Boycotts And Such

Most of the time, I make decisions on what to buy from various choices available for something that I need based upon factors intrinsic to the purchase. What is the price? What is the quality of the good or service provided?

Sometimes, however, I consider additional factors that go beyond the intrinsic nature of the transaction. At one extreme, I may decline to do business with a firm entirely as part of a boycott of that firm for some reason related to the conduct or affiliations of the firm itself that don't necessarily relate to the quality of the good or service that it provides. At another extreme, I may chose to do business with a firm despite unfavorable intrinsic elements of the transaction, such as a higher price or more inconvenient delivery option, because I have a positive opinion of the firm providing it. In less extreme cases, these firm related factors may influence my purchasing decision but don't entirely dictate it.

Of course, there are firms that I have an opinion about that I don't meaningfully boycott or favor because I simply don't have any intrinsic reason to buy their products. Whether I feel good or bad about Boeing or Airbus, I simply don't have any good reason to buy or lease commercial or military aircraft.

Also, parallel to this notion is that some purchases have an intrinsically cultural element that is pertinent to a purchase at the primary level. 

For example, I am more likely to purchase Kimchee, rather than sauerkraut, because culturally Korean foods are part of my family culture to a much greater extent than culturally German foods. 

Boycotts Often Don't Work

Further, I am well aware that boycotts and economic sanctions designed to isolate countries or firms are only rarely effective, and sometimes backfire, although there have been notable exceptions. 

Internationally, the current sanctions against Russia and Belarus, and historically, sanctions against South Africa, are rare examples of cases where sanctions have been quite effective. 

Sometimes sanctions have unintended consequences. Sanctions against Turkey, related to its presence in Cyprus, sanctions by many countries against Israel, sanctions against Iran, and sanctions against South Africa, were all important in giving rise to thriving local defense contractor industries. Sanctions can encourage countries to become allies with your enemies or competitors too.

Grass roots consumer boycotts against firms for their undesirable conduct are often even less effective. For example, Coors, Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby, Walmart, Wells Fargo, and Amazon.com are all apparently doing well enough, despite long standing consumer boycott efforts at one level or another. It is hard to quantify what impact these boycott efforts have had. A boycott effort has to be particularly widespread to be effective.

Action in the civic arena can sometimes be more effective. For example, the Boy Scouts, the Roman Catholic Church, and the NRA were all hurt badly by firm level concerns and scandals not closely related to their core missions. Firm level virtue matters more in the civic and non-profit area where firm level virtue is part of the decision to be involved with the organization.

My Own Case By Case Views

The list of factors I consider and matters upon which I am influenced by firm level conduct are modest, and each carries with it a story.

I don't cross picket lines by doing business with, or buying good made by firms where workers are on strike, ever, while the strike is in progress. Mostly this is a firm level consideration, although it also reflects the fact that the quality of the consumer experience is usually reduced in a scab staffed firm and this creates doubts about whether quality control measures are being followed.

I don't patronize Chick-fil-A, a fast food chicken restaurant chain, because of their anti-LGBT advocacy and to a lesser extent by their Republican political advocacy and campaign contributions.

I don't patronize Hobby Lobby, a big box craft supply store, because of their conservative Christian agenda, especially as applied to reproductive rights for their employees.

I don't drink Coors beer, in part,  due to their anti-union labor practices, but also because, intrinsically, their marquee beer is crappy quality beer.

While I am sympathetic to recent boycotts of Russian vodka in light of Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine, in truth, I haven't bought Russian vodka in decades for the intrinsic reasons that French, Swedish, Finnish and Icelandic vodka is a better product, and because I have ethnic affinities to Sweden and Finland which a positive firm level reasons to buy those products.

I firmly reject buying on a "locavore" basis, as I feel strongly about the importance of international trade in food goods and don't believe that any virtues are served by buying local food stuff. Similarly, in most circumstances, I don't care if food is organic, which can be good for the environment but rarely actually makes food healthier, and I am not worried about GMO foods.

I certainly do not oppose "corporate" or "factory" farms relative to "small family farms" which are vastly less efficient and often have worse quality control and issues with how they treat migrant workers that they often have to employ on a seasonal basis.

On one hand, farm raised fish can be prone to accumulation of toxins, on the other, "wild caught" fishing is depleting world fisheries and shellfish and top of the food chain predator fish like tuna are still prone to accumulations of heavy metals and contribute to threats to aquatic species like dolphins that everyone loves. So, I'm fairly ambivalent about that distinction.

I have historically been willing to pay extra in my utility bill to subsidize wind generated power in lieu of coal fired power generation, but I'm not very concerned about nuclear power or natural gas generated power. As life has gotten busier, my wife now handles our utility bills, so I'm not involved in those decisions.

I have firm level reasons to favor CostCo, which pays its workers well and does not support bad causes, over Walmart and Sam's Club, which are anti-union and treat their worker's poorly and are owned by major GOP donors. But my preferences between the two aren't terribly strong, and intrinsic reasons related to the quality of the goods sold at CostCo and other grocery stores relative to Walmart and Sam's Club, and related to the shopping experience, also factor into this preference.

