consumerism can deliver unearned complacency, house-on-fire calm akin to “This Is Fine” dog . As Jim Leape, co-director of the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions told Stanford Report , “The risk is that banning straws may confer ‘moral license’ — allowing companies and their customers to feel they have done their part. The crucial challenge is to ensure that these bans are just a first step.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren homed in on this very point during CNN’s recent climate change forum, following a series of questions to Democratic candidates on regulating lightbulbs, banning plastic straws, and encouraging people to cut down on red meat, as reported by Vox’s Li Zhou :

“Oh, come on, give me a break,” Warren said in response to the lightbulb question, in one of the breakout moments of the night. “This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants us to talk about. ... They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers, when 70 percent of the pollution, of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air, comes from three industries.”

There’s an added tension when it comes to green shopping and movements like Fridays for Future and the Sunrise Movement , that conscious consumerism’s prescribed solution is antithetical to sustainability’s aims.

“The idea of ‘shopping’ your way to sustainability is fundamentally flawed,” says sociologist Kennedy. “That is, if we need to slow down growth to protect the environment, then we can’t rely on ‘better’ consumption — we also have to reduce consumption.” To her point, climate activist Greta Thunberg’s speech at the UN’s Climate Action Summit on September 23 addressed world leaders but zeroed in on an oft-repeated delusion that cutting emissions by 50 percent in 10 years will do the trick. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you.”

There are alternative ways that consumers can “do something” impactful with their money, writes Wicker in Quartz: Donating to activist organizations and donating to politicians who vow to vote for green initiatives (i.e. passing a Green New Deal ) and holding big corporate offenders accountable are good places to start.

Okay, okay, but does consumer activism do … anything?

In a word: sometimes! In more words, whether or not consumer activism and conscious consumerism “work” depends, really, on the definition of success.

Historian Glickman likes to differentiate between short-term and long-term goals. Sociologist Kennedy separates material benefits from ideological gains.

“Oftentimes the boycott starts with a great deal of enthusiasm and ends with a whimper”

“Almost every boycott fails to achieve its punitive goal,” says Glickman. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, he adds, is a rare example of an “unambiguous victory,” where the boycott attained its demands : hiring black drivers, promising respectful drivers, and first-come first-seated policy. The SoulCycle boycott is another: Last month’s consumer activism over Ross’s Trump fundraiser did in fact dent SoulCycle’s attendance . But these are notable exceptions (the former inarguably more impactful than the latter) to the rule.

Adds Glickman, “A lot of times boycotts of big corporations don’t really affect the bottom line of that corporation. Oftentimes the boycott starts with a great deal of enthusiasm and ends with a whimper.” For instance, Amazon: Despite calls year after year to boycott Amazon Prime Day over factory conditions (and this year over contracts with ICE ), the retail behemoth repeatedly manages to smash its sales record .

In terms of the material benefit of product swaps, “the jury is out,” says Kennedy. Yes, phosphate-free dish detergent can curb water pollution, she says; but Kennedy’s research shows that conscious consumers often maintain very large carbon footprints themselves. “Conscious consumers tend to be well-educated,” explains Kennedy, “and well-educated people typically earn a good income,” income that buys them nice cars and tickets on commercial planes and air conditioning units and so on.

“The ideological benefits are not much more conclusive, unfortunately,” adds Kennedy. “I think it’s fair to say that conscious consumption has made more people think about the resources that go into the stuff we buy and about what happens to our stuff when we throw it away.” This, in effect, is consumer activism’s long-term goal, what historian Glickman calls “a transformation of consciousness.” On the other hand, Kennedy says, “When people obsess about the environmental impact of their goods, that can let companies and governments off the hook. So it’s a mixed bag.”

Where and how we spend our money does matter. But how much it matters depends on what else we do with our money and what governments and corporations do with their (considerably larger) pots. At best, the rising popularity of conscious consumerism, for instance, suggests that the buying public will at least spend their way to a healthier world; the big problem, though, is that individual monetary action — even when performed collectively — is only the beginning.

“I can’t imagine that the world is worse off because of conscious consumerism,” says Kennedy, “but I doubt it will be enough to save the planet.”

Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.

Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

This is the title for the native ad

Vanishing Boycott Impetus: Why and How Consumer Participation in a Boycott Decreases Over Time

Wassili lasarov.

1 Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Westring 425, 24118 Kiel, Germany

Stefan Hoffmann

Ulrich orth.

2 Institute of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Wilhelm-Seelig-Platz 6/7, 24098 Kiel, Germany

Associated Data

Media reports that a company behaves in a socially nonresponsible manner frequently result in consumer participation in a boycott. As time goes by, however, the number of consumers participating in the boycott starts dwindling. Yet, little is known on why individual participation in a boycott declines and what type of consumer is more likely to stop boycotting earlier rather than later. Integrating research on drivers of individual boycott participation with multi-stage models and the hot/cool cognition system, suggests a “heat-up” phase in which boycott participation is fueled by expressive drivers, and a “cool-down” phase in which instrumental drivers become more influential. Using a diverse set of real contexts, four empirical studies provide evidence supporting a set of hypotheses on promotors and inhibitors of boycott participation over time. Study 1 provides initial evidence for the influence of expressive and instrumental drivers in a food services context. Extending the context to video streaming services, e-tailing, and peer-to-peer ridesharing, Study 2, Study 3, and Study 4 show that the reasons consumers stop/continue boycotting vary systematically across four distinct groups. Taken together, the findings help activists sustain boycott momentum and assist firms in dealing more effectively with boycotts.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10551-021-04997-9.

Introduction

In 2013, a TV documentary on the substandard work conditions of employees who were subcontracted by a leading e-tailer evoked strong reactions with consumers in Germany, many of whom decided to boycott the company (Spiegel.de, 2013 ). After a while, however, public outrage and boycott participation waned (NTV.de, 2013 ). This anecdotal example ties in with econometric reports obtained at a macro level that boycotts lose participants and momentum over time (Chavis & Leslie, 2009 ). To date, however, researchers have not yet adopted an individual perspective on boycott participation to analyze promotors and inhibitors over time. Does boycott participation decline because consumer aggrevation fades, because consumers continue disapproving the transgression but revert to old habits for the sake of convenience, or because they loose faith in their boycott making a difference? Activists as well as managers need insights into these questions to respond more adequately.

Table Table1 1 provides an overview of extant research that has examined drivers of boycott participation at the micro level. The table shows that previous research has almost exclusively employed cross-sectional studies (e.g., Klein et al., 2004 ; Sen et al., 2001 ). In addition, extant studies focused on consumers joining—instead of exiting—a boycott, hereby leaving a gap in knowledge about factors influencing a consumer's decision to sustain rather than stop boycotting. Furthermore, Table Table1 1 illustrates that only a few studies suggest a temporal variation in and a possible revision of boycott decisions. For example, Chavis and Leslie ( 2009 ) showed boycotting to cease after an eight-month period, with sales returning to pre-boycott levels. However, the study adopted an aggregate perspective on boycotting and did not account for changes in individual behavior including possible drivers. Similarly, Ettenson and Klein ( 2005 ) reported two cross-sectional studies with data obtained from independent samples at two points in time. While they found an extension of boycotting beyond a one-year timeline, their study design did not permit drawing inferences regarding possible changes in individual boycotting behavior. Hoffmann ( 2011 ) gives additional insight on temporal effects. By grouping participants according to the dates they entered the boycott, he explored why consumers join boycotts at different stages. The study did not, however, extend to further changes in boycotting. In summary, previous research did not analyze temporal changes in boycott participation at the individual level after the decision to join had been made, nor did researchers examine the factors that impact changes. From a practical perspective, determining why consumers sustain or stop boycotting will help companies deal with boycotts more appropriately, and will aid activists in sustaining boycotts and keeping momentum.

State of literature and contributions of this article

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10551_2021_4997_Tab1_HTML.jpg

PE perceived egregiousness, PC perceived control, SC subjective costs, SE self-enhancement, BI brand image, PS perceived service quality, FE service of frontline employees, DV dependent variables, B t0 Boycott participation ( t 0), B t1 Boycott participation ( t 1)

a Only the papers that are most relevant to the current study are cited here. Only aspects related to the current study are documented

Against this background, our study makes the following contributions to the literature (see Table Table1). 1 ). We extend boycott participation models (Hoffmann, 2011 ; Klein et al., 2004 ) to include a longer time period and to detail temporal changes in boycott participation at the individual consumer level. We label these changes "intrapersonal" to better communicate variations within an individual person across different points in time (Craik & Salthouse, 2008 ). Additionally integrated into the extension are consumer exits from the boycott, a perspective informed by research on the temporal effects of anger and revenge evoked by unethical behaviors (e.g., Ettenson & Klein, 2005 ; Klein et al., 1998 ; Lee et al., 2016 ; Sato et al., 2018 ). We extrapolate these findings to boycott contexts where the individual’s participation is driven by his or her perception of egregious conduct by the target firm (Klein et al., 2004 ). Although the perceived egregiousness contains both emotional and cognitive elements, social boycott calls often employ strongly emotional appeals, with moral condemnation of the target. Furthermore, by adopting Friedman’s ( 1999 ) distinction between expressive and instrumental boycotts we suggest a “heat-up” phase in which boycotters mainly make use of expressive drivers to join, and a “cool-down” phase in which additional instrumental drivers come into play, possibly causing a stop of boycotting. Finally, we identify distinct groups of consumers (boycotter types) who vary systematically in the reasons they continue and cease boycotting. Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model underlying our research.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10551_2021_4997_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Conceptual model

Conceptual Background

Boycott participation: definition and extant models.

In his seminal article, Friedman ( 1985 , p. 97) describes consumer boycotts as “… an attempt by one or more parties to achieve certain objectives by urging individual consumers to refrain from making selected purchases in the market place.” Activists have called consumer boycotts to achieve economic, social, ecological, ethical, ideological, or political objectives (Friedman, 1999 ; Sen et al., 2001 ) with regard to diverse issues including prices, human rights, working conditions, environmental protection, animal welfare, religion, or international politics (Yuksel et al., 2020 ). Boycotts can be direct or indirect (Friedman, 1999 ). In a direct boycott, participants avoid products and services of a target company whose policies they consider irresponsible. In an indirect boycott, participants avoid products of companies associated with a target, such as suppliers or firms located in a target country, to exert pressure on the target (Ettenson & Klein, 2005 ; Hoffmann et al., 2020 ).

In line with Friedman ( 1985 ), we view boycott participation as an individual consumer’s decision to respond to a collective call for a boycott by refraining from purchasing from a specific company or brand for the explicit purpose of achieving the boycott’s objectives. Importantly, this definition highlights that the participation supports a collective, group-driven action; it specifically excludes individualistic decisions to avoid brands (e.g., for reasons of personal health or identity). Further emphasizing group aspects, insights into consumer motivations of boycott participation (e.g., Klein et al., 2004 ; Sen et al., 2001 ) mainly utilize theories of social psychology and economics (e.g., theories of fairness and reciprocity, game theory, and social dilemma; Delacote, 2009 ; John & Klein, 2003 ). In this research stream, scholars have identified factors that drive consumers to join boycotts (e.g., self-enhancement), as well as factors that prevent them from boycotting (e.g., a lack of substitutes, inconvenience, skepticism about boycott efficacy; Klein et al., 2004 ; Sen et al., 2001 ).

Integrating and further detailing these factors, our research builds on and extends the model conceived by Klein et al. ( 2004 ) and refined by Hoffmann ( 2011 ). Klein et al.’s ( 2004 ) model views boycott participation as a deliberate act of abstinence. Initially, perceived egregiousness evokes arousal. Then, consumer boycott participation depends on anticipated rewards (such as self-enhancement) and the costs of abstaining from obtaining a preferred product. Hoffmann ( 2011 ) extended this model to include the “trigger/promoter/inhibitor” concept. We build on his conceptualization, because the trigger-promoter-inhibitor distinction is broader than the initial arousal-rewards-costs perspective, capturing a broader range of drivers of boycott participation. For example, while Klein et al.’s ( 2004 ) model includes only perceived egregiousness as a trigger of arousal, other studies show that a consumer’s proximity to the company’s wrongdoing can serve as an additional trigger (Hoffmann, 2011 , 2013a ). Furthermore, Klein et al.’s concept of benefits may be too narrow, as, for example, moral obligation can function as another promoter (Hoffmann et al., 2013b ). Similarly, the original notion of costs may be too narrow, as other inhibitors, such as negative information about a competitor, have shown to be relevant (Yuksel & Mryteza, 2009 ). The trigger-promoter-inhibitor concept is therefore thought to be more flexible, accounting for additional and more divergent boycott participation motivations as identified in previous research.

Triggers of Boycott Participation

According to Hoffmann ( 2011 ), the perception that a firm’s behavior is wrong triggers consumer behavioral response, because the perception negatively and harmfully affects workers, consumers, society at large, and other stakeholders. The extent to which the firm’s action is considered egregious depends on the individual. Accordingly, “perceived egregiousness” is the central trigger of boycott participation (Klein et al., 2004 ). Capturing the extent to which a person views an act (e.g., of a firm) as socially unacceptable, perceived egregiousness represents the level of a boycotter’s anger.

Promoters of Boycott Participation

"Promoter" is an umbrella term used to capture factors that encourage boycott participation, specifically instrumental and moral factors (Hoffmann, 2011 ). Regarding instrumental factors, consumers are more likely to participate in a boycott when they expect their participation to increase the boycott's success (Sen et al., 2001 ), a type of boycott-related self-efficacy (Bandura, 2012 ). Regarding moral factors, consumers strive to enhance their self-esteem, and participating in a boycott—as a moral act—helps them do so (Klein et al., 2004 ). We therefore focus on perceived control and self-enhancement as important instrumental and moral promoters.

Inhibitors of Boycott Participation

Inhibitors are factors that impede boycott participation. In line with previous studies (Hoffmann, 2011 ; Klein et al., 2004 ), we examine a variety of costs that occur when individuals boycott companies. First, withholding consumption is strongly associated with subjective costs, which, in turn, greatly depend on the availability of alternatives (Friedman, 1999 ; Sen et al., 2001 ). When consumers join a boycott, they may face costly challenges, such as gathering additional information about alternatives, abstaining from products they have preferred in the past, switching to more expensive alternatives, paying greater procurement costs, or even facing a complete lack of alternatives. While these subjective costs predominantly refer to increasing information costs, research costs, and financial costs involved in switching to other brands (or the lack of alternatives), there are other inhibitors that reflect other types of costs. A positive image can buffer against consumers’ boycott participation. Increased levels of trust decrease consumers’ willingness to participate in a boycott (Hoffmann & Müller, 2009 ), as they would have to build similar levels of trust with another brand. When consumers have long-standing positive associations with the company, they are therefore less likely to react negatively in times of crises, such as a transgression (Klein & Dawar, 2004 ). Consistent with this line of thought, a consumer’s overall satisfaction with the company and his or her positive experience from interactions with company employees might also increase switching costs and prevent him or her from boycotting.

Developing a Model of Intrapersonal Variation in Boycott Participation

Intrapersonal variation moderated by perceived egregiousness.

