BOYCOTTING

CONCEPT OF BOYCOTT

Friedman (1985, p. 97) defines a consumer boycott as an attempt by one

or more parties to achieve certain objectives by urging individual
consumers to refrain from making selected purchases in the marketplace.

boycotts today are more typically focused on corporate practices rather

than on broader sociopolitical goals such as civil rights. This shift in
boycott focus reflects both the increased power of the modern
transnational corporation and, paradoxically, the heightened vulnerability
of corporate reputation and brand image, and it is consistent with recent
findings that a firms CSR record affects consumer perceptions of the
firms brands and products (Brown and Dacin 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya
2001).

Sen, Grhan-Canli, and Morwitz (2001) conceptualize boycotts as social

dilemmas, wherein a consumer chooses between the individual benefit of
consumption and the wish of a collective to refrain from consumption so
that all receive the shared benefits of a successful boycott.

CONCEPT OF BOYCOTT

Consistent with the articles by Sen, Grhan-Canli, and Morwitz (2001) and John and
Klein (2003), we view boycotting as a form of pro-social behavior by which actions
[are] intended to benefit one or more people other than oneselfbehaviors such as
helping, comforting, sharing, and cooperation (Batson 1998, p. 282).

An explanation of helping that has received extensive empirical support over the past
three decades is the arousal: costreward model (see Dovidio et al. 1991). According
to this approach, when a potential helper encounters another person in distress, the
helper interprets the seriousness of the situation and experiences arousal based on
this interpretation. In response, the helper assesses the potential costs and benefits of
helping. The higher the net benefit of helping (rewards minus costs), the more likely it
is that help will be given.

Perceived egregiousness differed across consumers and predicted both boycott

participation and a more negative brand image (Klein, Smith, and John 2003).

the level of perceived egregiousness has a direct impact on boycott participation.

in general, boycott participation is prompted by the belief that a firm has engaged in
conduct that is strikingly wrong and that has negative and possibly harmful
consequences for various parties (e.g., workers, consumers, society at large).

CONCEPT OF BOYCOTT

Most boycott studies have been conceptual or descriptive (case studies),

with a focus on boycott organizers and targets rather than on the
consumer.

Only two studies have reported empirical research that focuses directly
on variables that influence an individual consumers boycott decision.

Kozinets and Handelmans (1998) netnographic study suggests that

boycott participation represents a complex emotional expression of
individuality and a vehicle for moral self-realization.

Sen, Grhan-Canli, and Morwitz (2001) test a theoretical framework that

proposes that a fundamental question underlies a consumers decision
to boycott: Will the boycott be successful? They find that consumers
participation decisions are influenced by their perception of the
likelihood of the boycotts success, their susceptibility to normative
social influences (social pressure), and the costs associated with
boycotting
4

MOTIVATIONS FOR BOYCOTT PARTICIPATION

Four factors are found to predict boycott participation:

1.

The desire to make a difference.

2.

The scope for self-enhancement.

3.

Counterarguments that inhibit boycotting.

4.

The Cost to the boycotter of constrained consumption.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Boycotters may have an instrumental motivation to change the target

firms behavior and/or to signal to the firm and others the necessity of
appropriate conduct (Friedman 1999; Kozinets and Handelman 1998).

people are more cooperative in social dilemmas if they expect that the
group will attain its goals (Wiener and Doescher 1991).

Beliefs in boycotting to make a difference predict boycott participation.

Consumers who believe that boycotting is appropriate and that it can be
effective are most likely to participate in the boycott.

The effects of perceived egregiousness may be enhanced or diminished

through interactions with the costbenefit motivations.

Beliefs in boycotting to make a difference moderate the relationship

between egregiousness and the boycott decision.

When these beliefs are strongly held, the relationship between

egregiousness and boycotting is greater than when the beliefs are less
strongly held.

THE SCOPE FOR SELF-ENHANCEMENT

Participation enables the boycotter to boost social and personal self-esteem

either by associating with a cause or group of people or simply by viewing himor herself as a moral person.

Socially embedded expectations or social pressures are also likely to affect the
guilt or positive feelings associated with boycotting. The relevance of social
pressure for boycott participation is widely acknowledged in the boycott
literature and in the helping literature.

Thus, self-enhancement through boycott participation includes the avoidance of

feelings of guilt or the negative perceptions of others.

