Consumer boycotts are a popular means of expressing discontent with unethical practices by corporations. At the beginning of 2018, the magazine Ethical Consumer counted more than 50 ongoing large-scale consumer boycotts. However, the success rate for boycotts in terms of changing unethical corporate practice is rather low. So why do consumers participate in boycotts if the prospects for success look so bleak?
Most of the research on consumer boycotts reveals that consumers have little incentive to participate in a boycott. There are two fundamental challenges. Firstly, consumers may feel that their individual participation will make no difference. This is called the small agent problem. By participating in a boycott, the consumer must bear the cost of the boycott (the foregone consumption of the boycotted product). However, the benefit of the boycott — changing the unethical behavior of the target firm — is not in the hands of the individual consumer. This brings up the second challenge. Boycotts are collective endeavors and as in any collective action, there is an incentive to free-ride. Consumers may feel tempted to let others make the sacrifice. While boycotts require widespread participation to be effective, the small agent and free-rider problems undermine the incentive of individual consumers to participate in boycotts. Eventually, this leads to a downward spiral. The fewer consumers who participate in a boycott, the less the chance of success – which further lowers the attractiveness of participating.
So why do consumers still participate in boycotts?
The authors of the study “Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts” take a different perspective on consumer boycotts. They see boycotters as reciprocal consumers. Behavioral economists have found over the last two decades that 40-60% of people are not motivated by self-interest, but by reciprocity. Reciprocal actors are willing to respond to friendliness with friendliness and to punish those who are unfriendly, even if this means an additional cost. In other words, they are strong reciprocators. Being reciprocal feels intuitive and normal if we consider our personal relationships. Standard economics is still based on the idea of self-interested motives. However, many empirical studies show that strong reciprocity is a stable behavioral motive across cultures and social settings.
So what happens if we look at boycott behavior through the lens of reciprocal behavior?
Firstly, and most importantly, reciprocity changes the underlying logic of boycotting. For reciprocal consumers, punishing the misbehavior of the target firm is an end in itself. Reciprocity is the driving force behind the desire to punish the unfriendliness of the target firm through a boycott. The effectiveness of the boycott becomes secondary – it is the act of punishing that counts. This helps address the small agent problem. For reciprocal consumers, it is not so important that they, individually, will make no difference in effectively changing the unethical behavior of the target firm. They are still motivated to participate in a boycott for the sake of boycotting. Reciprocity, thus, explains why there is a stock of boycotters who participate even when the likelihood of success is low. This is particularly relevant when boycotts are started.
Secondly, reciprocity also affects other consumers. There are two main effects here. The visibility of the boycott increases as soon as there is a critical number of initial boycotters. At the same time, the more consumers who participate, the greater the likelihood of success. This makes the boycott attractive for consumers who are not motivated by reciprocity. The greater the prospects of changing the unethical behavior of the target firm, the greater the benefits of joining the boycott. Reciprocal consumers thus pull other consumers into the boycott.
But reciprocal consumers not only punish the target firm. They may also sanction other consumers — the free-riders — who are not participating in the boycott. Reciprocal actors have a strong aversion to being exploited by free-riders. Again, reciprocal consumers reward friendly behavior (participating in the boycott) and punish unfriendly behavior (not participating). To do so, they often create platforms in which they reward collaboration and punish non-collaboration. Social media is a perfect arena to increase interaction among consumers and foster participation in a boycott. Reciprocal consumers can therefore push other consumers to join a boycott. For instance, the success of Greenpeace’s campaign against Nestlé’s chocolate bar brand KitKat (for using palm oil from uncertified sources that were associated with clear-cutting rainforests, and the destruction of orangutan habitats) greatly benefits from social dynamics among consumers on Facebook.
Reciprocity is a strong driver of consumer boycotts. It helps overcome the initial hurdles of starting a boycott because reciprocal consumers will boycott even without significant prospects of success. This helps achieve a critical mass of boycotters. Reciprocity creates a strong dynamic among consumers. It makes a boycott more attractive and pulls in other consumers. Moreover, it makes free-riding more costly through social disapproval, and participation more rewarding through social approval. This pushes other consumers to join the boycott. These insights are particularly relevant for social movements and charities who want to launch boycotts. They can trigger reciprocal behavior among consumers by appealing to their sense of fairness, and they can enhance boycotts by providing platforms for social exchange among consumers.