The previously discussed models of boycott participation have been limited to examining consumer motivations to boycott at one point in time. Suggesting that a temporal extension is needed, macro level studies indicate that boycotts gradually lose participants and momentum over time (Chavis & Leslie, 2009 ). Despite this overall decline in participation, consumers who were initially more determined to join the boycott ( t 0) may also be more likely to carry on boycotting during later stages ( t 1). Consistent with reports that initial egregiousness ( t 0) is a key driver of boycott participation in the initial phase ( t 0), possible changes in boycott participation should depend on perceived egregiousness (Klein et al., 2004 ). Although temporal aspects have not been analyzed just yet, perceived egregiousness should decrease when the transgression trigger becomes less salient. This thinking is in accordance with the agenda-setting theory (McCombs, 2013 ; McCombs et al., 1998 ), which posits that media reports exert a major influence on the proportion of emphasis placed on news. Consequently, a topic’s salience should depend greatly on media coverage, with public attention diminishing over time as awareness shifts to other topics (McCombs & Shaw, 1972 ). In a boycotting context, consumers’ negative emotions should cool down as media reports of the transgression cease and as levels of perceived egregiousness decline. Although the degree of perceived egregiousness at a later time ( t 1) may influence boycott participation at that point in time ( t 1), the decision should further depend on the consumer’s initial decision to (not) join the boycott ( t 0). By partially replicating studies on perceived egregiousness as a key driver of boycott participation (Klein et al., 2004 ) and by adding a dynamic perspective, we expect participation in a boycott at t 1 to depend on the interplay between the consumer’s initial boycott participation ( t 0) and his or her current level of perceived egregiousness ( t 1).

Perceived egregiousness will moderate the relationship between the initial boycott participation and participation at a later point in time. The higher the perceived egregiousness at t 1 is, the stronger the influence of the initial boycott participation ( t 0) on later boycott participation ( t 1) is.

Distinguishing Between Instrumental and Expressive Drivers

At the macro level, boycotts can be categorized as instrumental or expressive (Friedman, 1999 ). 1 Instrumental boycotts aim at forcing the target to change its action. Expressive boycotts, in contrast, serve to vent the participants’ frustration and displeasure with the target’s actions. We extend this conceptualization from the macro to the individual level to distinguish between expressive and instrumental drivers of boycotting. At the level of individual boycott decisions, Friedman’s ( 1999 ) categorization is in accordance with Hoffmann’s ( 2011 ) distinction between moral and instrumental factors. We use the term "expressive" instead of “moral,” because it is the broader concept and includes moral factors.

We view promoters and inhibitors of boycott participation as instrumental when they relate to a consumer’s deliberate evaluation of whether or not the boycott will be successful and what sacrifices would have to be made. Perceived control is categorized an instrumental promoter, because consumers should be motivated more to join when they expect that their participation will increase the boycott’s chance to succeed (Hoffmann, 2011 ; Klein et al., 2004 ). Subjective costs, such as higher costs for substitutes of the boycotted product or service, are categorized an instrumental inhibitor.

In contrast, expressive influences are driven more by affect and emotion than by deliberation. For example, enhancing one’s self-view by supporting a boycott's good cause constitutes an expressive driver. Driven by the anticipated emotion to feel good, self-enhancement differs from the rational evaluation of whether or not the boycott will be successful. Similarly, a brand's positive image captures an emotional attachment to the brand that inhibits boycott participation (Hoffmann & Müller, 2009 ). Brand image therefore reflects the emotional element of switching costs. While contrasting cognitive (cool) against emotional (hot) processes helps better structuring the divergent temporal dynamics of boycott drivers, readers should be cautioned that the distinction is not a hard and clear-cut one: For example, subjective costs tend to be more cognitive but can include emotional aspects (e.g., consumers do not want to boycott a brand they are attached to), whereas brand image tends to be more emotional but can additionally include cognitive aspects (e.g., expectations regarding a particular product or service quality delivered by the brand).

The Role of Instrumental and Expressive Drivers at Different Points in Time

Consumer researchers commonly distinguish between "hot" and "cold" cognitions as influencers of behavioral response (e.g., Madrigal, 2008 ). Hot cognition is a less conscious, quick, and automatic decision process often operationalized as emotion, whereas cold cognition is regarded as a fact-based conscious process usually operationalized as cognition (Madrigal, 2008 ; Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999 ). Linking the hot/cool system with expressive and instrumental drivers of boycott participation, consumers respond to transgressions with negative emotions like anger and contempt (e.g., in sports contexts, Lee et al., 2016 ). In this context, cognition relates to people judging the responsibility of a transgressor based on object-relevant interpretations (Coombs & Holladay, 2002 ). Integrating both pathways, hot and cold cognitions conspire to influence peoples’ response to transgressions (e.g., Sato et al., 2018 ). Differences in the temporal dynamics of hot and cold cognition are further important to the present context (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999 ). Specifically, research on moral decision making points at an “emotion-then-deliberation” sequence where moral decisions are the result of initial emotional response, which can later be overridden by deliberate judgment (Evans, 2008 ; Haidt, 2001 ). Lastly, a diminishing importance of hot versus cold drivers ties in with research on service failure recovery (e.g., Tsarenko & Tojib, 2011 ), brand transgressions, and product-harm crisis (e.g., Khamitov et al., 2020 ), indicating that—as time progresses—customers become less emotional in dealing with the incident, moving from spontaneous emotional responses to more in-depth assessments and evaluations.

Consistent with this line of thought, we expect that the roles played by expressive and instrumental drivers in a consumer's decision to participate in a boycott will vary between earlier and later stages of the boycott. Specifically, while the decision to join a boycott may initially be driven more by emotion (i.e., by expressive factors), instrumental factors should become more influential over time, thereby leading to cognitive dissonance in the evaluation of the boycott and ultimatively to changes in the participation (Hinojosa et al., 2017 ). This notion ties in with findings that the motives for joining or abstaining from a boycott can vary over time (Hoffmann, 2011 ): Early boycotters tend to decide impulsively and act spontaneously, whereas consumers who enter the boycott at a later stage are more likely to account for the costs of constrained consumption.

As a theoretical underpinning of the shifting role of different drivers over the course of time, we build on and adapt the multi-stage model of organic consumption (Mai et al., 2021 ). According to this model, consumers join organic consumption for ecological and social reasons—both representing expressive drivers. For maintaining organic consumption over time, however, expressive factors become less relevant or even exert negative influences, as they incur subjective costs without providing individual benefits. In contrast, self-related benefits constituting more instrumental drivers are key to sustaining organic consumption over a longer time span (Mai et al., 2021 ). Cognitive and instrumental drivers therefore become more relevant as time passes. While the multi-stage model of organic consumption has been initially conceived to explain organic consumption, transferring it to a boycotting (i.e., non-consumption) context suggests that expressive drivers should be particularly relevant at the onset of the boycott, while instrumental drivers should be more relevant to sustain or cease boycott participation.

Emotional Heating

Expressive drivers should be especially relevant at the onset of a boycott when the decision to participate is largely based on emotional and impulsive drivers, with less attention given to more instrumental aspects, such as the boycott’s anticipated impact. Prominent among the well-established expressive drivers are self-enhancement and brand image (see Table Table1). 1 ). Self-enhancement represents a process whereby individuals “strive systematically to promote the perception that others think well of them” (Swann et al., 1989 , p. 782). Building on the literature about helping behavior, Klein et al. ( 2004 ) argued that participating in a boycott for moral reasons with the intention to help those who suffer from the offending company's behavior, can promote the perception of the boycotter in the eyes of others. Self-enhancement therefore refers to a person’s belief that boycotting is the morally right thing to do; it also captures the notion that supporting a just cause can lead consumers to feel better about themselves, reducing feelings of guilt (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011 ; Klein et al., 2004 ). By participating in a boycott and by associating themselves with people (boycotters) who act for a just cause, consumers boost their self-esteem. This line of thinking is consistent with reports that self-enhancement encourages boycott participation (Braunsberger & Buckler, 2011 ; Hoffmann, 2011 , 2013a ; Klein et al., 2004 ) and drives expressive customer behavior. We thus view self-enhancement as an expressive promoter, which should exert a positive influence both at the onset, as well as during later stages of a boycott.

As an expressive promoter, self-enhancement will influence boycott participation positively (i) at the initial stage ( t 0) and also (ii) at later stages ( t 1).

Representing an expressive inhibitor (Hoffmann & Müller, 2009 ), brand image includes emotional aspects, which are attributable to marketing activities, context variables, and perceiver characteristics. Due to long-standing positive associations, customers who think positively about a brand or firm tend to react less negatively to product-harm crises (Klein & Dawar, 2004 ). Given the brand image's buffering capacity, this expressive driver should exert a negative influence during the emotional heat-up phase and should similarly be relevant at later stages.

As an expressive inhibitor, brand image will influence boycott participation negatively (i) at the initial stage ( t 0) and also (ii) at later stages ( t 1).

Cognitive Cooling

Construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003 ) posits that the psychological distance between a referent and a person impacts processing. Psychological distance, including temporal distance, influences abstract versus concrete thinking in terms of high-level versus low-level construals (Trope & Liberman, 2003 ). Corresponding to greater distance, high-level construals are more abstract and generalized mental representations. Low-level construals, in contrast, correspond to greater proximity (lesser distance); they are more detailed and concrete mental representations (Nussbaum et al., 2003 ).

Among the drivers discussed in the literature (see Table Table1 1 for an overview), perceived control can be considered an instrumental promoter, as consumers deliberate whether boycotting will effectively change the company’s behavior. As individuals gain more insights into the boycott’s consequences, they are more likely to assess their own role and impact. In contrast to the influence of expressive drivers, deliberate thinking, as well as the systematic processing of arguments for and against boycotting (which may change over time), should therefore shape the impact of instrumental drivers. Since cognitive processing and the search for relevant information will take more time than spontaneous affective responses, instrumental drivers should exert their positive influence on boycott partipation more at later stages than at the onset of the boycott.

As an instrumental promoter, perceived control will influence boycott participation positively at later stages ( t 1).

We expect several instrumental inhibitors to influence boycott participation. Their specific effect may depend on the context, and we will therefore later test our model in a diverse set of contexts. Generally, instrumental inhibitors include subjective costs, perceived service quality, and customer-friendly behavior of frontline employees.

The subjective costs of boycotting can be viewed as an instrumental factor, because consumers commonly account for the subjective burdens associated with boycotting (Hoffmann & Müller, 2009 ). While subjective costs may be underestimated at the start of a boycott, individuals may later come to realize that continuing the boycott will require substantial investments in time and money. According to construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003 ), individuals tend to overcommit to future tasks and events. As time passes, they often realize that they simply cannot complete all the tasks they had initially planned (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979 ). We thus expect that individuals may initially (at a higher-level construal) commit to a boycott due to expressive drivers. However, as times passes and construing boycotting becomes more concrete (e.g., when boycotters detail actual subjective costs and consequences, that is, lower-level construal), individuals may reconsider their initial decision. For example, a consumer may come to realize that they can no longer abstain from buying due to a lack of substitutes. Therefore, and possibly contrasting earlier outcomes, boycott-related subjective costs should become more influential as time passes.

As an instrumental inhibitor, subjective costs will influence boycott participation negatively at later stages ( t 1).

Our research builds on well-established constructs (perceived egregiousness, brand image, self-enhancement, perceived control, perceived costs) that have been validated in previous studies of boycotting. However, because our focus is on examining boycott dynamics across a number of divergent business contexts, relevant characteristics of these contexts need to be accounted for. For example, certain inhibitors may be particularly relevant in service contexts, especially inhibitors related to service intangibility and provider attributes (Zeithaml et al., 2006 ). We thus examine two industry-specific inhibitors thought to come into play after boycott participation started and which may even be more important than subjective costs. First, perceived service quality and the consumers’ overall satisfaction may be important in contexts like video-streaming, ride-pooling, and fast food restaurants (but not in e-commerce). In contrast, frontline employees and their capacity to keep consumers from boycotting may be more important in the context of fast food restaurants but not in the others.

Research on consumer response to questionable actions of service providers shows that certain consumers exhibit behavioral loyalty due to a perceived lack of adequate alternatives (Dick & Basu, 1994 ; Kumar & Shah, 2004 ). Boycotting a company would necessitate switching to an alternative provider. In those cases, the original company's perceived service quality correlates with subjective switching costs: The higher the service quality perception is, the higher are the subjective switching costs. The costs involved in searching for a substitute provider and the perceived risk involved in switching to a new provider determine the strength of a consumer's bond with a firm (Monroe, 1990 ; Zeithaml, 1988 ). We therefore expect that the higher the service quality is, the lower the likelihood of a boycott is.

As an instrumental inhibitor, perceived service quality will have a negative effect on boycott participation at later stages ( t 1).

Individuals vary in the importance placed on interpersonal and other service quality aspects (Driver & Johnston, 2001 ). In contexts where customers interact directly with employees, the behavior of these frontline employees may possibly exert a substantial influence on a customer’s boycott participation. In many cases, frontline employees represent a key touch point between the company and its customers (Hartline et al., 2000 ). The frontline employees' pivotal role can attenuate the negative effect of a scandal (e.g., Löhndorf & Diamantopoulos, 2014 ), suggesting that companies should actively employ frontline employees as a remedy, especially when they interact frequently with customers (von Walter et al., 2016 ). Moreover, frontline employees have the capacity to selectively and persuasively convey information to customers that might help the company overcome scandals (e.g., Bettencourt & Brown, 2003 ). They may assist in explaining their company’s response and reinforce messages in accordance with official communication (e.g., Jordan-Meier, 2011 ), or they may deliver better than average service quality after an egregious act. Given that consumers who received remedial communication from frontline employees after an ethical transgression give lesser weight to the transgression (Jones et al., 2011 ), we expect the following –

As an instrumental inhibitor, the customer-friendly behavior of frontline employees will have a negative effect on boycott participation at later stages ( t 1).

We tested our hypotheses in four empirical studies, using real cases from a variety of industries and contexts. Table Table2 2 gives an overview and illustrates how the studies build on and extend each other in terms of contexts, management perspectives, samples, time lags, measures, and drivers of boycott participation.

Flow of studies

Study	Industry	Management perspective	Country	Sample size	Time lag	Boycott measures		Drivers
1	Fast food restaurants	Product management	U.S	233	3 weeks	M (O, I)	M (O, I)	PE, PC, SE , BI, FE
2	Entertainment	Employee management	U.S	303	2 weeks	M (B, O, I)	M (B, O, I)	PE, PC, SE, BI, PS
3	E-commerce	Employee management	GER	293	5 months	R (B, O, I)	M (B, O, I)	PE, PC, SE, BI, SC
4	Ride-sharing	Public relations	U.S	220	12 months	R (B, O, I)	M (B, O, I)	PE, PC, SE, BI, PS

Sample country of origin: U.S. = United States, GER = Germany

Boycott measures: B behavior, moral O Obligation (feeling morally obliged to boycott), I intention, M measured, R retrospectively indicated

Drivers of boycott participation: PE perceived egregiousness, PC perceived control, SC subjective costs, SE self-enhancement, BI brand image, PS perceived service quality, FE service of frontline employees

a Word-of-mouth-specific self-enhancement

As an initial test to our hypotheses, Study 1 examines intrapersonal changes in boycotting as influenced by perceived egregiousness. Study 1 also assesses the effects of instrumental, as well as expressive, promoters and inhibitors. Furthermore, the study tests the role of service quality as a possible buffer against boycotting and probes the capacity of frontline employees to attenuate negative effects (von Walter et al., 2016 ).

Applying a within-subjects design in a fast food context, with measurements taken at two points in time three weeks apart, Study 1 examined consumers' response to an actual case of questionable employee management. A media reports-based vignette informed participants about a leading fast food chain's questionable business practices and methods. Instructions highlighted that the presented reports were real news taken from a number of web sites. The company was portrayed as the target of a social media campaign following a politician’s statement that the company’s CEO received a total salary of $21.8 million, whereas average workers were paid only $7.00 per hour. Another news story centered on a billboard put up on New York’s Times Square on New Year’s Eve, calling attention to the suffering of chickens on farms supplying the fast food restaurant. The third story portrayed the company's employees, encouraged by the #MeToo movement, staging a one-day strike at restaurants in ten major cities to push management to take stronger action against on-the-job sexual harassment. Tying the three cases together, study participants were informed that customers started boycotting the company, switching to other fast food providers. The vignettes are displayed in Appendix A3.

