Giving power to the people

The outrage generated by the revelation that Nestle is demanding a $6m payment from famine- and debt-ridden Ethiopia has become a more palpable force, as shoppers hesitate before opting for their usual KitKats or Perrier. The question of boycotts and their effectiveness has been endlessly debated. There have been notable successes. When Greenpeace called for a boycott of Shell in June 1995 over the company's decision to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at the bottom of the Atlantic, sales plummeted by 70% in some countries, prompting a dramatic change of heart within days. During the 80s, growing international horror at the injustices of apartheid prompted a proliferation of boycott campaigns. Following an intensive push from Britain's National Union of Students, for example, Barclays' share of the student market dropped 10% within two years. The anti-apartheid movement insisted that a consumer buying South African oranges or wine was as culpable as a multinational investor, and became the first campaign to succeed in encouraging individuals to connect their purchasing power with international politics.

Boycotts need to have a clear outcome and a moral premise to be effective, argues comedian and activist Mark Thomas, who has made two television programmes about Nestle's practices. "An individual has to both feel that they will be making a difference by not buying or joining something, but also have a sense that they would actually think less of themselves if they did," he says. "You can't ever underestimate the ability of consumers to annoy companies. No brand is invincible, and it does seriously affect their image to be seen to be in conflict." The rise of ethical consumerism has been a significant factor in how the tactics of campaigners have changed, he adds. "We have come quite a long way from saying, 'Don't buy that,' to saying, 'Here's a fairly traded alternative.'" Campaigners are becoming far more sophisticated, agrees Scott Clouder, research manager of Ethical Consumer magazine. "Groups campaigning against sweatshops, for example, are extremely equivocal about asking consumers to boycott the likes of Gap or Nike. They would rather encourage the companies to improve conditions for their workers than simply withdraw from the area and create more unemployment."

The Stop Esso campaign, organised by a coalition of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth might have appeared to be an overly ambitious boycott. But it emerged as a result of the public desire for an outlet for their anger and frustration at President Bush's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol process, says climate campaigner Nick Rau. "We identified Esso as the most active anti-Kyoto company behind Bush. It's hard to hit the company unless you target consumers," Rau says. By last June a Mori poll found that the campaign had brought about a 7% drop in the number of regular petrol buyers who said that they used Esso (in Britain), while 47% claimed they would join the boycott if they were asked to do so by environmental groups. "The logic is that you don't need to have 100% success. Levels as low as 5% can have an effect on a company's profits. We are always hearing about public apathy, but the experience of our campaigners at the pumps is that there is a high level of awareness and support, and that people do welcome the opportunity to express themselves," Rau says.