COUNTERARGUMENTS

Helping studies show that as costs for helping increase, helping decreases.

For example, Schwartz (1977) asserts that in the process of deciding to help
another person in need, there is a defensive step of assessing potential
negative outcomes of helping (e.g., injuring or embarrassing the person in
need).

Another type of counterargument pertains to the consumers perception of

whether his or her individual contribution will play any role in achieving the
collective action goal.

There are two variations.

First, boycotters might believe that their actions will have no impact because
they are too small to be noticed (John and Klein 2003).

Second, boycotters might believe that their actions are unnecessary because
they can free ride on the boycott decisions of others.
8

COUNTERARGUMENTS

Counterarguments about boycotting moderate the relationship between

egregiousness and the boycott decision.

The stronger the counterarguments, the weaker is the relationship between

perceived egregiousness and boycotting.

Increased egregiousness may fail to translate into boycotting if

counterarguments loom large in the minds of consumers.

COST TO THE BOYCOTTER OF CONSTRAINED

CONSUMPTION

The direct cost of boycotting also factors into the consumers boycott
decision.

The degree to which consumption is constrained predicts boycott

participation. Consumers whose consumption is most constrained by
boycotting are less likely to boycott.

the degree to which boycotting constrains consumers consumption

influences the effect of egregiousness on their boycott decisions.

There is a weaker relationship between egregiousness and boycotting for

consumers who suffer the greatest constraint in their consumption.

10

BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATE IN BOYCOTTING

Individuals participation on a boycotting may be effected by many variables:
1- the perception of how many others are boycotting(Pressure group).
2- Consumer who participate in a boycott are forgoing consumption of a favored
product or brand, the extent of this sacrifice are inversely related to boycotting.
3- Reminding Consumer about the positive attributes of the product or the negative
attributes of the competitors could enhance the perceived cost of boycotting
(Anti-Boycotting campaigns)

11

BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATE IN
BOYCOTTING CONT
4- Brand attributes that tap into values such as health and Safety might be
particularly relevant to a forgoing a product with these attributes may
reduces the self-enhancement advantages of boycott participation.
5- Most Consumers are likely refuse participating in boycotts, because of
the cost she/he might incur from withholding the consumption and the
uncertainty of the possibility of whether the utility will over weigh the
costs of boycotting

12

FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE COSTS IN

BOYCOTTING
Two factors that influence the costs consumer incur in boycotting
are inherent in the nature of consumption:
1- first factor are related to consumers intrinsic preference for the
boycotted product will be less likely to participate in the boycott because it
will be difficult for them to withhold consumption.
2- Second factor to withhold consumption the unavailability of a perfect
substitute for the boycotted product or service in the market place, when a
satisfactory substitute exists, can simply switch to the substitute which give
them more options in term of consumption

13

HISTORY OF BOYCOTTING

In 617 the leaders ofMakhzumandBanu Abd-Shams, two important

clans ofQuraysh, declared a public boycott against the clan of Banu
Hashim, their commercial rival, in order to put pressure on the clan to
withdraw its protection from Muhammad.The terms imposed on Banu
Hashim, as reported by Ibn Ishaq, were "that no one should marry their
women nor give women for them to marry; and that no one should either
buy from them or sell to them, and when they agreed on that they wrote
it in a deed."The boycott lasted for two or three years but eventually
collapsed mainly because it was not achieving its purpose; the boycott
had caused extreme privation and the sympathizers within the Quraysh
finally united to annul the agreement

14

HISTORY OF BOYCOTTING

The Continental Association, often known simply as the "Association",

was a system created by the First Continental Congress in 1774 for
implementing a trade boycott with Great Britain. Congress hoped that by
imposing economic sanctions, they would pressure Great Britain into
redressing the grievances of the colonies.

15

ETYMOLOGY OF BOYCOTT

History books often label the protests of Colonial America boycotts. After
the British imposed taxes on tea and other imported goods in the
Townshend Act of 1767, the colonists responded with the Nonimportation agreement. The boycott decreased British trade, and in
1770 most of the Acts were repealed. The retention of the tea tax led to
the Boston Tea Party a more radical remedy. However, "boycott" as a
term for such financial actions came into use over a hundred years later.
The practice got its name from an English land agent, Captain Charles
Cunningman Boycott, who led a ruthless eviction campaign against
tenants in Ireland around 1880. His employees began to refuse to assist
Boycott or his family in any manner.