We collected data at two points in time, with a time lag of three weeks. 2 Recruited through MTurk, 632 U.S. residents initially took part in an online survey (M age = 36.87, SD age = 12.04; 55% male); 233 of them returned for the second set of measurements. Data sets from an additional 31 participants were subsequently dropped due to failing an attention check. We randomly recruited participants without screening for prior purchase of the company’s products. A non-response analysis showed no systematic differences between participants who completed both questionnaires and those who dropped out after the first round. 3

In the first round, we started the survey by presenting the vignette, followed by the request to list three more questionable actions attributed to the brand. Since most subjects repeated the content from the vignettes, we could verify that the participants had no doubts about the realism and credibility of the study. Furthermore, listing further immoral aspects helped us not only rule out individual differences among the participants in terms of the evaluation of the company's immoral behaviors but also reinforce the intended effect of the vignettes. In the second round, to avoid priming bias we merely stated that this study would be a follow-up to the one they had completed previously. In both rounds, we assessed boycott behavior, as well as inhibitors and promoters. We adapted measures of boycott participation developed by Nerb and Spada ( 2001 ), as well as Sen et al. ( 2001 ). A similar approach was used for assessing perceived egregiousness (Klein et al., 2004 ) at two points in time. Measures of expressive drivers (brand image and self-enhancement (exit)) and instrumental drivers (perceived control and subjective costs) were adopted from Klein et al. ( 2004 ). Additional measures assessed service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985 , 1988 ). Lastly, we developed a new scale to ascertain the participants' satisfaction with the frontline employees' service. Following Hirschmann (1970), we use “self-enhancement (voice)” for the word-of-mouth-specific self-enhancement and “self-enhancement (exit)” for the boycott-specific self-enhancement. In addition to the established items for assessing general self-enhancement (Klein et al., 2004 ), we therefore included items to assess self-enhancement (voice) (Alexandrov et al., 2013 ). The results of an exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis, oblimin rotation) yielded two factors corresponding to two distinct self-enhancement constructs, thus suggesting discriminant validity. To decrease drop-out rates, short scales were given preference (see Table TableA2 A2 in the Web Appendix). Note that full scales were employed in Study 3 and Study 4 .

All indicators were mean centered before computing interaction terms (Aiken et al., 1991 ; Cohen et al., 2003 ). First, we ran ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions with boycott partipation ( t 0), perceived egregiousness ( t 1), and the interaction term of both variables as the independent variables and boycott participation as the dependent variable (Table (Table3: 3 : model 1, model 4). We then incrementally added the instrumental and expressive determinants as they had been established in previous studies (Table (Table3: 3 : model 2, model 5). Lastly, we included two determinants deemed to be particularly relevant in service contexts (Table (Table3: 3 : model 3, model 6). In line with H1, results show a significant boycott participation ( t 0) × perceived egregiousness ( t 1) interaction effect on boycott participation ( t 1) ( p = 0.021, Table Table3, 3 , model 4). When adding promoters and inhibitors (models 2 and 5), inhibitor effects were significant and negative, whereas promoter effects were significant and positive. Consistent with H2a, self-enhancement (exit), an expressive promoter, influenced boycott participation positively at both points in time: t 0 ( p = 0.002, Table Table3, 3 , model 5) and t 1 ( p = 0.045, Table Table3, 3 , model 5). Partially supporting H2b, brand image, the expressive inhibitor, had significant negative effects in t 0 ( p = 0.002, Table Table3, 3 , model 2) but no effects in t 1 ( p = 0.973, Table Table3, 3 , model 5). Supporting H3a, perceived control, the instrumental promoter, had no effect on boycott participation in t 0 ( p = 0.081, Table Table3, 3 , model 2) but a positive significant influence in t 1 ( p = 0.054, Table Table3, 3 , model 5). When adding the set of service-related determinants, frontline employee service had a negative influence on boycott participation in t 1 (Table (Table3, 3 , model 6), supporting H3d.

Study 1: determinants of Boycott participation at t 0 and t 1

	Boycott participation 0									Boycott participation 1
	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4			Model 5			Model 6


Age	− 0.11	− 1.39	0.168	− 0.02	− 0.34	0.733	− 0.02	− 0.37	0.713	− 0.07	− 0.95	0.343	− 0.02	− 0.33	0.739	− 0.04	− 0.57	0.567
Gender	− 0.03	− 0.37	0.709	− 0.05	− 0.83	0.407	− 0.05	− 0.82	0.416	− 0.03	− 0.46	0.648	0.03	0.43	0.665	− 0.01	− 0.15	0.884
Education	− 0.07	− 0.89	0.377	− 0.13	− 2.12	0.036	− 0.13	− 2.11	0.037	− 0.08	− 1.21	0.228	− 0.13	− 1.97	0.051	− 0.13	− 1.85	0.067
Income	− 0.10	− 1.23	0.222	− 0.08	− 1.36	0.176	− 0.09	− 1.36	0.175	− 0.03	− 0.46	0.648	− 0.03	− 0.47	0.636	0.00	0.07	0.946

Perceived egregiousness ( 0)	0.61	7.63	0.000	0.11	1.24	0.216	0.12	1.23	0.222
Boycott ( 0)										0.40	4.74	0.000	0.12	0.98	0.331	0.13	1.10	0.273
Perceived egregiousness ( 1)										0.43	4.88	0.000	0.30	3.22	0.002	0.29	3.09	0.003
Boycott ( 0) × perceived egregiousness ( 1)										0.17	2.35	0.021	0.11	1.55	0.124	0.16	2.07	0.042

Self-enhancement (exit)				0.36	3.21	0.002	0.36	3.04	0.003				0.28	2.03	0.045	0.32	2.16	0.033
Self-enhancement (voice)				0.09	1.39	0.167	0.09	1.38	0.170				0.07	0.85	0.400	0.07	0.90	0.372
Brand image				− 0.26	− 3.09	0.002	− 0.27	− 2.77	0.006				0.00	0.03	0.973	0.00	0.02	0.981
Perceived control				0.18	1.76	0.081	0.18	1.75	0.083				0.19	1.95	0.054	0.13	1.35	0.179
Subjective costs				0.15	1.90	0.060	0.15	1.88	0.062				0.07	0.90	0.372	− 0.04	− 0.40	0.688
Customer service							0.01	0.06	0.954							− 0.31	− 1.71	0.090
Frontline employees							0.01	0.10	0.918							− 0.33	− 2.30	0.024
R	0.39			0.57			0.57			0.53			0.60			0.62
Adj. R	0.36			0.52			0.52			0.50			0.55			0.56

Ordinary least squares regression. 1 dummy coded: 0 = female, 1 = male; 2 dummy coded: 0 = €1500 or less; 1 = €1501 or more; 3 dummy coded: 0 = high school diploma or lower; 1 = more than high school diploma

Our results show that the initial boycott participation ( t 0) interacts with perceived egregiousness at t 1 to affect boycott participation at t 1. Effects vary systematically for expressive drivers (perceived egregiousness and brand image) and also for instrumental drivers (subjective costs and perceived control); furthermore, effects vary between the heat-up and the cool-down phases. Study 1 also highlights the role of frontline employees in dealing with boycotts. Especially in business contexts where frontline employees contribute substantially to customers’ perception of the company, such as in fast food restaurants, perceived service quality overrides other influencers of boycott participation. This finding has strong practical implications, because increasing numbers of fast food chains implement self-order kiosks, thereby reducing direct contact between customers and employees. Our findings suggest that this approach can backfire in times of egregious acts because of a lack of opportunities for frontline employees to restore damaged customer relationships.

Study 2 builds on and extends Study 1 in three important respects. First, Study 2 partially replicates Study 1 and extends it to the context of video streaming to enhance validity. As a check to the model’s robustness we also employed a new measure for boycott participation. Second, the study aims to corroborate the crucial role of perceived service quality in a context characterized by lower-frequency customer-frontline employee contact (different from Study 1). Third, Study 2 further disentangles the roles played by boycott drivers with distinct consumer groups. We explore temporal changes in a within-subjects design at two points in time with a time lag of two weeks.

Study 2 examined how consumers respond to the alleged immoral behavior of a leading online movie streaming provider. Participants first read a vignette including news reports that the company offered morally questionable shows and movies. For example, a novel reality show format encouraged a group of actors to talk an unknowing participant into committing murder. In a second case, a woman blamed the firm for her daughter’s attempt to commit suicide. In a third case, a corporate comedian proudly announced that his show was the main catalyst for over 4,500 relationships being terminated, including many divorces. In light of these news, the vignette alleged that the company’s customers started to boycott the firm and to switch to other providers. Again, we explained to participants that the presented media excerpts presented real reports taken from actual news websites. Following the vignette, we again prompted participants to write down additional questionable behaviors of the firm. Again, subjects mostly repeated the content from the vignettes, indicating that they had no doubts about the realism and credibility of the study. The vignettes are displayed in Appendix A3.

We collected data at two points in time with a time lag of two weeks. Recruited from MTurk, 533 U.S. residents took part in an online survey (M age = 34.78, SD age = 10.31; 57% male), with 303 participants returning to continue at the second point in time. A non-response analysis indicated no significant differences between participants who completed the study at both times and those who dropped out after the first round. 4

The overall design of the study was almost identical to that of Study 1, with all scales consisting of seven-point Likert-type ratings. Different from Study 1, we added a binary measure of boycott participation (“I will boycott company XY”; no = 0, yes = 1). To enhance the validity of the boycott scale, we included a behavioral measure by offering respondents an opportunity to participate in a lottery. Upon completing the survey, they could choose between four coupons, one of these valid with the video streaming company and three others valid with competitors. Choosing the coupon of the video streaming company was thought to indicate non-boycotting, while the other options were thought to indicate boycotting. Accordingly, the coupons provide a dichotomous index of boycotting vs. non-boycotting. The chi-square test with the dichotomous boycott measure and the dichotomous coupon choice indicated a significant relation between both variables (χ 2 (1) = 3.51, p = 0.043).

We ran binary logistic regressions with boycott participation ( t 0), perceived egregiousness ( t 1), and the interaction term of both variables as the independent variables, and a binary boycott participation measure as the dependent variable. All variables were mean centered (Aiken et al., 1991 ; Cohen et al., 2003 ). The variance inflation factor (VIF) indicates that multicollinearity does not bias our results (none of the VIFs reached a value above the threshold of 4; Hair et al., 2011 ). Results further indicate that—at t 1—the interaction term between perceived egregiousness ( t 1) and boycott participation ( t 0) had a significant and positive effect (B = 0.41, Wald = 0.71, p ≤ 0.05) on boycotting ( t 1), thereby supporting H1. In other words, increasing levels of perceived egregiousness in t 1 enhanced the initial boycott behavior's positive influence on boycott participation in t 1. Figure 2 illustrates this finding.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10551_2021_4997_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Interaction of boycott participation ( t 0) and perceived egregiousness ( t 1)

Self-enhancement, the expressive promoter, influenced boycott participation significantly and positively in t 0 (B = 0.27, Wald = 11.20, p ≤ 0.001), and had a marginally significant influence in t 1 (B = 0.26, Wald = 2.86, p = 0.091). Similarly, brand image, the expressive inhibitor, had significant negative effects in both t 0 ( B = − 0.62, Wald = 4.20, p = 0.040) and t 1 ( B = 1.02, Wald = 4.28, p = 0.039). In contrast, perceived control, the instrumental promoter, had a marginally significant and positive effect on boycott participation only at t 1 ( B = 0.53, Wald = 2.93, p = 0.087). Among instrumental inhibitors, the effect of subjective costs on boycott participation was not significant at the two points in time, but perceived service quality had a significant negative influence in t 1 only ( B = − 0.82, Wald = 3.97, p = 0.046) as predicted in H3c.

Further extending Study 1, we gauged interpersonal differences in the temporal dynamics of boycott participation to enhance managerial implications. Specifically, we categorized respondents according to four distinct types: Respondents who exhibited an increasing boycott participation ( M t 0 = 2.67, M t 1 = 3.93, t = 12.48, p ≤ 0.001) were labeled the Deliberators (Δboycott t 1 − boycott t 0 > 0). Respondents who exhibited constant levels (i.e., no significant difference between mean boycotting scores at the individual level) of boycott participation (M t 0, t 1 = 2.65) were labeled the Apathetic . To split the large group of remaining respondents exhibiting a decrease in boycott participation (Δboycott t 1 − boycott t 0 < 0), we additionally accounted for changes in the level of perceived egregiousness [(Δegregiousness < 0) or (Δegregiousness ≥ 0)]. Consumers who exhibited a decreasing boycott participation [ M t 0 = 4.66, M t 1 = 3.00, t = 10.23, p ≤ 0.001) together with a decrease in perceived egregiousness ( M t 0 = 4.74, M t 1 = 3.01, t = 11.39, p ≤ 0.001) were labeled the Forgetters . The last group, consisting of participants who exhibited a decrease in boycott participation ( M t 0 = 3.94, M t 1 = 2.84, t = 10.40, p ≤ 0.001) combined with stable levels of egregiousness, was labeled the Capitulated . All respondents were assigned to one of the four groups. Next, we ran four separate regression models (one for each of the four groups), each with perceived egregiousness, promoters, and inhibitors as the independent variables, and boycott participation as the dependent variable (see Table Table4, 4 , upper panel). The results indicate that self-enhancement has a strong effect on boycotting across types, making it little useful for explaining differences. In contrast, differences established for the remaining drivers fit our predictions. With the Deliberators, perceived control had a significant positive effect. Brand image had a strong negative effect with the Apathetic. Perceived egregiousness had a medium-sized effect with the Forgetters. For the Capitulated-type consumers, the instrumental inhibitor, subjective costs, was particularly relevant.

Type-specific drivers of boycott participation in the cool-down phase ( t 1)

DV: boycott 1	The deliberators			The apathetic			The forgetters			The capitulated


Self-enhancement	0.09	0.134	1.54	0.10	0.020	2.47	0.08	0.011	2.05	0.10	0.043	2.63
Perceived control	0.36	0.048	2.06	0.39	0.006	2.95	0.33	0.464	3.09	0.09	0.003	0.74
Brand image	− 0.42	0.183	− 1.37	− 0.63	0.006	− 3.00	− 0.11	0.411	− 0.59	− 0.16	0.554	− 0.83
Perceived egregiousness ( 1)	0.37	0.000	4.37	0.12	0.158	1.45	0.19	0.001	2.66	0.29	0.009	3.59
Subjective costs	0.02	0.656	0.45	0.09	0.049	2.05	0.05	0.069	1.51	0.07	0.133	1.65
Service quality	− 0.62	0.028	− 2.31	0.03	0.909	0.12	0.02	0.640	0.08	− 0.10	0.935	− 0.47
	0.72			0.81			0.72			0.50
Adj.	0.66			0.77			0.69			0.45
Share (in %)	15.4			15.0			27.7			41.9

Self-enhancement	0.48	0.002	3.36	0.629	0.000	7.46	0.419	0.000	6.47	0.549	0.000	5.08
Perceived control	0.22	0.085	1.77	0.070	0.303	1.04	0.119	0.052	1.95	0.163	0.095	1.71
Brand image	− 0.11	0.300	− 1.05	− 0.337	0.000	− 4.97	− 0.229	0.000	− 3.82	− 0.157	0.097	− 1.70
Perceived egregiousness ( 1)	0.19	0.187	1.34	0.064	0.363	0.91	0.284	0.000	4.87	0.291	0.011	2.69
Subjective costs	− 0.16	0.141	− 1.50	0.030	0.628	0.48	− 0.075	0.187	− 1.32	− 0.180	0.056	− 1.97
	0.60			0.80			0.56			0.70
Adj.	0.54			0.78			0.54			0.65
Share (in %)	13.3			19.8			51.5			15.4

Self-enhancement	0.27	0.042	2.09	0.61	0.000	5.77	0.58	0.000	5.66	0.78	0.000	4.68
Perceived control	0.62	0.000	4.07	0.05	0.545	0.61	− 0.01	0.906	− 0.12	0.11	0.459	0.75
Brand image	− 0.20	0.083	− 1.77	− 0.05	0.418	− 0.82	− 0.15	0.121	− 1.57	0.06	0.527	0.64
Perceived egregiousness ( 1)	0.05	0.605	0.52	0.36	0.001	3.48	0.31	0.003	3.09	0.02	0.876	0.16
Subjective costs	− 0.06	0.502	− 0.68	− 0.09	0.047	− 2.03	− 0.05	0.490	− 0.69	− 0.06	0.509	− 0.67
Service quality	− 0.07	0.042	− 0.73	0.10	0.179	1.36	− 0.02	0.857	− 0.18	− 0.27	0.021	− 2.44
R	0.72			0.92			0.77			0.86
Adj. R	0.69			0.91			0.75			0.83
Share (in %)	22.6			28.8			29.7			18.9

Ordinary least squares regression

The findings of Study 2 corroborate the findings obtained in Study 1 in another business context, thus enhancing confidence in thegeneralizability of the findings. The findings of this study indicate that perceived egregiousness fades over time and that this effect is reflected in an overall decrease in boycott participation. Furthermore, this study shows that boycott participation varies over time between four distinct types of consumers due to the divergent influence of boycotting drivers.

