A common objection to boycotts is based on sympathy for the workers. If you call for a boycott on Amazon, for example, a substantial portion of the population will argue “good people work for bad companies”.
This rationale essentially attempts to take the boycott option off the table entirely for all mid-size companies and larger. So I wonder to what extent this widespread way of thinking damages activist movements to correct harmful companies.
Recently in Belgium there was a boycott on the grocery chain Delhaize for their employment practices. So I can’t help but notice this boycott is purely out of sympathy for the employees, effectively a 180° contradiction to the mentality that boycotts harm employees.
Indeed I agree… boycotts would not cause impact on workers.
I would like to get to the bottom of why boycotts are so under utilized. Non-activists always have a common list of excuses claiming:
The “all companies are bad” excuse is easily dismissed by a comparison of wrongdoing among competing corps, but still hard to counter because those with that reasoning don’t likely care about the harm being fought in the first place. The first two bullets are contradictory. Thus non-activists are likely to believe one or the other. It’s hard to turn around the thinking of people who think boycotts don’t work, but perhaps activists can reach those who worry about collateral damage because those in that group are more likely to intrinsically care enough to take actions.