16

HISTORY OF BOYCOTTING

1905: Chinese boycott of U.S. goods:China boycotts the import of

American goods because of the treatment of Chinese under the
Chinese Exclusion Act, Due to prohibiting all immigration of Chinese
laborers.

Boycotts of Japanese products have been conducted by numerous

Chinese civilian and governmental organizations, always in response to
real or perceived Japanese aggression, whether military, political or
economic.

Struggle for Indian Independence (191547) boycott of foreign-made

goods, especially British goods.

17

ARAB ISRAEL BOYCOTT

TheArab League boycott of Israelis a systematiceffort byArab League

member states to isolateIsraeleconomically to prevent Arab states and
discourage non-Arabs from providing support to Israel and adding to
Israel's economic and military strength.

18

RACISM BOYCOTTING

The Montgomery Bus Boycott, in which African Americans refused to ride

city buses in Montgomery, Alabama, to protest segregated seating, took
place from December 5, 1955, to December 20, 1956, and is regarded
as the first large-scale demonstration against segregation in the U.S. On
December 1, 1955, four days before the boycott began, Rosa Parks, an
African-American woman, refused to yield her seat to a white man on a
Montgomery bus. She was arrested and fined. The boycott of public
buses by blacks in Montgomery began on the day of Parks court hearing
and lasted 381 days.

19

RACISM BOYCOTTING

Theacademic boycott of South Africacomprised a series ofboycottsof

South Africanacademic institutions and scholars initiated in the 1960s,
at the request of theAfrican National Congress, with the goal of using
such international pressure to force the end to South Africa's
system of apartheid. The boycotts were part of a larger international
campaign of "isolation" that eventually included political, economic,
cultural and sports boycotts. The academic boycotts ended in 1990,
when its stated goal of ending apartheid was achieved.

20

BOYCOTT IN SPORTS

1980: Olympic Boycotts: The United States and 59 other nations refused
to send their Olympic teams to the Moscow Olympics as a protest
against the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 1979. Four
years later, in a second Olympic boycott, the USSR and some of its allies
refused to attend the Los Angeles Olympic Games.

In 1990 Nike found cheaper People's Republic of China, and Vietnam,

which prohibited labor unions. When workers demanded additional rights
and benefits in these countries, the Nike factories closed and moved to a
different location that would enable them to continue operating at a low
cost. People began boycott Nike Product and put the slogan
Just Dont Do It .

21

RELIGIOUS BOYCOTTING

In 2005 A consumers boycott was organized in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and

other Middle Eastern countries against Denmark. And also Norway,
France, Germany and all others that have "insulted the Prophet
Mohammed" by printing cartoons depicting him.

22

ENVIRONMENTAL BOYCOTTING

In 2010 there has been a great deal of criticism of BP both in the US and
worldwide for its role in the oil spill.

23

A BRIEF HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ARAB BOYCOTT

With 300 million people in the region, there is significant purchasing

power involved. And there is always the fear that a boycott movement
could snowball and cover the entire Muslim world1.3 billion people.

There is growing evidence that the turmoil in the Palestinian territories,

the war in Iraq, US support for Israel, the Danish cartoons that were
considered blasphemous in the Muslim world because of their depiction
of Muhammad (Pbuh) in a derogatory manner.

24

THE BOYCOTT BATTLE

25

THE BOYCOTT TRIGGERS

Every boycott has to have a justification to generate public support.

Typically, this justification is used to create a public outcry against the

perpetrators (or the most representative symbols of perpetrators) of the
actions.

Three different classes of boycott triggers can be identified:

government action (or inaction)

corporate action

individual action.

26

GOVERNMENTS ACTIONS

Government actions include all those instances where the government of

a country engages in an act that infuriates the population of another
country.

The affected population then expresses its displeasure by hurting the

economic interests of the offending country by shunning its products.
For example, the call to boycott McDonald's, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kentucky
Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, Marlboro, Proctor & Gamble, and Starbucks in
the Middle East during the second Palestinian uprising was triggered in
part by the resentment that people felt toward the United States' foreign
policy on the Palestinian issue, which is seen as pro-Israel by many
factions in the Arab world.