Study 3 partially replicates previous studies and extends them to an e-tailing context. The study seeks to corroborate the inhibiting role of subjective costs that come into play when service-related factors (e.g., service quality, frontline employees) are muted due to the context. Different from the previous studies where promoters and inhibitors were measured with reduced scales (to lower drop-out rates due to respondent fatigue), Study 3 employs original (extended) scales of the constructs retrospectively assessed at a single point in time.

Study 3 focuses on an actual case in Germany where the misconduct of an e-retailer received extensive media coverage. In this case, German public television (TV) broadcast a documentary on the substandard work conditions of employees subcontracted by a leading online retailer. Watched by a large audience (2 million TV viewers plus another 2.4 million views online), this documentary evoked strong reactions with both the press (print and online) and society (especially in blogs and newspaper commentaries). Many consumers expressed their determination to boycott the company. In online postings, consumers stated they would feel ashamed to be seen purchasing products from the the e-tailer. Examining this case is especially appropriate, because, in boycotting, consumers make substantial sacrifices due to the e-tailer’s vast portfolio, its position as a market leader, and the overall convenience of buying online. As with previous studies, the stimuli highlighted that media reports were obtained from real online news.

Three hundred and five consumers were recruited using an online survey posted on various social networks. Ninety-nine point six percent of participants indicated to be familiar with the company, and 100% indicated being or having been customers. Twelve data sets were dropped due to incomplete information, leaving 293 respondents ( M age = 25.27, SD age = 4.62, 63.5% female) for subsequent analyses.

First, we asked respondents to recall the documentary and aided their memory by reminding them of the key facts summarized in a short text. We specifically highlighted media reports that the company had lured more than 3,000 workers from abroad with offers of good pay and good working conditions, whereas actual salaries paid were much lower. Up to six workers had to share a small room and were under continuous video surveillance by a security firm suspected to have close ties with a German far-right party. Emphasizing these facts was intended to ascertain that consumers who already knew about the transgression were reminded of the relevant facts, whereas others who had not heard about it could develop a vivid and detailed image of the transgression (Spiegel.de 2013 ). The vignettes are displayed in Appendix A3.

Study participants next stated levels of perceived egregiousness and boycott participation for both the time of the survey ( t 1 = five months after the TV documentary) and, retrospectively, five months earlier ( t 0 = the time when the TV documentary was broadcast). Again, we adapted measures of boycott participation developed by Nerb and Spada ( 2001 ), as well as Sen et al. ( 2001 ). The items used to assess boycott participation at t 0 were identical to the originals but phrased in the past tense (see Table TableA2 A2 in the Web Appendix). We also captured facets of boycott participation, such as the perceived obligation to participate in a boycott. 5 A similar approach was used for assessing perceived egregiousness (Klein et al., 2004 ) at two points in time. To increase validity, these questions appeared at the beginning of the questionnaire when the respondents were not yet aware of the study's possible objectives. Indicators of expressive drivers (brand image and self-enhancement) and instrumental drivers (perceived control and subjective costs) were adopted from Klein et al. ( 2004 ). All scales were of the seven-point Likert type.

Indicating sufficient reliability, Cronbach’s alpha for all multi-item scales exceeded the critical value of 0.70 (see Table TableA2 A2 in the Web Appendix). Confirmatory factor analysis (maximum likelihood estimation, AMOS 24.0) of all multi-item drivers of boycott participation yielded an acceptable fit of the model ( χ 2 /d.f. = 1.59, comparative fit index: CFI = 0.974, root mean square error of approximation: RMSEA = 0.045). Fornell and Larcker’s ( 1981 ) criterion provides evidence for the discriminant validity of these constructs; that is, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct is higher than the square of the correlation of this construct with any other construct (Table (TableA1, A1 , Web Appendix). We ran the single-factor test of Harman ( 1967 ), which is the most commonly used post hoc approach to manage common method variance (CMV) (Fuller et al., 2016 ), to check whether CMV may bias the results. 6 The first unrotated factor explains 27.5% of the indicators' shared variance, which is significantly less than the critical threshold of 50%. Taken together, the results suggest reliable and valid measures.

We also added a behavioral measure by offering respondents an opportunity to participate in a lottery. Upon completing the survey, they could choose between three coupons: a coupon valid with the boycotted firm, a second one valid with another online bookstore, and a third one valid with a local book store. The first option was thought to indicate non-boycotting, while—given the e-tailer's role as a market leader—the latter two options were considered to indicate boycotting. Accordingly, the coupons provide a dichotomous index of boycotting vs. non-boycotting. The correlation between the psychometric measure of boycott ( t 1) and the dichotomous variable of coupon choice was significant and negative ( r = − 0.45, p ≤ 0.001).

As an initial test to our hypotheses, we examined changes in perceived egregiousness and boycott participation from t 0 to t 1. T-tests confirmed that both perceived egregiousness ( M t 0 = 5.90, M t 1 = 5.14, t = 13.99, p = 0.007) and boycott participation ( M t 0 = 3.63, M t 1 = 2.82, t = 12.58, p = 0.008) decreased significantly from the heat-up phase ( t 0) to the cool-down phase ( t 1).

We next ran OLS regressions to test hypotheses more directly (see Table Table5), 5 ), with all indicators mean centered before calculating interaction terms (Aiken et al., 1991 ; Cohen et al., 2003 ). The variance inflation factor indicates that multicollinearity does not bias our results. 7 Again, the interaction term (see Table Table5) 5 ) between perceived egregiousness ( t 1) and boycott participation ( t 0) had a significant and positive effect on boycotting at t 1.

Study 3: determinants of Boycott participation at t 0 and t 1

	Boycott participation 0								Boycott participation 1
	Model 1				Model 2				Model 3				Model 4
				VIF				VIF				VIF				VIF
Controls
Age	0.23	0.318	1.00	1.02	0.053	0.733	34	1.045	0.07	0.660	0.42	1.03	− 0.08	0.696	− 0.53	1.05
Gender	0. -23	0.039	− 2.08	1.08	− 0.049	0.529	− 0.63	1.144	0.10	244	1.16	1.07	− 0.08	0.201	− 0.49	1.03
Income	0.43	0.080	1.76	1.03	0.266	0.108	1.61	1.030	0.18	276	1.01	1.04	0.21	0.200	1.28	1.04
Education	− 0.14.559	− 0.058	1.02	0.067	0.674	0.42	1.023	− 0.12	0.476	− 0.68	1.03	0.07	0.628	0.98	1.11
Boycott and Egregiousness ( 0)
Perceived egregiousness( 0)	0.54	0.000	10.30	1.07	0.270	0.000	6.895	1.313
Boycott ( 1)									0.63	0.000	15.34	1.20	0.41	0.000	8.33	2.15
Perceived egregiouisness ( 1)									0.34	0.000	8.44	1.13	0.27	0.000	7.39	1.19
Boycott ( 0) × perceived egregiousness (tl)									0.10	0.006	2.81	1.02	0.08	0.010	2.47	1.03
Boycott driven Self-enhancement					0.541	0.000	1.23	1.707					0.23	0.002	5.14	1.87
Brand image					− 0.154	0.000	− 4.08	1.173					− 0.16	0.000	− 4.14	1.25
Perceived control					0.129	0.001	3.27	1.310					0.08	0.033	1.94	1.37
Subjective costs					− 0.036	0.301	4.04	1.068					− 0.12	0.001	− 3.42	1.07
	0.35				0.64				0.65				0.73
Adj.	0.33				0.63				0.64				0.71

Notes: Ordinary least squares regression. 1 dummy-coded: 0 = female; 1 = male; 2 dummy-coded: 0 = €1.500 or less; 1 = €1.501 or more; 3 dummy-coded: 0 = high school diploma or loner; 1 = more than high school diploma. V1F = variance inflation factor

In line with expectations, inhibitors had negative and promoters had positive effects on boycott participation. Supporting H2a, the expressive promoter, self-enhancement, influenced boycott participation positively at the initial stage (see Table Table5, 5 , Model 2) and at t 1 (see Table Table5, 5 , Model 4). Similarly, the expressive inhibitor brand image had significant negative effects at both points in time. The instrumental promoter, perceived control, had a positive effect on boycott participation at t 1, supporting H3a. In support of H3b, the effect of the instrumental inhibitor, subjective costs, on boycott participation at t 1 was significant and negative. Unexpectedly, perceived control had a significant and positive effect on boycott participation at t 0.

As with Study 2, we categorized respondents according to the four boycotter types. T -tests confirm that the mean boycott participation for the Deliberators was higher in t 1 than in t 0 ( M t 0 = 2.85, M t 1 = 3.44, t = 9.36, p ≤ 0.001). Respondents with a constant level of boycott participation over time ( M t 0, t 1 = 2.48) were categorized as the Apathetic . Consumers who exhibited a decrease in boycott participation ( M t 0 = 4.16, M t 1 = 2.69, t = 17.70, p ≤ 0.001) in combination with a decrease in perceived egregiousness ( M t 0 = 6.19, M t 1 = 4.93, t = 16.78, p ≤ 0.001) were categorized the Forgetters . Consumers who exhibited a decrease in boycott participation ( M t 0 = 4.01, M t 1 = 3.14, t = 9.39, p ≤ 0.001) combined with constant levels of perceived egregiousness ( M t 0 = 5.62, M t 1 = 5.64, n.s.) were categorized as the Capitulated . An analysis (Chi-square test) of coupons chosen by the four consumer types indicated differences between the Forgetters (49% of which chose the e-tailer's coupon), the Capitulated (47%), and the Deliberators (51%), on the one hand, and the Apathetic (71%), on the other hand [ χ 2 (3) = 9.02, p = 0.038]. As a check to the robustness of the results obtained with the psychometric measure, results with the behavioral measure corroborated that Apathetic consumers stay with the boycotted e-tailer more than do the other types.

To examine drivers of boycotting among the four types, we again ran four regression models (one for each type), with perceived egregiousness, promoters, and inhibitors as the independent variables, and boycott participation as the dependent variable (see Table Table4, 4 , middle panel). Yet again, the results indicate a unique set of drivers for each of the four groups. With the Deliberators, only perceived control had a significant positive effect. Brand image had only a significant effect with the Apathetic consumers. Perceived egregiousness had a medium-sized effect with the Forgetters.

The findings of Study 3 corroborate results obtained with previous studies in a different context. Again, the findings indicate that perceived egregiousness fades over time and that this effect is reflected in an overall decrease in boycott participation. More specifically, initial boycott participation ( t 0) interacts with perceived egregiousness at t 1 to affect boycott participation at t 1. Furthermore, boycott participation over time varies between four types of consumers due to the divergent influence of boycotting drivers. Specifically, effects vary systematically for expressive drivers (perceived egregiousness and brand image), and also for instrumental drivers (subjective costs and perceived control). In addition, they vary between the heat-up and the cool-down phases. Furthermore, the results highlight the importance of socially responsible human resource management for employee work behaviors (Shen & Benson, 2016 ). Besides the direct negative influence on employee behaviors, public opinion could even be more damaging to the company if it violates certain standards of the working conditions. Despite the valuable insights provided, Study 3 had at least one limitation that motivated the final study: At the onset of the study, respondents were informed of key facts, irrespective of whether or not they actually recalled the original egregious act. The results could therefore have been biased, as certain respondents learned about the event for the first time.

Study 4 aims to address Study 3’s limitation and replicate the main findings of previous studies in yet another context. The study focuses on an actual boycott of a peer-to-peer ridesharing and transportation network firm, which became public knowledge 12 months prior to our study. As a methodological contribution, we test whether informing unaware consumers about the triggering event will affect results.

The actual boycott was directed against a ride-hailing company, which allegedly profited from a protest against President Trump’s executive order to ban refugees from certain countries from entering the United States. After the president's executive order, taxi drivers in New York City issued a public statement, refusing to pick up passengers at Kennedy Airport for one hour. Called upon to join this protest, the company refused. Instead, it posted a message on Twitter stating that for the duration of the taxi boycott surge pricing (an algorithm that raises the price of a ride during times of high demand) had been suspended for trips originating at JFK Airport. This behavior caused approximately 500,000 consumers to delete the app, effectively boycotting the provider. A hashtag encouraging deletion of the app spread rapidly and widely through social media at the heart of the protest against the company. As before, we highlighted that the reports are taken from real news websites.

In our study, 283 U.S. residents took part in an MTurk survey, with 220 participants completing all questions ( M age = 34.81, SD age = 9.21; 75% male). MTurk randomly assigned participants to the study regardless of whether or not they were actual customers of the ridesharing company. Of our sample, 35 respondents had never used the ridesharing service and were therefore excluded, leaving a final sample of 185 participants for subsequent analyses. To increase validity, the questions assessing consumer knowledge of the case (65% had heard of the boycott) appeared at the beginning of the questionnaire such that respondents were not able to draw conclusions about study objectives. As with Study 3, respondents indicated their level of perceived egregiousness and boycott participation for both the time of the survey ( t 1 = twelve months after the boycott call) and, retrospectively, twelve months earlier ( t 0 = the time when the boycott was initiated). 8

They also indicated whether or not they had actually known about the boycott. To those who did not, we presented a short newspaper article about the boycott. We re-employed Study 3's measures of boycott participation and perceived egregiousness. Measures of expressive and instrumental drivers were also identical to the ones used in Study 3 . We used a dichotomous scale of subjective costs, asking respondents to affirm (1) or reject (0) the following statement: “I could not do without XY, because I do not have to wait for long until the driver picks me up.” All other scales consisted of seven-point Likert-type ratings. Table TableA2 A2 in the Web Appendix holds scale means and statistics. Again, Fornell and Larcker’s ( 1981 ) criterion provides evidence for the discriminant validity of the constructs (Web Appendix Table TableA1). A1 ). Results of the single-factor test (41.7%) indicated that common method variance did not bias the results. Inserting a theoretically uncorrelated marker item (“I like indie music”) also yields that the results are not distorted by a common method bias (Lindell & Whitney, 2001 ). Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates no significant correlation with any other item in the study.