I have a slight preference for shopping at Tattered Cover Book store, a local small business, over Barnes and Nobel, a national corporate chain competitor, but not a big one (and Barnes and Nobel, other than being a big national corporate chain, isn't particular despicable).

I avoid Wells Fargo Bank, NA, because of its history of bad banking practices, but also intrinsically, because I've seen first hand the way it has mishandled business transactions and mistreated customers.

I have a strong preference against things associated with Texas and with being in Texas. I once declined to pursue a good paying job at a large Texas law firm, in an area where I had the relevant skills, where I was being recruited by a headhunter to work, because I didn't want to live in Texas or raise a family there. I wouldn't consider a vacation for pleasure there either. Texas is notorious for outrageous injustice in its criminal justice system, for racism, for a violent gun oriented culture, for anti-abortion and anti-LGBT political activism, and more. This preference isn't absolute, however, and I did once attend an academic conference for legal scholars there to present an academic paper. Similarly, despite the branding, I'm not adverse to patronizing Texas Roadhouse restaurants, a large chain of mid-tier steak houses, because the connection to Texas itself is so attenuated. And, I am similarly

Many people on the left seek to boycott Israel because of its unjust treatment of its Palestinian population, and to a lesser extent, due to its discrimination against Arabs. I'm aware of those issues. I don't support those policies and actions and favor diplomatic action and legal action to curtail that conduct. But I am also aware that Israel has provided a safe haven from anti-semitism for Jews around the world and that Israel's neighbors have threatened genocidal warfare against it that would result in the extermination of about half of the world's Jews, most of the rest of whom live in the U.S. Also, Israel has done plenty of very positive things and has an overall society whose level of civic development and respect for women's rights and for other worthy things is exemplary within the Middle East and North Africa. So, overall, my attitude to Israel in a boycott or preference analysis is ambivalent.

Similarly, I am aware that the restaurant chain Cracker Barrel, which is a low end sit down restaurant chain that sells Southern regional food, has faced serious racial discrimination in employment charges with it paid handsomely to settle, but it is also one of the few places where many foods of my childhood in Georgia are easily available in a reasonably authentic format. And, Cracker Barrel has not been particularly prominent in taking stances that appeal to the worst prejudices of a majority of its customer base. So, I am ambivalent towards it.

Some people are not a fan of Amazon.com, because it is a giant national corporation owned by billionaires that has put many small businesses, including book stores, out of business, because it charges very high fees to smaller firms that sell goods through it depriving those firms of profits that they would earn if you bought goods directly from them, and because it tends to exploit its warehouse workers. But the intrinsic benefits to doing business with Amazon are considerable. It has a good quality user interface. I get credit card points for purchases there at very favorable rates that I use for things I want. I can find things that I want to buy there that are hard to locate elsewhere. They deliver their goods promptly and frequently more reliably with in house delivery vans than the U.S. Postal Service or United Parcel Service do. Returning goods from Amazon is trouble free and can be done in person at nearby Whole Foods locations (which it recently acquired). The retail level prices are competitive with in person retail. The Amazon Prime video offerings and Kindle ebook offerings are reasonably priced (or free with an annual or monthly subscription in some cases) and are good quality. It is good at recommending things that I might want to buy in the future. It makes it easy to pre-order soon to be released books and get them on their release dates. Their reviews are helpful in evaluating purchases and reasonably trustworthy. I don't worry about it engaged in e-commerce fraud that can be a concern with very small firms. Home delivery is often convenient when I'm overwhelmed with work and have little time for trips outside the grocery store. So, while I sometime look for opportunities to buy direct from small firms affiliated with Amazon, mostly I don't avoid it as some people do.

While I recognize the economic and social benefits in some cases of supporting locally owned and small businesses, I'm not terribly dogmatic or moved by those concerns unless I know the owners personally (and I do buy books that I wouldn't otherwise buy when they are written by people I know). 

Similarly, while many people are upset at Spotify, justifiably, for its sweet deal with an anti-vaxx podcaster, this platform is so vastly superior to any other music streaming platform, and has also provided a way for my own son to distribute music he produces to a larger audience in what amounts to self-publishing with the polish of big time artists, so I haven't backed away from supporting it.

I'm aware of concerns about Goodwill, the thrift store and semi-charitably oriented business, but not particularly concerned about the income of the CEO or its business model of making profits by receiving inventory for free, paying marginal workers minimum wage with few if any benefits, and selling used good cheap.

I do not favor the very old U.S. boycott of Cuba. Cuba does engage in certain human rights violations. But it is also, in many respects, one of the most admirable Communist regimes in terms of how it has handled public health measures, for example, and its human rights violations do not rise to the level of extreme totalitarian regimes. It certainly has a better human rights record than countries such as Saudi Arabia and China, which the U.S. has not embargoed. The sanctions have also not proven effective and greater rather than less engagement would probably be a better way to promote positive change there.