27

CORPORATIONS ACTIONS

The second trigger for boycotts is actions of individual corporations. In

these instances, corporations (or their partners) either engage in an act
that people find offensive or they are (rightly or wrongly) accused of

supporting causes that the public finds unacceptable or offensive.

An example of the first kind would be the situation that Amazon.com

found itself in around November 2002. It was revealed that the
Jerusalem Post was donating its slice of the profits derived from the
Amazon.com partners An ad appearing in the newspaper claimed: "Buy
at Amazon.com & Support Israel".

28

INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS

The third trigger for boycotts is actions of private individuals. These

individuals may have no association with the boycotted companies and
their actions can still harm corporations in a significant manner through
indirect and inferred associations.

A classic example in this case is that of the boycott of Danish products

after the publication of cartoons in Denmark's largest newspaper,
Jyllands-Posten, depicting Prophet Muhammad with a turban shaped like
a bomb strapped to his head. The inferred implication of the images,
considered blasphemous under Islam, was that Islam preaches violence
and condones terrorism. While it was the Danish newspaper that
published those images and later on refused to apologize, maintaining
that printing the cartoons was a way to ensure freedom of speech in
the face of intimidation from radical Islamists

29

BOYCOTT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

We discuss three elements of the implementation strategy employed by

the organizers of product boycotts:

awareness generation strategies, media strategies, and targeting

strategies. For a boycott to be successful, an effective awareness
strategy is needed to ensure that the public is made aware of the
campaign and that the information is presented in a manner that it
clicks with the target audience.

Second, a media strategy that utilizes cost-effective mechanisms for

spreading the boycott call is essential to a boycotts success.

Third, the target of a boycott has to be clearly identified and justified for
the boycott to be successful.

30

AWARENESS

A formal awareness strategy used to legitimize a boycott call is to

formulate it as a religious decree.

Religious leaders have often been involved in calling for product

boycotts. For example, to express resentment against the US foreign
policy, religious leaders and clerics, from Morocco to Saudi Arabia, have
urged consumers

not to buy any products associated with the United States.

The prominent Muslim cleric, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, issued a fatwa

(religious decree) prohibiting eating American burgers and pizza, or
drinking Pepsi and Coke. He also displayed a blinking banner on his Web
site that read: ''Boycott America from Pepsi cans to Boeing

31

MEDIA

The digital age has revolutionized the field of communications. Just as

corporations are utilizing the new media to communicate with their
target audiences, the boycott organizers are becoming equally savvy at
taking advantage of the new tools of communication to spread the word
regarding their boycotts.

In addition to posting calls for boycotts on prominent religious web sites,

organizers have also done a remarkable job of communicating the same
through editorial write-ups in influential newspapers and magazines.

32

TARGETING

Different strategies have been adopted to target different companies

across the Middle East. In one approach, a country-of-origin argument
is used to boycott all brands publicly associated with a target country.
For example, in response to a movie, all Dutch products were generally
targeted, with
particular emphasis on Dutch dairy products.

33

CORPORATE RESPONSES

Boycotts can have a crippling effect on corporate finances and

profitability. Without putting a dollar value

Faced by a widespread boycott campaign, violent attacks, and mounting

losses, the British retailer Sainsburys sold its share to its minority
partner (Al-Nasharty Group) at a loss of 125m ($200 million).

Similarly, the boycott of Danish companies cost Arla Foods an estimated

$85 million in 2006.

We summarize some common responses available to multinationals to

respond to boycott campaigns.

34

RESPONDING TO RUMORS

If left unchecked, rumors have the potential of ruining a companys

reputation and goodwill. It is therefore important to counter false rumors
in a timely manner before they become accepted truths. Many
companies have responded forcefully to squash the rumor mill.

For example, P&G was quick to deny rumors regarding its detergent by
stating that Ariel and its logo had been around longer than Prime
Minister Sharon.

Furthermore, the company changed the six pointed star logo to a less
contentious four pointed one.

35

DISTANCING FROM CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES

If the boycott is not driven any specific action of the company itself, then
there is an opportunity to put some distance between the issue and the
company.

When Amazon.com discovered that Jerusalem Post was donating its slice
of the profits derived from its partnership to Israeli soldiers (to which
consumers in the Middle East objected), the internet bookstore
terminated its association with the newspaper. It also asked the
newspaper to remove the ads that linked purchases at Amazon.com to
supporting Israel. Patty Smith of Amazon told BBC News Online, "We
have asked them to take it down and if any sales are made through
them they won't receive any commissions"

36

MAKING CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS

Making charitable contributions to causes that promote welfare in the

host country is a commonly used mechanism to portray companies in a
favorable light.