Results of an initial t-test closely resemble those of previous studies, indicating that both perceived egregiousness ( M t 0 = 4.41, M t 1 = 3.97, t = 5.62, p ≤ 0.001) and boycott participation ( M t 0 = 4.31, M t 1 = 3.67, t = 5.79, p ≤ 0.001) decrease significantly from the heat-up phase ( t 0) to the cool-down phase ( t 1). Further results indicate that perceived egregiousness ( t 1) interacts significantly ( β = 0.22, t = 2.03, p = 0.044) with boycott participation ( t 0) to affect boycotting at t 1 (Table (Table6, 6 , Model 1). We next divided our sample into one group of participants who had known about the boycott and another group of participants who had first learned about the event during our study. With consumers who already knew about the event, the effects of promoters and inhibitors replicated the pattern found in previous studies (Table (Table6, 6 , Model 4). Furthermore, this study reveals an interaction of perceived egregiousness ( t 1) and service quality on boycott participation (Table (Table6, 6 , Model 4). In contrast with consumers who had not heard about the event, only two variables had a significant influence on boycott participation: self-enhancement (positively) and service quality (negatively) (Table (Table6, 6 , Model 3). This finding indicates that priming the story has no biasing effect. Testing interaction effects between “Boycott known = 1 (yes) vs. 0 (no)” and the other variables in our model indicates significant effects between prior knowledge of the boycott and perceived egregiousness, self-enhancement, brand image, perceived control, as well as service quality.

Determinants of Boycott Participation ( t 1)—Study 4

	Model 1: Full Sample w. Interactions			Model 2: Full Sample wo. Interactions			Model 3: Not Known			Model 4: Known


Age	− 0.01	0.433	− 0.79	0.00	0.573	− 0.56	− 0.09	0.163	− 1.41	0.04	0.328	0.99
Gender	0.06	0.317	1.00	0.03	0.628	0.49	0.03	0.637	0.47	0.06	0.118	1.58
Income	− 0.22	0.368	− 0.90	− 0.34	0.191	− 1.31	− 0.04	0.478	− 0.71	− 0.02	0.637	− 0.47
Education	− 0.04	0.812	− 0.24	0.02	0.879	0.15	− 0.01	0.793	− 0.26	− 0.02	0.620	− 0.50

Boycott participation ( 0)	0.13	0.376	0.89	0.08	0.083	1.75	0.03	0.593	0.54	0.35	0.000	3.87
Perceived egregiousness ( 1)	− 0.08	0.719	− 0.36	0.42	0.000	3.92	0.30	0.003	3.09	0.10	0.134	1.52
Boycott participation ( 0) × perceived egregiousness ( 1)	0.22	0.044	2.03	0.24	0.006	2.79	− 0.01	0.873	− 0.16	0.16	0.020	2.38

Self-enhancement	0.14	0.004	2.92	0.16	0.000	8.28	0.50	0.000	5.21	0.34	0.000	3.68
Brand image	− 0.53	0.012	− 2.54	− 0.07	0.289	− 1.06	0.11	0.142	1.48	− 0.15	0.005	− 2.90
Subjective costs	− 0.54	0.382	− 0.88	− 0.37	0.075	− 1.79	− 0.06	0.314	− 1.01	− 0.07	0.074	− 1.81
Perceived control	0.38	0.002	3.13	0.13	0.073	1.80	− 0.01	0.920	− 0.10	0.20	0.002	3.16

Service quality	0.11	0.314	1.01	− 0.05	0.180	− 1.35	− 0.24	0.006	− 2.85	0.00	0.240	0.07
Service quality × perceived egregiousness ( 1)	0.29	0.140	1.48	0.16	0.036	2.12	− 0.02	0.735	− 0.34	0.16	0.006	2.30

Boycott participation ( 0)	− 0.10	0.584	− 0.55
Perceived egregiousness ( 1)	0.40	0.004	2.94
Boycott participation ( 0) × perceived egregiousness ( 1)	− 0.01	0.840	− 0.20
Self-enhancement	− 0.01	0.957	− 0.05
Brand image	0.38	0.015	2.46
Subjective costs	0.14	0.731	0.34
Perceived control	− 0.26	0.011	− 2.57
Service quality	− 0.34	0.068	− 1.84
Service quality × perceived egregiousness ( 1)	− 0.01	0.357	− 0.79
R	0.84		0.87	0.87			0.89			0.87
Adj. R	0.84		0.84	0.84			0.87			0.75
n	185			185			89			96

a Dummy coded: 0 = female; 1 = male

b Dummy coded: 0 = €1500 or less; 1 = €1501 or more

c Dummy-coded: 0 = high school diploma or lower; 1 = more than high school diploma

Yet again, we conducted between-subject t-tests to examine boycott drivers for the consumer types and respondents were assigned to one of the four groups. The Deliberators showed a significant increase in boycott participation ( M t 0 = 3.79, M t 1 = 4.67, t = 7.00, p ≤ 0.001), while the boycotting level of the Apathetic remained constant ( M t 0, t 1 = 3.87). The Forgetters displayed a decrease in boycott participation ( M t 0 = 3.83, M t 1 = 3.14, t = 6.96, p ≤ 0.001) in combination with a decrease in perceived egregiousness ( M t 0 = 4.44, M t 1 = 3.55, t = 13.10, p ≤ 0.001), whereas the Capitulated exhibited a decrease in boycott participation ( M t 0 = 4.46, M t 1 = 3.93, t = 5.17, p ≤ 0.001) paired with an increase in perceived egregiousness ( M t 0 = 3.83, M t 1 = 4.38, t = 4.73, p ≤ 0.001). Again, self-enhancement was a significant driver across groups (Table (Table3, 3 , lower panel). The results confirm that perceived control had a strong positive effect with the Deliberators . Remarkably, the Apathetic's behavior was driven by the inhibitor, subjective costs, rather than by the inhibitor, brand image. Perceived egregiousness was the key influencer for the Forgetters . For the Capitulated type, a loss in service quality was particularly relevant.

The findings obtained in Study 4 closely resemble the ones obtained in previous studies, suggesting that effects are stable and likely generalizable. Specifically, intrapersonal changes in perceived egregiousness and boycotting reemerged, as did the roles of instrumental and expressive promoters and inhibitors. Furthermore, Study 4 rules out the possibility that providing uninformed respondents with key facts of the egregious event biased the results.

General Discussion

This paper conceptualizes and empirically tests intrapersonal changes in boycott participation. Four studies provide evidence for an integrative model consisting of a heat-up and a cool-down phase of boycotting. By providing a better understanding of the individual temporal dynamics of boycotting—especially intrapersonal changes—our research extends existing models that focus on the commencement of boycotts, thereby offering a unique contribution. In doing so, our study makes at least three important contributions.

First, we contribute to the boycott literature by detailing temporal changes in boycott participation at the individual consumer level. While previous studies establish an overall decline of consumers’ willingness to boycott over time, our findings, for the first time, illustrate the dynamic psychological aspects of boycotts at the individual level. We show that in the initial heat-up phase, boycott participation is primarily fueled by expressive drivers. During the following cool-down phase, additional instrumental drivers come into play, which, through more careful and rational consideration, can keep initial participants from further boycotting (Fig. 3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 10551_2021_4997_Fig3_HTML.jpg

Dynamic nature of consumer boycotts. Notes. PE perceived egregiousness, SE self-enhancement, PC perceived control, SC subjective costs, BI brand image

This novel two-stage approach adds to the nascent literature on multi-stage models in sustainable consumption (Mai et al., 2021 ) and ties in not only with the hot/cold cognitions process explanation adopted for consumer response to ethical transgressions in sports contexts (e.g., Lee et al., 2016 ; Sato et al., 2018 ) but also with the “emotion-then-deliberation” sequence (Evans, 2008 ; Haidt, 2001 ). Our finding of diminishing importance of hot versus cold drivers is further also consistent with research on service failure recovery (e.g., Tsarenko & Tojib, 2011 ) and product-harm crisis (e.g., Khamitov et al., 2020 ). While Mai et al. ( 2021 ) put forward a similar multi-stage model in the context of organic consumption, ours is the first to offer a multi-stage view on why consumers start, sustain, and stop boycotting at different points in time. This temporal dynamic is especially evident in the empirical studies, where we cover time periods ranging from two weeks (Study 2) to 12 months (Study 4). Furthermore, validity is increased by assessing consumer reactions at two different points of time (Study 1 and Study 2), and by applying retrospective designs (Stud 3 and Study 4, Fig. 3 ).

Second, this novel dynamic psychological perspective enables us to extend existing boycotting models beyond a consumer’s initial decision to join by including the consumer's exit. Informed by research on the temporal effects of anger and revenge (e.g., Ettenson & Klein, 2005 ; Klein et al., 1998 ; Lee et al., 2016 ; Sato et al., 2018 ), this perspective adds to the research stream on consumer response to unethical firm behavior. Past research in this realm has predominantly focused on drivers to initially join boycotts (Hoffmann, 2011 ; Klein et al., 2004 ). We extend this literature by identifying and profiling four consumer types based on unique intrapersonal changes in boycotting behavior during the cool-down phase. Further to the four types, we disentangled the motives driving interpersonal differences between respondents with increasing levels of boycott participation and others with constant and decreasing levels. Finally, we show that the majority of consumers participate in a boycott to vent frustration.

Presenting a third contribution, we introduce two new service-related drivers of individual boycott participation that have not been studied previously. Since boycotting a company usually requires switching to another service provider, examining two novel service-related determinants provides more detail to subjective switching costs. Study 1's findings show that customer-friendly behavior of frontline employees can attenuate boycott participation over time. Findings obtained in Study 2 and Study 3 suggest that a strong customer-provider link and higher levels of perceived service quality can lower the likelihood of a boycott.

Finally, our four studies build confidence in the generalizability of findings, as the results appear robust across countries (Germany, U.S.), contexts (e-tailing, peer-to-peer ridesharing, video streaming, and hospitality), and study designs.

Implications for Activists and Managers

Strategic considerations.

Boycotts rarely maintain their level of intensity over time (Chavis & Leslie, 2009 ; Ettenson & Klein, 2005 ). However, many organizations that are targets of boycott calls still hope that the boycott has no sustainable impact on their behavior and that they are not required to change their policies. Many cases have, however, shown that a boycott can force a company to change its behavior (e.g., Shell’s Brent Spar crisis, Loefstedt and Renn 1997). In this line, our results demonstrate that there is a considerable share of consumers that do not just “cool down” after a while and revert to old consumption habits but rather stay angry or find rational arguments and measures to boycott the company. Companies targeted because of corporate ethical misbehaviors should therefore significantly adjust their activities or obligations to serve their internal and external stakeholder communities ( Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Dahlsrud, 2008 ; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006 ; Snider et al., 2003 ). Building on past research showing that corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies can be advantegous for companies (Baron, 2001 ; McWilliams & Siegel, 2011 ) in terms of their brand equity (e.g., Torres et al., 2012 ; Yang and Basile 2020) or performance (e.g., Blasi et al., 2018 ; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006 ), companies can interpret boycotts as a chance to adjust their CSR stategy instead of just awaiting the end of the boycott. Besides changing business practices and policies that have initially triggered a boycott, companies should reconsider the communication of their activities to avoid future negative consumer reactions that might induce boycott calls. Our results also show that frontline employees could be a good means for a company to interact with the customers. Other conditions that influence the impact of CSR activities should be considered as well, such as the fit between the company and the focal issue, the company reputation, the consumer-company identification, information transparency, and the physical environment (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004 ; Kim, 2019 ; Kim & Kim, 2017 ; Lasarov et al., 2021 ; Wu et al., 2020 ). Besides these global CSR-related considerations, companies must develop strategies that are adjusted to the different consumer types we have identified in our research.

Dynamic Considerations

Research on crises management has identified a number of situations where consumers were not satisfied with corporate behaviors, such as actions deemed unethical (Coombs, 2004 , 2007; Coombs & Holladay, 2002 ; Huang, 2006 ). According to the results, an organization’s crises managers should first assess the degree of “guilt” attributable to the organization and then develop appropriate response strategies. According to our results, there are four strategies that might help mitigate consumer boycotts. First, maintaining a positive company image would be an effective means of buffering against or at least attenuating the negative consequences of boycotts. Past research has identified a number of measures for enhancing brand image and behavioral loyalty; in the context of social boycotts, CSR activities (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012 ; Ailawadi et al., 2014 ; Barnett et al., 2020 ) and cause-related marketing (Chen & Huang, 2016 ) might mostly impact the company’s brand image. However, since our results show that also aspects not related to the company’s CSR measures (e.g., the company delivers its products at the promised time) can boost the company image, boycott activists could counter these measures that are not related to CSR by continuously running campaigns pointing out the boycotted company's ethical wrongdoings. Boycott activists may therefore work to maintain high levels of negative emotions against the boycotted company. Second, our results indicate that high switching costs incurred, for example, through the search for alternative products or services, can serve as a buffer against sustained boycotting. Boycott activits may therefore provide customers with information about potential substitutes (e.g., other retailers, producers, servide providers, products) to decrease switching costs and to ease the switch to competitors. On the other hand, to reduce the likelihood of extended boycotting, managers should consider raising boycott-related barriers, such as the (non-)monetary value of seeking alternatives. Third , we found that a high service quality can serve as an effective buffer against calls for boycotting. Companies should, therefore, maintain sufficiently high levels of service quality as a means to communicate more directly and competently with their customers. Similarly, activists should be aware of the high importance of service quality; to counter it, they could emphasize better service of a competitor as a motivation to switch. Fourth, in many cases frontline employees are the main touch points linking the company with its customers (Hartline et al., 2000 ) and, therefore, the frontline employees are most likely to gather first-hand customer insights (Coelho et al., 2011 ). Since frontline employees are positioned best to listen to and understand customers, we suggest that frontline employees should spearhead companys' efforts to deal with boycotts. Their key task would be to identify the customer types involved (i.e., the Capitulated), and then implement the type-specific measures outlined above.

Different Consumer Types

Furthermore, our study distinguishes different consumer types that have individual boycott dynamics, which boycott activists and managers must consider. In this regard, only a few consumers eventually stop boycotting or do not start boycotting at all (Apathetics, Forgetters), while others maintain higher levels of perceived egregiousness over time and stop boycotting only because of individual cost–benefit considerations (the Capitulated). Yet, another consumer type starts boycotting only after a certain amount of time has passed (the Deliberators). Our findings can help boycott activists increase the success of their boycott in the long term. On the other hand, companies could use our findings to soften the negative boycott dynamics for avoiding damage in the short term. In response to the boycott call, the company might address the cause and remedy its unethical behavior that initially triggered the boycotts. Table Table7 7 holds more detailed advice for both activists and managers on how to more specifically address each of the four consumer types identified in our research.

