Commentary: Boycotting can lead to unintended consequences

Editor’s note: The following essay was co-written by a student in Erik Stanley’s anthropological writing class at Eastern New Mexico University.

Throughout recent history, consumers have supported businesses that align with their beliefs. Many have gone as far as boycotting businesses that do not support their views.

A quick scroll through social media will result in finding posts encouraging people to support or boycott local businesses based on the owner’s personal beliefs.

However, this practice while seemingly virtuous, is capable of causing economic harm to our community.

Economic boycotts have become increasingly frequent with controversial debates surrounding abortion and gay rights currently dividing our community. The controversy over abortion rights launched a firestorm of churches and citizens exalting pro-life businesses while condemning pro-choice businesses. Similarly, organizers and participants in the Pride 23 event set to take place in June have launched a similar movement, urging people to consider avoiding businesses that do not support LGBTQ+ rights.

What are we trying to achieve? On one hand, this flexing of consumer power could be an attempt at moral capitalism, in which people spend money at businesses that align with their worldviews. However, this practice can also be more sinister, with consumers attempting to put people they disagree with out of business.

The effect that ethic-based boycotts can have on a business has recently been seen, particularly on the national stage. For example, Anheuser-Busch’s stock fell 17% (though it seems to be recovering) after conservative commentators called for a boycott of Bud Light following the brand hiring of transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney as a spokesperson.

Others have chosen to avoid corporations like Amazon or Disney for their business practices that some consumers see as unethical. Although these national boycotts may not directly affect our community, the financial pain of boycotting local businesses will certainly be felt.

While many may assert that the moral health of the community is more important than financial considerations, no one can argue against the importance of small businesses to our local economy. According to Forbes, small businesses are the largest growing source of new jobs, accounting for 62% of new jobs within the last three decades.

Small businesses also put more money back into the local economy than comparably larger businesses. Yet, in today’s difficult economy, small businesses are threatened.

It is no secret that an astonishing number of small businesses were lost since 2020. According to the New York Times, small businesses are struggling more than large corporations with astronomical inflation.

Although the desire to support companies that align with our beliefs is admirable, boycotting small businesses can be harmful to the economy of our community. Even if a business owner has politics opposed to our own, they still provide a valuable resource to us in an underserved area.

If we drive these companies out of business, we risk not only losing local jobs, but also jeopardize the long-term economic future of the region.

Rather than shun those businesses we don’t agree with, we should instead use these interactions as a space for dialogue with our neighbors. Having respectful conversations and open communication with business owners with differing views can lead to a greater understanding of each other’s perspectives.

Ultimately, boycotting small businesses can have unintended consequences and harm the very people we are trying to protect. When spending money on goods and services, it’s important to find ways to support our values while also fostering a healthy and thriving local economy.

Caitlyn Streseman is an undergraduate student in archaeological anthropology at Eastern New Mexico University. Erik Stanley is an associate professor of cultural anthropology at ENMU.