For a long time, consumers have used their purchasing power to send messages to companies whose practices do not align with their values. Boycotts can range from a simple personal disregard for a brand to large-scale media campaigns.
While some of these boycotts may be seen merely as expressions of indignation, many consumers are more determined than ever to spend their money with companies that share their values and ethics, while avoiding companies with conflicting practices.
However, choosing another brand is not always a straightforward solution, especially in an era dominated by conglomerates. Many brands are integrated into the portfolios of larger companies, making it difficult to directly impact their businesses.
An example of this is the boycott against Bud Light, faced in April 2023 in the United States. The alcoholic beverage brand was targeted by reactions from conservative consumers, analysts, and celebrities due to its partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Maurice Schweitzer, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, highlights this case as an illustration of this phenomenon.
Although many consumers chose to boycott Bud Light in hopes of affecting its revenues, those who chose an alternative product may have inadvertently directed their money back to the brand.
“There are so many sister brands of Bud Light that, in practice, it is much more complicated than simply not drinking that particular beer if you are trying to make an impact,” says Schweitzer.
Bud Light is a subsidiary of Anheuser-Busch, which owns more than 100 other brands, such as Budweiser, Kona Big Wave, and Landshark.
Schweitzer notes that this situation is common, highlighting Amazon as an example, which owns brands like Whole Foods and Audible.
He explains that if there is a boycott movement against Amazon’s e-commerce platform, the protesters are likely still contributing financially to many other Amazon businesses, including Amazon Web Services, which hosts popular sites like Netflix, Facebook, and Airbnb.
Overall, such structures make it incredibly difficult to ethically reallocate our spending, especially when conglomerates can be less than transparent—not to mention that global businesses are constantly evolving.
Large companies are constantly acquiring startups and smaller brands and responding to ongoing geopolitical changes. For the average consumer, keeping up with these changes can be an almost impossible task, even for the more experienced ones.
Faced with these challenges, some people are adopting a new approach to boycotts. Instead of directly avoiding brands with which they disagree, some consumers choose to consistently direct their money to companies they trust.
These conscious consumers are deeply informed: they know where and how products are made and distributed, and they choose to spend on brands that share their ideas. At the same time, they are practical and do not see ethical shopping as an “all or nothing” issue.
Many understand the complexity of conglomerates, perceiving them as moving targets that are difficult to hit, and recognize that interacting with companies they disagree with is inevitable in everyday life. Experts note that these consumers may also be more inclined to forgive themselves for occasional purchases of fast fashion or “non-sustainable” items.
However, at the same time, these informed consumers are putting pressure on companies to improve their policies. To regain consumer trust, brands need to work to establish transparency regarding mistakes made and the steps taken to correct them.
Often, this is enough to win back conscious consumers—something that companies are noticing and encouraging them to act on.
Indeed, as Moriarty notes, when potentially harmful news emerges related to brands that consumers consider ethically aligned, many are willing to give the brand a second chance.
“It’s easy for brands to lose trust. But it’s not impossible for them to regain that trust. Consumers are not very adept at change. We often look for brands that support us through any transition, especially on broader issues like sustainability or ethics,” he explains.
“And it’s very hard for us to let go of something, even when we hear bad news about a brand or when there are reports that it has made mistakes.”
Experts point out that these conscious consumers are influencing how large and small companies deal with repercussions related to ethical issues.
Even if buyers are not conducting full boycotts, their consumption patterns and attention to corporate practices are putting active pressure on brands to change and evolve.
Simon Moriarty, director of trend research at the market intelligence consultancy Mintel, describes this as conscious consumption. He notes that Mintel’s trend research indicates that consumers are interested in following the redemption journey of companies. Many are willing to hold companies accountable for their mistakes if it means keeping their favorite products in their shopping carts.
A notable example is Oatly, a Swedish food company that makes oat-based alternatives to dairy products. In 2022, Oatly faced controversy due to allegations of “misleading” environmental claims.
The brand, established in the 1990s, entered the market not only challenging global dairy conglomerates but also positioning itself as a more sustainable alternative to these companies.
However, in 2022, Oatly ran into trouble after making environmental claims deemed “misleading,” describing its carbon footprint without providing sufficient evidence.
Despite this, consumers looking for more sustainable dairy alternatives did not immediately abandon the company. Instead, they closely followed Oatly’s statements and pressed for a clear plan to correct the communication error and operate more sustainably.
“Consumers play a crucial role in the transition to more sustainable choices,” says Shaunagh Duncan, Oatly’s director of sustainability for international and European markets.
Data from Oatly in September 2023, obtained by the BBC, showed that 59% of adults in the UK would be willing to change their food and beverage consumption habits based on “accurate information” about the company’s business practices.
Duncan agrees that companies must be proactive in implementing changes and communicating them to their customers.
This approach seems to be working for Oatly. In 2023, the company reported revenues of $783.3 million. In the fourth-quarter earnings presentation, it announced that it expects revenue growth of 5% to 10% in 2024.
As Moriarty notes, not all consumers act so consciously. Most people opt to boycott brands or simply do not protest. “People want to do the right thing, but sometimes it’s complicated, especially with changing news,” Schweitzer assesses. However, more and more consumers are realizing that finding a middle ground can actually drive significant change.