Characteristics, Conclusions, and Implications by Consumer Type

Consumer type	Temporal Effects		Conclusion	Implications
Consumer type	PE	BOY		For activists	For managers
The apathetic	→ →		The boycott decision of the Apathetic is driven by a positive evaluation of the target company. They have initially decided not to boycott the firm, or they keep boycott participation constantly on a low level	Boycott activists and nongovernmental organizations should keep emphasizing the misbehavior of the company to convince loyal consumers to reconsider their perception of the brand. However, certain of those consumers will still not participate in the boycott →Expressively driven (triggering emotions)	To prevent consumers from participating in boycotts and reacting apathetically to transgressions, managers should build up a strong image of the company. Moreover, the company should encourage the Apathetic to convince other customers to stay with the company →Expressively driven (strengthen brand image)
The forgetters	↘↘		The Forgetters initially support the boycott. Yet, after a certain amount of time has elapsed and the media has stopped reporting, the Forgetters revert to old consumption habits	Since the Forgetters are mainly driven by emotional components (brand image, perceived egregiousness), activists should approach this segment with emotional appeals. They should constantly draw the attention of these consumers to the misbehavior of the boycotted company to keep levels of egregiousness high → Expressively driven (triggering emotions)	To deal with the Forgetters, managers should wait until the media coverage of the event depletes and the consumers' egregiousness decreases. CSR activities, cause-related marketing, and changing the company policies in response to the boycott call (e.g., raising working conditions of employees) can therefore help loweing negative public attention →Expressively driven (awaiting the cool-down phase)
The capitulated	→ ↘		The Capitulated emphasize boycott-related costs and wish to boycott, but they recognize that obstacles are higher than personal rewards. They therefore stop participating in the boycott	Activists should communicate measures to minimize switching costs. For example, they could provide informtation on competitors with similar products and services. Since these substitutes could be more expensive, activists could emphasize other reasons (e.g., product quality, service quality) to justify the switching costs →Instrumentally driven (supporting information to minimize subjective costs)	Managers should consider boycott-related costs, such as consumers’ financial efforts for seeking alternatives. They may therefore increase behavioral loyalty by increasing switching costs for consumers. For example, companies may decrease the prices for loyal consumers (e.g., by offering discounts for products) → Instrumentally driven (emphasizing boycott-related barriers)
The deliberators	→ ↗		The Deliberators initially do not participate in a boycott. After observing the consequences of the boycott and reconsidering the perceived control, they join the boycott at a later stage in time	Activists should continously inform the public about the consequences of the boycott and demonstrate the impact of the boycotters (e.g., changing behavior of the company). Furthermore, the instrumental goals of the boycott call should be communicated to emphasize the instrumental elements of the boycott → Instrumentally driven (supporting information about the impact)	In most cases, consumers’ actions do not extend sustainable impact on corporate behavior. Managers should, however, consider the possible temporal effects that could evolve after an egregious act and implement crises management measures to react on boycott calls. As for the Forgetters type, significant changes of the company policies in response to the boycott call might help → Instrumentally driven (situational crisis management)

PE = Perceived Eregiousnes, BOY = Boycott Participation; → constant levels over time, ↘ decreasing levels over time, ↗ increasing levels over time

Limitations and Further Research

This study has a few limitations, offering opportunities for further research. Conceptually, we make use of established theories to put forward the two-stage model of emotional heating and cognitive cooling. We caution readers, however, that a hard distinction between the two stages may be misleading and a more nuanced view may be useful for obtaining further insights. Methodologically, our measurement of boycott participation is based on self-reported scales and past behavior. While we validated these measures with a behavioral variable (lottery) in Study 2 and Study 3 to ensure the robustness of our finding, employing more behavioral variables for researching the temporal dynamics of boycotting may provide additional insights.

A few other avenues for future research need mentioning. From a conceptual perspective, our research is based on a cost–benefit model (Klein et al., 2004 ) accounting for instrumental and expressive determinants. Presenting an alternative, behavioral models (e.g., Hahn and Albert ( 2017 )) introduce the notion of strong reciprocity to the boycott literature and analytically separate two behavioral models: a self-regarding type (= driven by the maximization of private utility) and a strongly reciprocal type (= driven by a desire to reciprocate the (un)fair behavior of others). Adapted to our context, strongly reciprocal consumers might initially perceive higher levels of egregiousness and might be more willing to maintain their boycott even when the strategic conditions turn to be (more) unfavorable in the long run (e.g., increasing switching costs). Future research may thus find it valuable to categorize consumer types based on behavioral models and examine subsequent differences in boycott dynamics. An initial attempt could be to categorize determinants according to the proposed categories: According to Hahn and Albert ( 2017 ), self-regarding people are motivated by the maximization of their private utility, and they weigh expected private costs against expected private benefits for different alternatives and use that information to make choices. On the other hand, strongly reciprocal actors are willing to sanction the perceived (un)fairness of others, using punishments (negative sanctions) or rewards (positive sanctions), even if doing so decreases their payoffs and entails additional net costs for them (Hahn & Albert, 2017 ). Our research may integrate well with the conceptualization of Hahn and Albert ( 2017 ) for a number of reasons: Specifically, strongly reciprocal consumers are more likely than self-regarding consumers to boycott the target firm, even when the likelihood of a change of the firm’s behavior is low. In this respect, these consumers should have higher levels of perceived control (an instrumental factor) and, therefore, keep boycotting.

Second, researchers may find it beneficial to examine the role of social media (Graf-Vlachy et al., 2020 ) in the development and temporal dynamics of a boycott. A post hoc analysis of Study 4's data shows that of those respondents who had previously heard about the unethical incident, 85.6% had received this information through social media (48.3% via Facebook, 40.7% via Twitter, 14.4% via Instagram, and 20.3% via other social media; multiple choice possible). In contrast, only 16.1% had read about the incident in a newspaper, and 17.8% had learned about it via TV. Researchers may thus find it beneficial to relate media usage to our boycotter types and disentangle temporal dynamics by primary sources of media used.

Third, going beyond consumer reactions to corporate misconduct, other stakeholders (e.g., the employees) should be examined. Prior research indicates that stakeholder attention after a company’s misconduct varies, often failing to result in retribution (Barnett, 2014 ). This is important, as the firm’s exposure to stakeholders may have a relatively stronger impact on managerial decision making than economic performance or the degree of CSR exhibited (Chiu & Sharfman, 2011 ).

Fourth, our study did not fully explore the emotional costs assosciated with boycotts. For example, future studies could examine the influence of related concepts, such as brand attachment (Malär et al., 2011 ) or brand love (Batra et al., 2012 ). In line with the stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2002 ) and its two fundamental dimensions of social perception (warmth and competence), this research focused on quality and competence-related aspects that prevent consumers from boycotting, for example, service quality, quality of products, and service of frontline employees. Future research may find it worthwhile to examine the difference between competence-related costs (e.g., quality, trust) and warmth-related aspects (e.g., communication style of the frontline employees).

Last, more work is needed to better integrate other domains that are intrinsically related to ethical issues. For example, research on consumer animosity suggests that consumers tend to express their anger toward a nation by boycotting the nation's products and brands (Ettenson & Klein, 2005 ; Hoffmann et al., 2011 ; Klein et al., 1998 ). In a recent example, speculations about the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic caused many consumers and even the U.S. government to blame China for its misbehavior during the first outbreak and caused boycott calls toward Chinese products (Sevastoulo & Manon, 2020 ; Krueger et al. 2020). Researching the temporal dynamics of country-related boycotts may thus improve understanding of boycott dynamics in an animosity context.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Declarations

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

1 Friedman’s (2002) taxonomy of boycotts on the macro level also includes punitive and catalytic boycotts. These are, however, less frequent and relevant for the present consideration of intrapersonal variations in boycott motivations on the micro level.

2 To obtain a rough estimation of the duration of the heat-up phase, we analyzed the media coverage of an event that was a trigger for a boycott call as a proxy for the consumer egregiousness. The results show a sharp decrease of coverage after two weeks. The time lags in all empirical studies therefore encompass at least two weeks. The study description and results are detailed in the Appendix (Pretest of Study 3).

3 We conducted t-tests for two independent samples to test whether the items that were included for the respondents who participated in both rounds differed from all the items that were included for those who participated in the first round only. Fifty-six percent of the participants who participated in the first round were also surveyed in the second round. The results show that there is no bias, because all the t-tests show no significant effects.

4 Of all respondents filling in the first survey, 37% also participated in the second survey. T-tests for two independent samples were run to establish if all the items that were included for the respondents who participated in both rounds differed from all the items that were included for those who participated in the first round only. None of the t-tests yielded significant results, showing that there is no bias.

5 As a robustness check, we conducted regression analyses for the boycott intention (“I was sure that I would avoid buying products on XY in the future”) and self-reported boycott participation (“Immediately after learning about the event, I consciously restrained my consumer behavior toward XY”) separately as dependent variables. The results show no difference to the regression analyses in which we used the boycott participation construct. Regression coefficients for boycott intention ( t 1) as dependent variable: boycott intention ( t 0): .13***, perceived egregiousness ( t 1): .18***, boycott intention ( t 0) × perceived egregiousness( t 1): .38***, self-enhancement: .15*, brand image: -.19***, perceived control: .09 + , subjective costs: -.11*. Regression coefficients for self-reported boycott behavior ( t 1) as dependent variable: self-reported boycott behavior ( t 0): .08*, perceived egregiousness ( t 1): .20***, self-reported boycott behavior ( t 0) × perceived egregiousness ( t 1): .46***, self-enhancement: .13*, brand image: -.18***, perceived control: .08 + , subjective costs: -.12*.

6 Based on Podsakoff et al.'s ( 2003 ) critical discussion regarding the validity on this method, Fuller et al. ( 2016 ) ran a Monte Carlo simulation that show the test can indeed detect biasing levels of CMV, mostly under conditions that are common in survey-based marketing research.

7 Echambadi and Hess ( 2007 ) showed that the VIF in moderated multiple regression models underestimate the multi-collinearity problem if the indicators were centered. We therefore reran the analysis with the indicators without centering. Still, the maximum VIF ≤ 3.07. Accordingly, there is no severe distortion due to multi-collinearity.

8 Other than in Study 3 , we replaced one of the three items that measured perceived egregiousness. We included "After learning about this event, I thought XY’s handling in this situation was socially acceptable" in Study 4 instead of "After learning about this event, I thought XY’s handling of their employees was socially acceptable," as the egregious behavior in Study 3 was related to the situation of the employees, whereas in Study 4 it was related to the companies' exploitation of a political boycott.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Wassili Lasarov, Email: ed.leik-inu.lwb@vorasal .

Stefan Hoffmann, Email: [email protected] .

Ulrich Orth, Email: ed.leik-inu.ea@htrou .

