Recently, the AEA Boicotes have gained prominence, other US companies, especially in Canada and Europe. Such boycott, second, reflect international discontent with the policies of the various people around the world have spontaneously decided to say “no” to products made in the repudiation.
Why does that matter? Academic literature identifies boycott as instruments of efficient social pressure, capable of changing the behavior of companies even when final success – in terms of changing corporate policies – is not guaranteed. The simple announcement of a boycott can already cause a significant drop in the prices of the action of target organizations, according to Pruititt and Friedman. The fear of losing market value can, by itself, lead managers to rethink attitudes that displease the public.
Boycotes are not summed up, however, to the numbers of the bag. There is an abyss between socially responsible attitudes reported by consumers and what really happens in buying practice. This gap is often closed when consumers mobilize collectively, either to punish a corporation (boycott) or to award it for good practices (Buycott). The dynamics of this engagement becomes more remarkable thanks to social networks, which accelerate the dissemination of information and stimulate joint actions.
There are those who point out some exaggeration in boycott, but it is worth remembering that they depart from the ordinary citizen, freely. Those who choose boycott a product does so by conviction, although it can be influenced by groups or media. In contrast, such as those practiced today in the US and historically in Brazil – when authorities decide which products should receive extra rates or even blockages – removes freedom of choice from the individual. It is a one -way way: it limits access to foreign items because a ruler judges local products preferable. This curtailment tax from top to bottom differentiates radically from the voluntary act of not buying a product for ethical reasons.
. This movement, although not unanimous and can be criticized, demonstrates its ability to choose – not to finance certain business practices or public policies.
The consumer’s voice rarely echoes as much as when it appears in the form of sales. Although motivations for boycott are different – moral, political, environmental – the common effect is to broaden public debate and make society reflect on issues previously seen as distant.
Thus, if on the one hand the trigger of protests against Tesla and other American companies indicates a moment of polarization and widespread dissatisfaction, on the other hand, the power to open (or not) the wallet. We can differ on the merit of specific boycott, but there is no denying the symbolism they carry. Instead of the government unilaterally deciding how we should spend our money, it is up to the consumer to weigh their criteria and support or refuse as fair.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
