Most people in the UK would not apply for a job at a company subject to popular boycotts, according to new data from Raconteur and Attest. Moreover, a third of UK workers would quit their job if their employer were to be targeted by a boycott.
With businesses scrapping their DEI policies, controversial CEOs creating reputational risks for their organisations and geopolitical tragedies in Gaza and Ukraine spiralling into catastrophes, consumers have plenty of reasons to take a stand with their wallets – and the data shows that many have chosen to do so. More than half of the 1,000 UK consumers surveyed have boycotted a company at least once.
Top of the pile of reasons that consumers would boycott a company is unethical practices, followed closely by poor treatment of staff. Nearly a quarter would boycott a business over the CEO’s political views, while almost 20% would avoid patronising a company that does business with countries whose policies or actions they disapprove of.
Those who chose to boycott brands were primarily motivated by activism rather than financial considerations. Their aim was to bring attention to issues they care about, pressure the company in question to change its policies or simply damage the reputation of organisations they disapprove of. Fewer than one in six (15.8%) intended for shareholders to lose money, while 10.7% hoped senior management would lose their jobs or bonuses and 9.6% sought the closure of the targeted business.
Boycotts have led to declining sales and reputational damage for fast-food brands such as Starbucks and McDonald’s. The latter was even forced to shutter some regional operations.
However, tracking the financial damage wrought by boycotts is tricky. Starbucks has faced boycotts from all corners – first in response to its alleged anti-unionising activities and then from supporters of both Israel and Palestine owing to the firm’s stance on the war in Gaza. In 2023, Starbucks lost $11bn (£8.24bn) in market value. This was touted as a victory by activists on social media, as it coincided with the boycotts. But financial analysts believe the primary reason for the financial hit was more mundane. Investors, it seems, were simply concerned about footfall levels in the company’s retail stores.
Yet boycotts – and their inverse, ‘buycotts’, where consumers support a brand’s stance by purchasing its products – do appear to impact the bottom line, albeit briefly, according to a recent study by Marketing Science.
When the US retailer Target ditched its DEI programme in January, it became the target of consumer activism and its share value dropped 40% year on year. There were multiple reasons for Target’s financial decline – Donald Trump’s tariff regime didn’t help – but the boycott was likely a contributing factor. Walmart also faced a boycott owing to its perceived support for President Trump; however, the action barely impacted its sales.
Even consumers who are not actively avoiding a brand may be influenced by boycotts. More than half of consumers surveyed would think twice about buying products or services from a company being boycotted.
Boycotts also impact talent-retention and hiring. Nearly a third of respondents would not continue to work for a company under a boycott.
And more than half of respondents would not apply for a job at a boycotted company.
So, while boycotts may not push their targets to the point of collapse, they could cause lasting reputational damage that will ultimately harm the bottom line. Such activism is surely a growing risk to businesses as instability and controversy become standard across the globe.
What to do when your business is under boycott: 5 tips from crisis comms specialists
Before saying anything at all, brands must first gain a clear view of the situation and understand what’s triggered the backlash, says Riley Gardiner, the founder of No Strings Public Relation who has worked with the House of Commons and Britney Spears.
He asks: “Is it political or ethical or a reaction to one bad call? You can’t fix what you haven’t properly diagnosed.”
Taking a side isn’t always necessary, he says, but brands should stake out a position.
He explains: “If you stand by what you did, explain it clearly. If you got it wrong, say so and outline what you’re doing to fix it. Trying to hedge only drags it out and gives people more to attack.
“People don’t expect perfection, but they do notice when you’re avoiding the issue. Say something real, show that you’re paying attention and make it clear what happens next. That’s what gets you out of the mess.”
If backlash is justified, then businesses need to acknowledge it clearly and directly before setting out practical steps for change, tied to timelines and leadership accountability. That’s according to Julia Payne, the founder of Fractional CMO Services.
“Consumers want transparency and proof of internal buy-in,” she says. “Share progress openly and remember, loyalty is earned through action. Not every boycott warrants a pivot but doing nothing is still a choice, with consequences.”
She continues: “To rebuild trust, social responsibility must be more than a compliance exercise. It has to become a core business priority, which demands sustained effort, long-term commitment and consistency across every touchpoint.”
Leaders may need to re-align their brand’s values towards those of their target audience. Payne says a boycott is a kind of “stress test” and the businesses that come out stronger are those that heed the wake-up call.
Business leaders might worry that issuing an apology will make them appear weak. But Lucy Harvey, director of Lucy Harvey PR, says that often the opposite is true. “Consumers want brands to take ownership when things go wrong. This will help regain their trust and safeguard the brand’s future.”
Chris Gilmour, a former tabloid journalist who co-founded the Tigerbond agency, notes that people who call for boycotts aren’t necessarily that brand’s customer base.
“People tend to take this tactic when they don’t have an affinity with the brand, as opposed to being loyal customers,” Gilmour says. Community sentiment can shift quickly, so proactively managing misinformation that appears on social media is essential, he says.
“Bear in mind that rebuilding trust is a long game, so avoid only managing the moment. For many organisations, the hardest parts are resisting the temptation to over-communicate and avoiding sweeping changes that don’t necessarily make sense for your genuine customer base.”
What about when a CEO has gone rogue or can’t keep quiet about their controversial opinions? This is a tricky issue that can be difficult or uncomfortable to address internally, says Harvey – but it’s a problem that must be fixed.
“CEOs are the face of a brand and if they’re performing poorly it can have a negative impact on the organisation overall,” she says.
Firms might first turn to external support, such as media training. But if the CEO is badly damaging the brand, it “may be time to look for alternative leadership”, Harvey says, adding that the brand’s reputation must be protected at all costs.
Gardiner adds: “If the CEO is causing the damage, they can’t be the face of the recovery. No one cares how good the product is if the person leading the company keeps making things worse.
“Step them back from the spotlight and from the company itself if they’ve become radioactive. Let someone credible speak for the business instead.”
Most people in the UK would not apply for a job at a company subject to popular boycotts, according to new data from Raconteur and Attest. Moreover, a third of UK workers would quit their job if their employer were to be targeted by a boycott.
With businesses scrapping their DEI policies, controversial CEOs creating reputational risks for their organisations and geopolitical tragedies in Gaza and Ukraine spiralling into catastrophes, consumers have plenty of reasons to take a stand with their wallets – and the data shows that many have chosen to do so. More than half of the 1,000 UK consumers surveyed have boycotted a company at least once.
Top of the pile of reasons that consumers would boycott a company is unethical practices, followed closely by poor treatment of staff. Nearly a quarter would boycott a business over the CEO’s political views, while almost 20% would avoid patronising a company that does business with countries whose policies or actions they disapprove of.
