Boycotting Companies as a Progressive: Ethical Considerations and Practical Choices
Choosing which companies to boycott based on ethical and social considerations can be a complex decision. As a progressive or liberal, one might find themselves questioning which companies align with their values and which companies align less with their beliefs. This article explores the rationale behind boycotting certain companies and the practical steps to make ethical decisions in consumer behavior.
Understanding Ethical Considerations
One prominent example that often comes up in discussions regarding ethical consumption is Ben Jerry’s. While Ben Jerry’s is widely known for its progressive stance and social activism, the author finds themselves torn between supporting the company and rejecting its partnership with Rage Against the Machine, an politically charged band. This conundrum highlights the complexity of aligning one's personal values with company practices.
Boycotting Companies with Intolerant Policies
Another company that stands out is Hobby Lobby. Under the leadership of its chairman, David Green, the company has been accused of intolerant practices. Green is known for his staunch opposition to women's rights, his support for religious doctrine over individual freedoms, and his efforts to implement a Christian theocracy. His business practices are deeply rooted in his religious beliefs, and he financially supports only Christian evangelical politicians, contributing to a culture of hate and intolerance. Such policies have led to a call for boycotting this company out of business, as many believe that supporting such a company contradicts core progressive values.
Avoiding 'A-holes' Leadership
As a general rule, the author avoids companies and organizations led by or run by individuals described as 'a-holes.' The rationale behind this is rooted in the belief that such leadership impacts the company's culture and success in the long term. It is often observed that respectful leaders, regardless of their political orientation, tend to foster more positive and successful work environments. On the other hand, leaders who impose their biases on employees, suppliers, and customers tend to alienate and harm the business.
Practical Choices and Reverse Boycotts
When it comes to making choices, the author emphasizes practical considerations over ideological ones. For instance, Tesla is often criticized for its aggressive labor practices and anti-union stance. However, the author’s decision to avoid Tesla does not stem from its stance on sexuality or other social issues, but rather from the company’s treatment of its employees and its lack of respect for workers' rights. Another example is the author's purchase of a Chevrolet Traverse during a labor strike at GM, despite the brand not being associated with a specific political or social stance. This decision is based on ethical considerations regarding labor practices and practical considerations regarding the availability of the product.
Meanwhile, the author does not boycott Bud Light simply because of its social stance on LGBTQ issues. Instead, the decision to avoid purchasing Bud Light is personal, stemming from the author's preference for other beer brands. Similarly, the author will continue to support companies like Budweiser, as it meets their taste preferences, even if a conservative individual might have issues with it. This approach to ethical consumption, the author terms a 'reverse boycott': buying a product despite one’s political or social reservations about the company.
Ultimately, the choice to boycott companies is a deeply personal decision that balances ethical considerations with practical choices. It is essential to make informed decisions that reflect one's values while considering the broader impact on the business and society.