Should Boycotting Continue?

From looking for Room for Debates to read, I came across “When do Consumer Boycotts Work?”, where this debate discussed about the importance of boycotts especially against popular companies such as Starbucks and Uber. The arguments were set between boycotts actually serving a purpose along with being meaningful if the boycotts were supporting movements, and boycotts in general are useful as it frequently confronts consumer ideals and allows the companies to reflect upon their morals. Some good examples of boycotts are the recent boycotts against Starbucks, Uber, and Amazon.

Starbucks was under fire as minorities began to discover the names on their cups were written as slurs or insults. Uber was under fire due to its CEO and the CEO’s ignorance regarding the Trump bans on refugees as the CEO prioritized Uber’s profits over the community. Customers of Amazon realized the poor working conditions of the employees as the workers weren’t receiving enough breaks along with working in poor, humid conditions. From the boycotts against these companies did not result with the conclusions of everyone’s exact expectations, except for Uber. Starbucks resulted with an investigation into their employees, simply gave coupons and discounts to the customers that were mocked, and finally decided to give their employees a day of the year for racial training. Amazon continues a wealthy company as the boycotting aligned with Amazon Prime Day, but the boycotting didn’t affect the company as expected nor were the workers given better treatment. Uber, on the other hand, had their CEO resign after people began flocking to Lyft’s services instead along with heavy criticism of the CEO.

Should boycotts still be allowed if they don’t direct the changes that people expect them to make, or should people continuously boycotts for companies to change their algorithms and reflect upon their morals?

– Danielle Mecano