Q: What is a “buycott” and is it an effective tool for
creating a greener, saner world?
A: “Buycotting” is the opposite of boycotting. It is a
positive activist tool that leverages consumer power to make the most
socially-responsible business practices also the most profitable choices for
companies.
Whereas a boycott is a punishment of a company for negative behavior (think
formula maker Nestlé), a buycott is a positive reward to a company for good
behavior and a carrot to promote change. It works on the understanding that
corporations have profit as their top priority and, rather than rage against
that, buycotts work with it to make responsibility the most profitable choice.
You might think of buycotting as the formalization of actions already being
taken by many Natural Life Magazine readers – that is, taking responsibility for
our consumer choices based upon ethical, environmental, social, and political
criteria. Such ethical shopping is increasingly aided by certification programs,
like “organic” and Fair Trade, and their accompanying labels. It can be done
individually or in a group.
A good example of group buycotting is the activity undertaken by Carrotmob.
This social enterprise solicits businesses to compete with one another to see
who can do the most good, and then sends a big mob of consumers to buy their
products and thereby reward whichever business made the strongest commitment to
improve the world. So, instead of wielding a big stick (petitions, boycotts,
lawsuits…), they use the carrot of improved reputation, market exposure and,
therefore, increased profit to en- courage the participating companies to create
positive change.
Buycotting has also been used in a more political way as an anti-boycott. An
example is the Fair Play Campaign Group, which fights politically-motivated
boycotts of Israel and Israeli businesses. They promote doing exactly the
opposite of what the boycotters want – buying more Israeli goods. Another
example is the National Tea Party Coalition’s organization of a one-day buycott
last fall in support of Whole Foods after a boycott against the chain in
reaction to CEO John Mackey’s opposition to the ObamaCare bill.
Buycotting was also used in Palermo, Italy, where an anti-mafia civic effort
used a fair-trade certification type process to identify businesses that had
refused to pay a bribe and to encourage customers to shop there.
Is this sort of consumer activism effective? Can shopping really change the
world? Lawrence B. Glickman, who teaches American history at the University of
South Carolina and authored Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism in
America (University of Chicago Press, 2009), thinks not, aside from drawing
attention to problems. He says that although North Americans boycott and buycott
regularly, very few of these campaigns succeed. “The use of coordinated economic
pressure rarely forces companies to change policies, or politicians to alter
positions,” he writes. On the other hand, consumer boycotts of South Africa over
apartheid are credited with contributing to the fall of the white regime.
And the fact remains that ethical consumption is still consumption. Most
definitely purchase organic, ethical, fairly traded, locally produced, etc.
whenever you can. But be sure the purchase is even necessary because decreasing
levels of consumption are preferable to ethical consumption. In other words,
don’t justify your purchase of an iPod with the reassurance that, according to
the marketing campaign, you’ll be helping finance the battle against AIDS in
Africa.
In 2005, there was a campaign attempting to organize a buycott of gasoline
retailer Citgo, which is headquartered in Venezuela. The suggestion was that by
buying their gas, you would be contributing “to the billions of dollars that
Venezuela’s democratic government is using to provide health care literacy and
education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans.” In reality,
however, there are questions about that country’s democracy and the origin of
the gas that Citgo sells. In commenting on the email campaign, Barbara and David
Mikkelson of the debunking website Snopes.com concluded: “Complex problems
rarely lend themselves to simple, painless answers. Simply shifting where we buy
gasoline isn’t nearly as good a solution as the much tougher choice of sharply
curtailing the amount of gasoline we buy.”
Sometimes, attempts to find simple, painless answers can create a massive
headache for well-intentioned consumers. For instance, single issue activism can
be problematic, which happened when a boycott collided with a buycott a few
years ago. Many supporters of the long-standing Nestlé boycott over its infant
formula marketing are the same people who support fair trade products. But life
became a bit more complicated when Nestlé created a fair trade coffee brand.
While it may seem like a victory to have a large multinational aboard the fair
trade bandwagon, many people saw the move as a cynical attempt to cash in on a
consumer trend by demonstrating token support for fair trade principles rather
than making any fundamental changes to its business practices.
Indeed, it isn’t easy to separate out the greenwashing and political
correctness from the legitimate improvements businesses might make, in spite of
a plethora of labels. The average consumer doesn’t have the time, energy or
knowledge to figure out if the high price they’re paying for apparently
sweatshop-free clothing is actually trickling down to the workers or if a new
brand of dish soap is truly organic and packaged in recycled plastic.
We also wonder if “market citizenship” as some critics call it, has become a
substitute for real civic engagement. The increase in buycotting, petitions,
signing on to Facebook “campaigns” and other relatively low demand activities
coincides with a decrease in voter turnouts and membership in traditional
activist organizations like political parties, NGOs, and trade unions.
In a widely quoted article published at nytimes.com last October, writer
Anand Giridharadas called ethical consumerism (including buycotting) “boycotts
minus the pain.”
“The question,” he wrote, “is this: Have we, with our ethical cars and
condoms and carrots, found a way to make markets humane? Or have we rather found
a way to make politics bearable to us by turning it into shopping?”
Buycotting, like all types of ethical consumerist practices, has an important
role to play in greening society. But it is just one tool in a whole kit of
tools for social and environmental change. We absolutely promote an increased
awareness of the impact of our purchasing decisions on the environment and on
health and life in general. But it must part of a larger change in personal
behavior and lifestyle, rather than an occasional activity. And it shouldn’t be
used as a replacement for other types of political engagement.
Wendy Priesnitz is Natural Life's editor and a
journalist with over 35 years of experience.
This is one of a few articles
originally published in Natural Life Magazine that appear on this website for
free. To read more articles like
this, please
subscribe to Natural Life.