Aguinis H, Glavas A. What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management. 2012; 38 (4):932–968. doi: 10.1177/0149206311436079. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Aiken LS, West SG, Reno RR. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
Ailawadi KL, Neslin SA, Luan YJ, Taylor GA. Does retailer CSR enhance behavioral loyalty? A case for benefit segmentation. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2014; 31 (2):156–167. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.09.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Alexandrov A, Lilly B, Babakus E. The effects of social-and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2013; 41 (5):531–546. doi: 10.1007/s11747-012-0323-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bandura A. On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management. 2012; 38 (1):9–44. doi: 10.1177/0149206311410606. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnett ML. Why stakeholders ignore firm misconduct: A cognitive view. Journal of Management. 2014; 40 (3):676–702. doi: 10.1177/0149206311433854. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnett ML, Henriques I, Husted BW. Beyond good intentions: Designing CSR initiatives for greater social impact. Journal of Management. 2020; 46 (6):937–964. doi: 10.1177/0149206319900539. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baron D. Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. 2001; 16 :599–634. [ Google Scholar ]
Batra R, Ahuvia A, Bagozzi RP. Brand love. Journal of Marketing. 2012; 76 (2):1–16. doi: 10.1509/jm.09.0339. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bettencourt LA, Brown SW. Role stressors and customer-oriented boundary-spanning behaviors in service organizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2003; 31 (4):394–408. doi: 10.1177/0092070303255636. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review. 2004; 47 (1):9–24. doi: 10.2307/41166284. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blasi S, Caporin M, Fontini F. A multidimensional analysis of the relation-ship between corporate social responsibility and firms’ economic performance. Ecological Economics. 2018; 147 :218–229. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Braunsberger K, Buckler B. What motivates consumers to participate in boycotts: Lessons from the ongoing Canadian seafood boycott. Journal of Business Research. 2011; 64 (1):96–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chavis L, Leslie P. Consumer boycotts: The impact of the Iraq war on French wine sales in the US. Quantitative Marketing and Economics. 2009; 7 (1):37–67. doi: 10.1007/s11129-008-9043-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chen Z, Huang Y. Cause-related marketing is not always less favorable than corporate philanthropy: The moderating role of self-construal. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2016; 33 (4):868–880. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.03.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chiu SC, Sharfman M. Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management. 2011; 37 (6):1558–1585. doi: 10.1177/0149206309347958. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Coelho F, Augusto M, Lages LF. Contextual factors and the creativity of frontline employees: The mediating effects of role stress and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Retailing. 2011; 87 (1):31–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2010.11.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
Coombs WT. Impact of Past Crises on Current Crisis Communication: Insights from Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Journal of Business Communication. 2004; 41 (3):265–289. doi: 10.1177/0021943604265607. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Coombs WT. Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. Sage; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
Coombs WT, Holladay SJ. Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly. 2002; 16 (2):165–186. doi: 10.1177/089331802237233. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Coombs WT, Holladay SJ. The negative communication dynamic: Exploring the impact of stakeholder affect on behavioral intentions. Journal of Communication Management. 2007; 11 :300–312. doi: 10.1108/13632540710843913. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Craik FI, Salthouse TA. The Handbook of Aging and Cognition. Psychology Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
Dahlsrud A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2008; 15 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1002/csr.132. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Delacote P. On the sources of consumer boycotts ineffectiveness. The Journal of Environment & Development. 2009; 18 (3):306–322. doi: 10.1177/1070496509338849. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dick AS, Basu K. Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1994; 22 (2):99–113. doi: 10.1177/0092070394222001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Driver C, Johnston R. Understanding service customers: The value of hard and soft attributes. Journal of Service Research. 2001; 4 (2):130–139. doi: 10.1177/109467050142005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Echambadi R, Hess JD. Mean-centering does not alleviate collinearity problems in moderated multiple regression models. Marketing Science. 2007; 26 (3):438–445. doi: 10.1287/mksc.1060.0263. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ettenson R, Klein J. The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South Pacific: A longitudinal study of consumer boycotts. International Marketing Review. 2005; 22 (2):199–224. doi: 10.1108/02651330510593278. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Evans JSB. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review Psychology. 2008; 59 :255–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fiske ST, Cuddy AJ, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 82 (6):878. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18 (1):39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friedman M. Consumer boycotts in the United States, 1970–1980: Contemporary events in historical perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 1985; 19 (1):96–117. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.1985.tb00346.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friedman M. Consumer boycotts: Effecting change through the marketplace and media. Routledge; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ. Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research. 2016; 69 (8):3192–3198. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Graf-Vlachy L, Oliver AG, Banfield R, König A, Bundy J. Media coverage of firms: Background, integration, and directions for future research. Journal of Management. 2020; 46 (1):36–69. doi: 10.1177/0149206319864155. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hahn T, Albert N. Strong reciprocity in consumer boycotts. Journal of Business Eth-Ics. 2017; 145 (3):509–524. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2870-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Haidt J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review. 2001; 108 (4):814. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2011; 19 (2):139–152. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Harman HH. Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
Hartline MD, Maxham JG, III, McKee DO. Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees. Journal of Marketing. 2000; 64 (2):35–50. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.64.2.35.18001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hinojosa AS, Gardner WL, Walker HJ, Cogliser C, Gullifor D. A review of cognitive dissonance theory in management research: Opportunities for further development. Journal of Management. 2017; 43 (1):170–199. doi: 10.1177/0149206316668236. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hirschman AO. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
Hoffmann NC, Yin J, Hoffmann S. Chain of blame: A multi-country study of consumer reactions towards supplier hypocrisy in global supply chains. Management International Review. 2020; 60 :247–286. doi: 10.1007/s11575-020-00410-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hoffmann S. Anti-consumption as a means to save jobs. European Journal of Marketing. 2011; 45 (11/12):1702–1714. doi: 10.1108/03090561111167342. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hoffmann S. Are boycott motives rationalizations? Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 2013; 12 (3):214–222. doi: 10.1002/cb.1418. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hoffmann S. Home country bias in the moral obligation to boycott offshoring com-panies. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2013; 21 (4):371–388. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679210402. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hoffmann S, Müller S. Consumer boycotts due to factory relocation. Journal of Business Research. 2009; 62 (2):239–247. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hoffmann S, Mai R, Smirnova M. Development and validation of a cross-nationally stable scale of consumer animosity. Journal of Marketing Theory Practice. 2011; 19 (2):235–252. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190208. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Huang YH. Crisis situations, communication strategies, and media coverage. Communication Research. 2006; 33 (3):180–205. doi: 10.1177/0093650206287077. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
John A, Klein J. The boycott puzzle: Consumer motivations for purchase sacrifice. Management Science. 2003; 49 (9):1196–1209. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.49.9.1196.16569. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jones T, Dacin PA, Taylor SF. Relational damage and relationship repair: A new look at transgressions in service relationships. Journal of Service Research. 2011; 14 (3):318–339. doi: 10.1177/1094670511412577. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jordan-Meier J. The four stages of highly effective crisis management: How to manage the media in the digital age. CRC Press; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
Kahneman D, Tversky A. Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. TIMS Studies in Management Science. 1979; 12 :313–327. [ Google Scholar ]
Khamitov M, Grégoire Y, Suri A. A systematic review of brand transgression, service failure recovery and product-harm crisis: Integration and guiding insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2020; 48 (3):519–542. doi: 10.1007/s11747-019-00679-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kim S. The process model of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication: CSR communication and its relationship with consumers’ CSR knowledge, trust, and corporate reputation perception. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 154 (4):1143–1159. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kim SB, Kim DY. Antecedents of corporate reputation in the hotel industry: The moderating role of transparency. Sustainability. 2017; 9 (6):951. doi: 10.3390/su9060951. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Klein JG, Smith NC, John A. Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing. 2004; 68 (3):92–109. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.68.3.92.34770. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Klein J, Dawar N. Corporate social responsibility and consumers' attributions and brand evaluations in a product–harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2004; 21 (3):203–217. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Klein JG, Ettenson R, Morris MD. The animosity model of foreign product purchase: An empirical test in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Marketing. 1998; 62 :89–100. doi: 10.1177/002224299806200108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Krüger, T., Lasarov, W., Nibat, I., Mai, R., Trendel, O., & Hoffmann, S. (2020). Extending the animosity model in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-national validation of the health animosity scale. MDPI.
Kumar V, Shah D. Building and sustaining profitable customer loyalty for the 21st century. Journal of Retailing. 2004; 80 (4):317–329. doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2004.10.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86 (1):114–121. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lasarov W, Mai R, Krause JS, Schmidt U, Hoffmann S. Too cold to be skeptical: How ambient temperature moderates the effects of CSR communication. Ecological Economics. 2021; 183 :106943. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106943. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Löfstedt RE, Renn O. The Brent Spar controversy: An example of risk communication gone wrong. Risk Analysis. 1997; 17 (2):131–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00852.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lee JS, Kwak DH, Braunstein-Minkove JR. Coping with athlete endorsers’ immoral behavior: Roles of athlete identification and moral emotions on moral reasoning strategies. Journal of Sport Management. 2016; 30 (2):176–191. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2015-0341. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Löhndorf B, Diamantopoulos A. Internal branding: Social identity and social exchange perspectives on turning employees into brand champions. Journal of Service Research. 2014; 17 (3):310–325. doi: 10.1177/1094670514522098. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luo X, Bhattacharya CB. Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing. 2006; 70 (4):1–18. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.70.4.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Madrigal R. Hot vs. cold cognitions and consumers’ reactions to sporting event outcomes. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2008; 18 :304–319. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2008.09.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mai, R., Hoffmann, S,. & Balderjahn, I. (2021). When drivers become inhibitors of organic consumption: The need for a multistage view. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (forthcoming).
Malär L, Krohmer H, Hoyer WD, Nyffenegger B. Emotional brand attachment and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. Journal of Marketing. 2011; 75 (4):35–52. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.75.4.35. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCombs M. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Polity Press, Cambridge; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
McCombs ME, Shaw DL. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1972; 36 (2):176–187. doi: 10.1086/267990. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCombs M, Llamas JP, Lopez-Escobar E, Rey F. Candidate images in Spanish elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 1998; 74 (4):703–717. doi: 10.1177/107769909707400404. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
McWilliams A, Siegel D. Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review. 2011; 37 (5):1480–1495. [ Google Scholar ]
Metcalfe J, Mischel W. A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review. 1999; 106 (1):3–19. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Monroe KB. Pricing: Making profitable decisions. McGraw-Hill; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
Nerb J, Spada H. Evaluation of environmental problems: A coherence model of cognition and emotion. Cognition & Emotion. 2001; 15 (4):521–551. doi: 10.1080/02699930126254. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
NTV.de. (2013). Kunden wenden sich ab . Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.n-tv.de/wirtschaft/Amazon-macht-sich-unbeliebt-article10459691.html .
Nussbaum S, Trope Y, Liberman N. Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003; 84 (3):485–497. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.485. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. 1985; 49 (4):41–50. doi: 10.1177/002224298504900403. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL. Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perc. Journal of Retailing. 1988; 64 (1):12–40. [ Google Scholar ]
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88 (5):879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sato S, Ko YJ, Kellison TB. Hot or cold? The effects of anger and perceived responsibility on sport fans’ negative word-of-mouth in athlete scandals. Journal of Global Sport Management. 2018; 3 (2):107–123. doi: 10.1080/24704067.2018.1432984. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sen S, Gürhan-Canli Z, Morwitz V. Withholding consumption: A social dilemma perspective on consumer boycotts. Journal of Consumer Research. 2001; 28 (3):399–417. doi: 10.1086/323729. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sevastoulo, D., & Manon, K. (2020). Trump says he is confident Covid-19 came from Wuhan lab. Financial Times, 1 May 2020. Available online: https://www.ft.com/content/84935e17-b50e-4a66-9c37-e2799365b783 .
Shen J, Benson J. When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects employee work behavior. Journal of Management. 2016; 42 (6):1723–1746. doi: 10.1177/0149206314522300. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Snider J, Hill RP, Martin D. Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: A view from the world's most successful firms. Journal of Business Ethics. 2003; 48 (2):175–187. doi: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000004606.29523.db. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Spiegel Online. (2013). ARD-Dokumentation . Retrieved February 14, 2016, from http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/ard-reportage-dokumentiert-missstaende-in-der-leiharbeit-bei-amazon-a-883156.html#js-article-comments-box-pager .
Stokburger-Sauer N, Ratneshwar S, Sen S. Drivers of consumer–brand identification. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2012; 29 (4):406–418. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Swann WB, Jr, Pelham BW, Krull DS. Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989; 57 (5):782–791. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.782. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Torres A, Bijmolt THA, Tribó JA, Verhoef P. Generating global brand equity through corporate social responsibility to key stakeholders. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 2012; 29 (1):13–24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.10.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Trope Y, Liberman N. Temporal construal. Psychological Review. 2003; 110 (3):403–421. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tsarenko Y, Tojib DR. A transactional model of forgiveness in the service failure context: A customer-driven approach. Journal of Services Marketing. 2011; 25 (5):381–392. doi: 10.1108/08876041111149739. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Von Walter B, Wentzel D, Tomczak T. Securing frontline employee support after an ethical scandal: The moderating impact of response strategies. Journal of Service Research. 2016; 19 (4):417–432. doi: 10.1177/1094670516664587. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wu Y, Zhang K, Xie J. Bad greenwashing, good greenwashing: Corporate social responsibility and information transparency. Management Science. 2020; 66 (7):3095–3112. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3340. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yang J, Basile K, Letourneau O. The impact of social media platform selection on effectively communicating about corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Communications. 2020; 26 (1):65–87. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2018.1500932. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yuksel U, Mryteza V. An evaluation of strategic responses to consumer boycotts. Journal of Business Research. 2009; 62 (2):248–259. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yuksel U, Thai NT, Lee MSW. Boycott them! No, boycott this! Do choice overload and small-agent rationalization inhibit the signing of anti-consumption petitions? Psychology & Marketing. 2020; 37 (2):340–354. doi: 10.1002/mar.21293. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zeithaml VA. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing. 1988; 52 (3):2–22. doi: 10.1177/002224298805200302. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zeithaml VA, Bitner MJ, Gremler D. Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. McGraw Hill; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]

Consumer Boycotts’ Impact on Brands Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Consumer boycotts are effective, consumer boycotts are not effective.

Residents of the United States are ready to refuse products for any reason. Harsh statements by top managers, low salaries, or the use of harmful products are the most popular reasons for customers to stop buying products. This often has the effect of managers apologizing for the company’s decisions or abandoning their ideas. However, there are also moments when the effect is quite the opposite.

The consumer boycott is often associated with the economic impact on the brand. However, as it will be noted later, this is an ineffective method. Thus, it is worth noting that a boycott should not always be aimed at reducing the company’s profit. Sometimes it is more effective to attack the brand image. Indeed, the more social networks and the media discuss it in a negative way, the more likely it is that the company’s management will change course (Beck, 2019). There is an economic reason for this: studies claim that the share price of a particular company declined every day when the media mentioned a boycott of this brand’s products (Beck, 2019). However, if the goal of the boycotters is to force the company to reconsider its views, then this approach can be called successful.

For example, such a situation happened with Nike in the nineties. The brand of clothing and sporting goods on the rights of a monopolist mercilessly exploited workers in developing countries and answered activists’ questions that they were not involved in this (Birch, 2016). The campaign against Nike became so large-scale that it even affected the brand’s sales, prompting Nike to abandon the sweatshop system of work (Birch, 2016). The American brand still has gaps in ethical reports. It does not make its supply chain and production completely transparent. However, this still does not compare with the beginning of the nineties when production ethics were not even out of the question.

Refusing to make purchases is a common practice for those who want to emphasize their disagreement with specific decisions of managers and employees of the brand. The cases with various companies show how solid and substantial public condemnation can be for an entrepreneur (Watson, 2015). Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between a small family business, where almost every client is essential, and the market’s giants. In this case, it becomes a challenging task to affect the performance of the company significantly.

Actions should confirm the intentions of the boycott: it is difficult to prove a consumer’s determination if it does not go beyond words. This is the reason why boycotts are always difficult to be carried out: over time, the number of people inevitably decreases, and information guides are forgotten (Friedman, 2001). However, even if all these conditions are met, there is no guarantee that everything will work out. An example is the boycott of Nestle, which has been going on for more than forty years, but it is difficult to talk about the results of which, even after almost half a century.

It should be understood whether the Nestle boycott can be considered effective. From an economic point of view, it is unlikely: the company’s revenues are estimated at billions of dollars, today Nestle is one of the wealthiest companies in its segment (Mihai, 2021). However, the widespread and, importantly, negative-public attention made it possible to achieve essential decisions on the ethics of advertising breast milk substitutes on the issue of the easy availability of these substitutes and their actual and potential impact on children. If people take these changes as a starting point, then the Nestle boycott, of course, can bring the solution of all these crucial issues closer.

If a person decides to boycott Nestle, then they need to stop buying any of the company’s products, and this is an impressive list of brands. Certainly, people can find a replacement for each of them for the same money, but the search takes time and desire. It is difficult for customers to change their buying habits, and most people are more concerned about the price-quality ratio than questions of production ethics.

Beck, V. (2019). Consumer boycotts as instruments for structural change. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 36 (4), 543-559. Web.

Birch, S. (2016). How activism forced Nike to change its ethical game. The Guardian . Web.

Friedman, M. (2001). Ethical dilemmas associated with consumer boycotts. Journal of Social Philosophy, 32 (2), 232–240.

Mihai, A. (2021). Why Nestle is one of the most hated companies in the world. ZME Science . Web.

Watson, B. (2015). Do boycotts really work? . The Guardian . Web.

The Consumer Debt Crisis in America
Willingness to Pay and Consumer Surplus
The USA: From Reconstruction to Civil Rights, 1877 - 1981
African-Americans Social Reform
Civil Rights Movement Major Events in 1954-1968
Purchase of Fast Fashion Clothing and Ethical & Personal Values
Generational Difference in Shopping Methods
The Covid-19 Pandemic’s Impact on People’s Buying Behaviors
Should You Less Consume To Be Happy
Analysis Relation Between Buyers Market and Generations
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, November 7). Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands. https://ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/

"Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands." IvyPanda , 7 Nov. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands'. 7 November.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands." November 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/.

1. IvyPanda . "Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands." November 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands." November 7, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/consumer-boycotts-impact-on-brands/.

Share full article

A black-and-white close-up photo Chris Murphy.

Opinion Guest Essay

The Senator Warning Democrats of a Crisis Unfolding Beneath Their Noses

Credit... Allison Minto for The New York Times

Supported by

By James Pogue

Mr. Pogue, a writer, started talking to Senator Chris Murphy two years ago.

Aug. 19, 2024

In December 2022, early into what he now describes as his political journey, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut gave a speech warning his fellow Democrats that they were ignoring a crisis staring them in the face.

For over a year, President Biden and his allies had been promoting data showing an economic miracle, as friendly pundits described it — a record-setting stock market, low unemployment and G.D.P. growth outpacing that of almost every other Western nation. But very few voters believed the story those metrics were telling. In poll after poll, they expressed a bleak view of the economy — to the frustration of both Democrats and many economists.

Mr. Murphy thought he knew why. “The challenges America faces aren’t really logistical,” he told the crowd. “They are metaphysical. And the sooner we understand the unspooling of identity and meaning that is happening in America today, the sooner we can come up with practical policies to address this crisis.”

The subject of the speech was what Mr. Murphy called the imminent “fall of American neoliberalism.” This may sound like strange talk from a middle-of-the-road Democratic senator, who up until that point had never seemed to believe that the system that orders our world was on the verge of falling. He campaigned for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries, and his most visible political stance up until then was his work on gun control after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Thoughtful but prone to speaking in talking points, he still comes off more like a polished Connecticut dad than a champion of the disaffected. But Mr. Murphy was then in the full flush of discovering a new way of understanding the state of the nation, and it had set him on a journey that even he has struggled sometimes to describe: to understand how the version of liberalism we’d adopted — defined by its emphasis on free markets, globalization and consumer choice — had begun to feel to many like a dead end and to come up with a new vision for the Democratic Party.

As the Democrats gather for their national convention this week, with Kamala Harris as their candidate for president, the party has a long way to go toward confronting the crisis Mr. Murphy sees.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Work & Careers
Life & Arts

Widespread boycotts in Muslim countries hammer western brands

To read this article for free, register now.

Once registered, you can: • Read free articles • Get our Editor's Digest and other newsletters • Follow topics and set up personalised events • Access Alphaville: our popular markets and finance blog

Explore more offers.

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism. Cancel anytime during your trial.

FT Digital Edition

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

Global news & analysis
Expert opinion

Standard Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

FT App on Android & iOS
FT Edit app
FirstFT: the day's biggest stories
20+ curated newsletters
Follow topics & set alerts with myFT
FT Videos & Podcasts

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Disney backtracks on request to toss wrongful death suit over Disney+ agreement

Rachel Treisman

Disney wants a wrongful death lawsuit thrown out because the plaintiff had Disney+

In this photo, a large sign made partially of bricks stands near one of the entrances to Disney Springs in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. The sign says

The husband of a New York doctor who died shortly after dining at a Disney Springs restaurant last year has accused Walt Disney Parks and Resorts of negligence in a lawsuit. John Raoux/AP hide caption

After a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant last year, Disney tried to get her widower's wrongful death lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he signed up for years earlier.

The entertainment giant initially urged a Florida circuit court to move the matter into arbitration, based on the terms and conditions of the streaming service that Jeffrey Piccolo acknowledged when he signed up in 2019.

Piccolo is representing the estate of his late wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, a doctor at New York's NYU Langone hospital who died of an allergic reaction while visiting the Florida resort in October.

Now, the California-based company says it won't push for arbitration after all, but rather will agree to see the matter move ahead in court.

"At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations," Josh D'Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, said in a statement.

"With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss."

Disney is in the processing of filing its withdrawal with the court, the company said.

Restaurant chosen for its safety promises about food allergies

The couple, along with Piccolo's mother, went to dinner on the night of Oct. 5 at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant located within a shopping and dining complex called Disney Springs.

In Florida, there's détente in the battle between Disney and Gov. Ron DeSantis

Tangsuan was "highly allergic" to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.

The complaint details the family's repeated conversations with their waiter about Tangsuan's allergies. The family allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation "several more times" after that.

