1704647607
REX from Shutterstock
NOS Wednesday, 6:58 p.m
-
Soehayla Halouchi
Publisher Online
-
Soehayla Halouchi
Publisher Online
Multinational companies like Starbucks and McDonald’s are the targets of international pro-Palestinian activists. They are calling for a boycott of the chains on social media because these companies allegedly support Israel in its war with Hamas. They want to show “solidarity with the Palestinian cause.” They are calling for a boycott of Coca Cola, McDonald’s and Disney, among others.
The activists give various reasons for this. For example, the coffee chain Starbucks accuses it of suing a union that expressed support for the Palestinians. According to them, the mannequins in white robes in an advertisement for the clothing brand Zara are reminiscent of the dead in Gaza wrapped in white cloths. And consumers should avoid McDonald’s because the fast-food chain’s Israeli branch gave out free meals to Israeli soldiers.
Artist and ice cream brand
Some of the companies targeted by activists, such as Starbucks and McDonald’s, deny supporting Israel. McDonald’s boss Chris Kempczinski spoke this week of the spread of “disinformation” about the company. “I pray for peace,” Starbucks CEO Laxman Narasimhan wrote last month. “Let’s build the bridge to a better future together.”
Activists do not believe these statements. The international pro-Palestinian pressure group Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) this week called for a boycott of McDonald’s to thwart Israeli companies and Israel-affiliated companies worldwide. The movement also seeks to put pressure on governments “to condemn Israeli violations of the law.”
BDS actions have been going on for around twenty years. For example, they called on international artists not to perform in Israel and ultimately successfully advocated for a stop to the sale of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. The organization is classified as anti-Semitic in Germany, among other places.
Impact of calls
The consequences of the current calls for a boycott are unclear. The multinationals’ financial figures do not yet show whether the calls are having an effect. Starbucks’ stock market value has fallen sharply since mid-November, but as far as we know this cannot be attributed to boycott calls.
McDonald’s and Zara are actually performing better than the stock market expected, although McDonald’s CEO Kempczinski pointed out this week that the company is “suffering significant business impacts as a result of the war” in the Middle East and beyond.
It is very difficult to get rid of stigma even if the company is thriving financially.
Francesco Giumelli, professor of international relations and sanctions expert
The fact that these companies are not experiencing financial problems does not necessarily say anything about the success of the appeal, says Francesco Giumelli, professor of international relations at the University of Groningen. An expert on international sanctions, he says the main purpose of a consumer boycott is to make a point, not necessarily to cause material damage to a company.
“One of the goals is to put pressure on governments through the local population,” says Giumelli. “If a boycott is large and many people participate, a company can get a bad reputation. And it is very difficult to get rid of such a stigma, even if the company is thriving financially.”
Successful boycott of South Africa
The fact that a consumer boycott can actually have an impact was shown during the apartheid regime in South Africa. Activists then called for a boycott of the South African citrus brand Outspan under the slogan “Don’t Squeeze a South African”. The international boycott that followed helped bring an end to apartheid in South Africa, says Peter van Bergeijk, professor of economic history.
“Consumers boycott companies’ products quite regularly, and have been boycotting products from Israel for much longer,” says Van Bergeijk. “The complicated thing about this boycott is that companies are now being targeted not by specific countries, but by a group with members from different countries working together informally. It’s difficult to have conversations with this group.”
Whatever position a company takes, you are wrong.
Peter van Bergeijk, Professor of Economic History
The pro-Palestinian activists campaign for equal rights for Palestinians and “for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories”. Since there is strong polarization surrounding the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, it is difficult for companies to operate.
“Whatever position a company takes, you are wrong,” explains Van Bergeijk. “That’s why it’s difficult for companies to determine which position is better.”
It remains to be seen whether the current call for a boycott of international chains will have an effect, says Van Bergeijk. “Only when many people take part and a boycott has weight will companies change their strategy and politics will also be influenced. When McDonald’s disappears from the streets in Israel, it will be felt and very visible.”
#Starbucks #Zara #target #boycott #effect