When sales of McDonald's franchisees in Saudi Arabia plunged in the

first few weeks of the second Intifada, they moved quickly to appease
critics by announcing plans to donate approximately 26 cents of the
price of each meal sold during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan
(November 27-December 26, 2000) to Palestinian children's hospitals.

37

EMPHASIZING LOCAL CONNECTIONS

AND IMPACT ON LOCAL ECONOMY

As noted in the opening quote of this paper, Coca-Cola responded to

boycott calls by emphasizing its local roots.

Similarly, in response to rumors regarding its alleged donations to Israel,

McDonalds took out ads in local newspapers in Egypt emphasizing its
local connections and how the rumors threatened the future and source
of income of over 3,000 Egyptian workers.

38

LOCALIZING THE MARKETING MIX

Companies have also responded to boycott calls by altering their

marketing mixby introducing new products with strong local flavor, by
including locally popular endorsers in their ad campaigns, by offering
localized

promotions, and even by de-emphasizing their American brand name.

For example, in the midst of the Intifada movement, McDonalds in Egypt

responded by adding McFalafel to its menu. This was clearly in an
attempt to attract local customers and boost sales. The company also
hired an Egyptian singer, whose nationalistic song I hate Israel topped
the charts for months, to promote the sandwich

39

WORKING WITH COUNTRIES GOVERNMENTS

Corporations often seek help (overtly or covertly) from their own

governments to help avoid boycotts or to mitigate the effect of boycotts.

As an example, the managing director of Arla Foods, Peder Tuborgh,

sought his governments help when the controversy regarding the
Danish cartoons sparked calls for boycott: "I would ask the government
to immediately enter a positive dialogue with the many millions of
Muslims who feel offended by Denmark.

40

EGYPT BOYCOTTS TURKISH PRODUCTS

As a result of the current (2013-2014) bad political relationships

between Egypt and Turkey a formal and public calls had been raised to
boycott the Turkish products in the Egyptian market.

Egyptian government canceled the signed agreement with the Turkey

(RORO), which allowed a tax free transportation of the Turkish goods
from Damietta port to El-Sokhna port without passing and paying for the
Suez Canal.

41

EGYPT BOYCOTTS TURKISH PRODUCTS

CONTINUE

The Egyptians owned TV networks (Elhyat, CBC, SadaElbalad,) took the

initiative and stopped broadcasting the Turkish drama and series.

Most of tourism
advertisements.

agents

in

Egypt

stopped

the

Turkish

trips

42

BOYCOTTING THE AMERICAN PRODUCTS

During the military actions that repeatedly taken by Israel towards

Palestinians , strong calls along the Islamic countries is being raised to
boycott the American international companies that support Israel
financially and morally like Coca-Cola, PEPSI and fast-food chains.

43

BOYCOTTING THE AMERICAN

PRODUCTS.. CONTINUE

As a result for the Boycotting Americans product and services , some

Egyptians local companies started to have a competitive advantage over
the Americans ones.

44

BOYCOTTING THE DUTCH PRODUCTS

DURING 2012

A Dutch film insulted all the Muslims and Islamic countries when
described the Prophet Mohamed ( ) in un-appropriate
descriptions far away from the real qualities Prophet Mohamed has.

Formal and public boycotting for the Dutch products had taken place and
statistics showed that it was a painful one for Dutch producers.

45

BOYCOTTING THE ISRAELI PRODUCTS

Due to occupying the Palestine lands and due to un-human actions taken
against the innocents ,the Arab countries and people boycott Israel at all
economical and social levels.

Some internationals forces are being put on the Israel neighbors (Egypt,
and Jordan) to increase their commercial relations with the boycotted
neighbor through the Qualifying Industrial Zone agreement (QIZ) to take
advantage of the free trade agreements between the United States and
Israel.

46

REFERENCES

John and Klein (2003)

Friedman (1985)

Brown and Dacin 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001

Sen, Grhan-Canli, and Morwitz (2001)

Batson 1998

Kozinets and Handelmans (1998)

Wiener and Doescher 1991

Schwartz (1977)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott

47