"When the waiter returned with [Tangsuan's] food, some of the items did not have allergen free flags in them and [Tangsuan] and [Piccolo] once again questioned the waiter who, once again, guaranteed the food being delivered to [Tangsuan] was allergen free," the lawsuit reads.

The three of them ate and then went their separate ways: Piccolo brought the leftovers to their room, while his wife and mother headed for the stores. After about 45 minutes, Tangsuan "began having severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the floor."

Bimbo bread is displayed on a shelf at a market in Anaheim, Calif., in 2003. On Tuesday, U.S. federal food safety regulators warned Bimbo Bakeries USA - which includes brands such as Sara Lee, Oroweat, Thomas', Entenmann's and Ball Park buns and rolls - to stop using labels that say its products contain potentially dangerous allergens when they don't.

FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

She self-administered an epi-pen, and an observer called 911. The Piccolos, who had tried calling her multiple times, were eventually told she had been rushed to the hospital. They went to meet her and, after a period of waiting, were told that she had died.

"The medical examiner's investigation determined that [Tangsuan's] cause of death was as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system," according to the lawsuit.

Piccolo filed suit in February against Raglan Road Irish Pub and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. (WDPR), accusing both companies of negligence for preparing Tangsuan's food improperly and for failing to train their employees to guarantee food was made allergen-free as requested.

He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and trial by jury "on all issues so triable."

Disney initially said the case should be handled out of court because Piccolo created a streaming account

In late May, Disney's lawyers filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Piccolo to arbitrate the case — with them and a neutral third party in private, as opposed to publicly in court — and to pause the legal proceedings in the meantime.

Arbitration is generally considered a more efficient and cost-effective method of resolving disputes than litigation, and Disney said explicitly in court documents that the "main benefit of arbitration is avoiding heavy litigation costs."

The reason it said Piccolo should have been compelled to arbitrate? A clause in the terms and conditions he signed off on when he created a Disney+ account for a monthlong trial in 2019.

FILE - A Paqui One Chip Challenge chip is displayed in Boston, Friday, Sept. 8, 2023. A lawsuit was filed against a Thursday, July 11, 2024 in the case of a Massachusetts teen who died after he participated in a spicy tortilla chip challenge on social media. (AP Photo/Steve LeBlanc, File)

Family files lawsuit in case of teen who died after eating spicy chip

Those terms of use — which users must acknowledge to create an account — state that "any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration."

Disney said Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it added, is "immaterial."

"Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate 'all disputes' against 'The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates' arising 'in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis,'" the motion read, arguing the language is broad enough to cover Piccolo's claims.

Piccolo's lawyers said Disney's claims are "outrageously unreasonable"

In early August, Piccolo's lawyers filed a response slamming Disney's rationale as "preposterous," bordering "on the surreal" and "fatally flawed for numerous independent reasons."

"There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death," they wrote in the 123-page filing.

They confirmed that he did create a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, but he believes he canceled the subscription during the trial because he hasn't found any charges associated with it after that point.

Piccolo's lawyers accused the company of trying to deprive Tangsuan's estate of its right to a jury trial.

The bundle is offered at two price points, both of which include access to Disney +, Hulu and Max.

The streaming wars bring a new discounted bundle: Disney+, Hulu and Max

"The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this Court should not enforce such an agreement," they wrote.

Piccolo's lawyers also took issue with the process itself, saying Disney didn't raise its alleged right to arbitration early enough in the proceedings.

They further note that Piccolo didn't bring the lawsuit as an individual, but on behalf of Tangsuan's estate, which did not sign off on any such terms. There was no such estate at the time, since Tangsuan was still alive.

FDA approves a drug to treat severe food allergies, including milk, eggs and nuts

"[Disney] does not explain how it is possible for Mr. Piccolo individually to bind an Estate that did not exist, which is not surprising as there is not a single authority in Florida that would support such an inane argument," they said.

The arbitration provision, they added, could present a problem for more than just their own client.

"In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+," they wrote.

Both sides will get to make their case in front of a judge before long. The court has scheduled a hearing on Disney's motion for Oct. 2.

Editor’s note: Disney+ is among NPR's financial sponsors.

NPR's Joe Hernandez contributed to this story.

food allergies
The Walt Disney Company

Texas judge in lawsuit by Musk's X against advertisers exits case

Medium Text

Tesla Inc Follow
X Corp. Follow

Reporting by Mike Scarcella Editing by David Bario and Richard Chang

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Industry Insight

David Thomas

Luc Cohen, Susan Heavey

Mike Scarcella, David Thomas

IMAGES

SOLUTION: Argumentative Essay On When Do Consumer Boycotts Work
SOLUTION: Argumentative Essay On When Do Consumer Boycotts Work
Consumer Consumption Nestle Boycott Essay Example
Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands
(PDF) Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation
Essay on Consumer Rights

COMMENTS

Vanishing Boycott Impetus: Why and How Consumer ...
Media reports that a company behaves in a socially nonresponsible manner frequently result in consumer participation in a boycott. As time goes by, however, the number of consumers participating in the boycott starts dwindling. Yet, little is known on why individual participation in a boycott declines and what type of consumer is more likely to stop boycotting earlier rather than later ...
Consumer motivation for the decision to boycott: The social dilemma
The results of this study explain consumers' instrumental boycott decision-making process in terms of social dilemma. Further, this study provides practical contributions for understanding consumers' rational boycott behaviour. Specific implications for marketing managers and boycott organizations are outlined in the general discussion.
Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation
Although boycotts are increasingly relevant for management decision making, there has been little research of an individual consumer's motivation to boycott. Drawing on the helping behavior and boycott literature, the authors take a cost-benefit approach to the decision to boycott and present a conceptualization of motivations for boycott ...
PDF Vanishing Boycott Impetus: Why and How Consumer ...
Boycott Participation: Denition and Extant Models In his seminal article, Friedman (1985, p. 97) describes con-sumer boycotts as "… an attempt by one or more parties to achieve certain objectives by urging individual consum-ers to refrain from making selected purchases in the market place." Activists have called consumer boycotts to achieve
Consumer Boycott Behavior: An Exploratory Analysis
Consumer boycotts are a form of. anticonsumption behavior, where boycotters are market activists who forgo. the consumption of certain products and services because of environmen- tal, political, ethical, or social issues (Chatzidakis and Lee 2013; Hoffmann 201 1; Yuksel 2013; Yuksel and Mryteza 2009).
Contextualizing Boycotts and Buycotts: The Impure Politics of Consumer
This essay focuses on three contemporary US-based exemplars that address global ecological crises: the Rainforest Action Network boycott of Mitsubishi; the Farm Labor Organizing Committee boycott of Mt. Olive Pickle Company; and the Carrotmob buycott of a liquor store. ... 32. Monroe Friedman, "Consumer Boycotts," 101-2. The reluctance to ...
Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: toward a unified model
The perceived success likelihood of a boycott is strongly inﬂuenced by the perceived participation of others in the boycott (g = 0.73, H4) and also inﬂuences a consumer's intention to participate in a boycott (b = 0.17, H5) that, in turn, has an effect on consumer refusal to buy brands of the company to be boycotted (b = 0.80, H6).
Vanishing Boycott Impetus: Why and How Consumer Participation in a
the expressive inhibitor, had signiﬁcant neg ative eﬀects in t0. ( p = 0.002, Table 3, model 2) but no eﬀects in 1 (p = 0.973, Table 3, model 5). Supporting H3a, perceived control, the ...
Decomposing the effects of consumer boycotts: evidence from ...
A consumer's boycott, a form of private politics (Baron 2001, 2003; Egorov and Harstad 2017), is often the miniature of domestic or international politics.In the case of international politics, "proxy boycotts", in which consumers direct their attentions to products of a specific country of origin (Hendel et al. 2017) for political reasons, are common and have been studied extensively.
Boycotts, buycotts, and political consumerism in America
Conclusion. Large percentages of Americans participate in boycotts and buycotts for political reasons. These rates varied across our three surveys conducted over a sixteen-month period in the United States, with the portion who reported partaking in political-consumer behavior rising in each successive survey.
Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: Toward a unified model
boycott ( b= 0.17, H5) that, in turn, has an effect on. consumer refusal to buy brands of the company to. be boycotted ( b= 0.80, H6). Our model can explain. 61% of the variance of a consumer s ...
(PDF) Boycotting as Ethical Consumerism
consumer boycott is not to change corporate policy but rather to act as counter speech, thereby ... The essay considers four possible interpretations of the kind of act in which boycotting ...
Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism
The Journal of Consumer Behaviour publishes theoretical and empirical research into consumer behaviour, advancing the fields of advertising and marketing research. Abstract This research addresses the question of how boycotting (punishing business for unfavorable behavior) differs from buycotting (rewarding business for favorable behavior).
Consumer Boycotts
Despite the increasing occurrence of consumer boycotts, little has been written about this form of social and economic protest. This timely volume fills the knowledge gap by examining boycotts both historically and currently. Drawing on both published and unpublished material as well as personal interviews with boycott groups and their targets ...
Impact of Moral Ethics on Consumers' Boycott Intentions: A Cross
This study investigates the effects of individuals' moral foundations on perceptions and responses to a company's crisis. Drawing on moral foundations theory, it empirically tests a theoretical model of crisis attribution and moral outrage with two antecedents (i.e., individualizing moral and binding moral) on three outcomes (i.e., crisis attribution, anger, and boycott intentions), using ...
"Consumer Boycotts: An Essential Method of Peaceful Protest"
Boycotts have occurred throughout history. In the evening of December 16, 1773 in Boston Harbor, a group of Massachusetts colonists disguised as Mohawk Indians boarded three British tea ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor. They complained "no taxations without representation.".
Boycotts, buying sprees, and the rise of conscious consumerism
Boycotts are employed the world over, and not all of them are about consumerism. The term "boycott" didn't emerge, however, until 1880, in Ireland. Captain Charles Boycott was a British land ...
Boycotts, buycotts, and political consumerism in America
The percent-ages climbed as the culmination of the 2016 election approached, based on our October survey, when a combined 40% of respondents reported boycotting (36%) and/or buy-cotting (22%) a product. The rates increase slightly in this survey when the analysis is restricted to registered voters (39% boycotted; 24% buycotted).
Vanishing Boycott Impetus: Why and How Consumer Participation in a
Against this background, our study makes the following contributions to the literature (see Table Table1). 1).We extend boycott participation models (Hoffmann, 2011; Klein et al., 2004) to include a longer time period and to detail temporal changes in boycott participation at the individual consumer level.We label these changes "intrapersonal" to better communicate variations within an ...
Effect of consumer animosity on boycott campaigns in a cross-cultural
Few studies address the effects of animosity on consumer boycotts, defined as "a voluntary and deliberate abstention by consumers from purchasing or using or dealing with the specific target, such as a product, organization, country, or even person, to achieve a certain objective" (Kim et al., 2022b, p.2). Hence, theoretical and managerial ...
Consumer Boycotts' Impact on Brands
The consumer boycott is often associated with the economic impact on the brand. However, as it will be noted later, this is an ineffective method. Thus, it is worth noting that a boycott should not always be aimed at reducing the company's profit. Sometimes it is more effective to attack the brand image. Indeed, the more social networks and ...
Opinion
Opinion Guest Essay. The Senator Warning Democrats of a Crisis Unfolding Beneath Their Noses ... globalization and consumer choice — had begun to feel to many like a dead end and to come up with ...
Widespread boycotts in Muslim countries hammer western brands
In Malaysia, Starbucks's local operator Berjaya Food reported a second consecutive quarterly loss in May due to the boycotts. It posted a loss of RM30mn ($6.7mn) in the quarter ended March 31 ...
Disney tries to dodge a wrongful death suit using Disney+ terms : NPR
Jeffrey Piccolo's wife died of an allergic reaction after eating at a Disney World restaurant. Disney says his claims must be arbitrated out of court based on the terms of his years-old Disney+ trial.
Consumer boycott amid conflict: The situated agency of political
Drawing on findings from a study of consumer boycott as part of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign in the West Bank (occupied Palestinian territory), we outline a set of market and societal barriers that frame the participation of potential boycotters. We show how these political, economic and sociocultural factors influence the ...
Starbucks boss ousted after Israel boycott fuels sales slump
The coffee company was hit by a boycott over the past year over its perceived support of Israel amid the conflict in Gaza. Tensions rose after it sued the Starbucks Workers United (SWU) union for ...
Texas judge in lawsuit by Musk's X against advertisers exits case
A federal judge in Texas assigned to hear a lawsuit by Elon Musk's social media platform X against a group of advertisers has removed himself from the case following reports that he owned shares ...

Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: toward a unified model

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

Decomposing the effects of consumer boycotts: evidence from the anti-Japanese demonstration in China

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Do political tensions take a toll? The effect of the Sino-Japan relationship on sales of Japanese-brand cars in China

A Model to Follow? The Impact of Neoliberal Policies on the British Automobile Market and Industry

Acknowledgements

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

1.1 Appendix A

1.2 Appendix B

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Get Citation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

“Consumer Boycotts: An Essential Method of Peaceful Protest” – Philip Kotler

Types and Examples of Boycotts

Boycott against an Industry: Alcohol and the WCTU

Boycott against a good product – Grapes and Chavez

Boycott against a bad product – Nestle and Instant Formula

Boycott against a dangerous product – Dow Chemical napalm

Boycott against a company – British Petroleum (BP) the Gulf Coast Oil Spill

Boycott against a company – Coors Brewing Company and LGBT Rights

Boycott against a company – Chick-fil-A

Boycott against a State law – Religious Discrimination against Same-Sex Couples

Boycott against Segregation: Montgomery Bus Boycott, Rosa Parks and Racial Discrimination

Boycott against a country – India, the Salt March and Mahatma Gandhi

Boycott against a Country – Russia and the Summer Olympics

Boycott against a Country – Israel and the Arab League Boycott

Boycott against a Political Practice – South Africa and the Anti-Apartheid Movement

Boycott for Animal Rights – Protecting whales at SeaWorld

Boycott against Men – Women Withhold Sex to End Violence

Boycott against Consumerism – International Buy Nothing Day

Boycott – President Donald Trump as an Active Boycotter of Companies

Why Do People Organize Boycotts?

How to Organize a Successful Boycott

How Can the Boycotted Entity Respond to the Boycott

Related Posts

“Go-to-Market (GTM): A New Definition” – Karthi Ratnam

“Understanding Hallyu: The Impact of Korean Pop Culture” by Sanya Anand and David Seyheon Baek

“Regeneration or Extinction?” – a discussion with Philip Kotler, Christian Sarkar, and Enrico Foglia

Shopping has become a political act. Here’s how it happened.

Consumer activism can take the shape of two diametrically opposed actions — buying en masse and boycotting en masse — that are after the same goal

We boycotted before there was even a word for it

Consumer activism in 2019 is not a whole lot different from consumer activism in the 1840s — except when it comes to the causes

Consumer activism, for all its prevalence, might be an unintentional misdirect, say critics

Okay, okay, but does consumer activism do … anything?

Most Popular

Today, Explained

This is the title for the native ad

More in Money

Vanishing Boycott Impetus: Why and How Consumer Participation in a Boycott Decreases Over Time

Stefan Hoffmann

Associated Data

Supplementary Information

Introduction

Conceptual Background

Triggers of Boycott Participation

Promoters of Boycott Participation

Inhibitors of Boycott Participation

Developing a Model of Intrapersonal Variation in Boycott Participation

Distinguishing Between Instrumental and Expressive Drivers

The Role of Instrumental and Expressive Drivers at Different Points in Time

Emotional Heating

Cognitive Cooling

General Discussion

Implications for Activists and Managers

Dynamic Considerations

Different Consumer Types

Limitations and Further Research

Declarations

Contributor Information

Consumer Boycotts’ Impact on Brands Essay

Introduction

The Senator Warning Democrats of a Crisis Unfolding Beneath Their Noses