Social Boycott

Abstract

Purpose:

Based on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) aspects, Social Boycott is presented in this paper as an amplification of the Labor Boycott concept.

Design/methodology/approach:

A statistical experiment with 240 individuals has been carried out, so that it could verify if consumers’ perceptions related to the Management Context of Corporate Social Responsibility (MCCSR) of the fictitious Alpha company has considerable impact on the variable Boycott Efficacy (BE), and on the Boycott Intention (BI). The ANOVA has been used to show cause-effect variable relationship.

Findings:

MCCSR impacts on BE (H₁) and BI (H₂). Thus, the Social Consumer’s boycott motivation is driven by the perception of the level of CSR management orientation a company has (anti-corruption internal measures, organizational climate, labor conditions and waste management during production process). While Labor Boycott restricts its analysis to labor conditions, the concept of Social Boycott incorporates all CSR aspects.

Originality/value:

This study presents Social Boycott definition and its insertion on consumer boycott literature - types of boycott and boycott motivations (ideological dimension). Thus, tangential analysis such as experiential dimension and a theoretical political boycott gap are discussed.

Keywords:
Social Boycott; Types of Boycott; Consumer Boycott

Resumo

Objetivo:

Apresentar o conceito de Boicote Social como uma ampliação do conceito de Labor Boycott, incorporando, assim, situações ou contextos relacionados à Responsabilidade Social Corporativa (RSC).

Metodologia:

Um experimento com 240 indivíduos foi conduzido para verificar se características relacionadas à RSC impactam no boicote. Para isso, dois vídeos foram construídos simulando a atuação da empresa fictícia Alfa. Posteriormente, os vídeos foram apresentados ao grupo de controle (com RSC) e ao grupo manipulado (sem RSC). As variáveis dependentes foram Eficácia do Boicote (EB) e Intenção de Boicotar (IB), sendo Contexto Gerencial de RSC da Empresa (CGRSCE) a variável independente. Os dados paramétricos permitiram o uso da Anova.

Resultados:

Confirma-se o impacto de CGRSCE em EB (H₁) e em IB (H₂). Assim, o consumidor considera em seu processo de decisão de compra (boicote) características relacionadas à RSC, como corrupção, clima organizacional do trabalhador da empresa e os impactos da atuação da empresa no meio ambiente e na sociedade. Dessa maneira, o conceito de Boicote Social é mais amplo e atual que Labor Boycott.

Contribuições:

A investigação apresenta a definição de Boicote Social, a sua inserção como um tipo de boicote não discutido na literatura e o seu alinhamento à dimensão ideológica (assim como os boicotes religiosos, ecológicos e de minorias), além de outras contribuições tangenciais a partir da revisão de literatura.

Palavras-chave:
Boicote Social; Tipos de Boicote; Boicote do Consumidor

1 Introduction

Consumers seem to be increasingly more aware of their role as citizens in society, whether through their political engagement in virtual social networks (Loader, Vromen & Xenos, 2014), or by seeking to be heard by companies turning thus, the communication process, which often seemed to be unidirectional - from companies to consumers (McGriff, 2012). And, specifically in this communication process, where consumer empowerment is strong, companies’ marketing and communication strategies must take the possibility of a boycott into consideration, both in the on and offline environments.

On the consumer behavior subject, the boycott is the act of stopping to buy products or services from a company if one does not agree with a specific action, or even with the whole set of actions taken by a company (Friedman, 1999; Klein, Smith & John, 2004). The reasons for the boycott may have roots on ideological questions, as part of a group (John & Klein, 2003); for economic aspects, considering an economic downturn (Barda & Sardianou, 2010), or because they feel exploited from a monopolistic market structure, for example. As pointed out by Friedman (1999), Koku (2011) and Cruz & Botelho (2015), on consumer behavior literature, there are six types of boycott: economical, religious, minority, environmental, relational and labor boycott. Friedman’s definition of labor boycott however, ignores aspects of the management context of a company and their interaction and involvement with other stakeholders, at that time; and consequently disregards the broad concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), almost exclusively focusing on working conditions of employees.

The labor boycott concept brought by Friedman (1999) has its bias in labor relations. Although guided by the management aspect, this boycott substantially explores the question of class struggle and the unbalanced relation between workers in large multinational, overcoming the discussions on the management level. Thus, the discussion of this type of boycott assumes a relevant activist stance towards the act, that may become a mechanism of transformation for companies actually neglecting to offer better labor conditions to their employees. Friedman analysis therefore, does not bring contexts, situations, actors and aspects involving a wider picture of the company›s activities - such as the issues related to their social impact towards the local community, corruption or psychological harassment in the workplace.

In the theoretical formulation of this study, the concept of CSR considers the same bias adopted in Harisson (2015), Retolaza, Ruiz-Roqueñi & San-Jose (2015), Vidaver-Cohen & Bronn (2015), Chakrabarty & Bass (2015), Jia & Zhang (2014) & Boaventura, Silva & Bandeira-deMello (2012) studies, since these authors perceive the CSR considering Stakeholders’ Theory. Thus, CSR is understood as a management process that matches the interests of all actors, whether being directly or indirectly related to an organization, meaning, for example, consumers, society, shareholders and employees, among others (Freeman, 1984; Boaventura & e Fischmann, 2007; Costa, Vieira, Boaventura & Añez, 2013). This bias confirms the rejection of the CSR definition which points it as a set of philanthropic or welfare actions (a commonly found approach in Brazilian literature about the subject).

Regarding consumption, some studies indicate a relationship between consumers’ CSR perceptions and a positive impact on their purchasing behavior (Hoffmann & Hutter, 2012; Neilson, 2010); highlighting thereby that consumers’ rewards companies perceived as high standard CSR oriented, as shown on the buycott theory presented by Friedman (1999). That means that the consumer, by perceiving a socially responsible behavior from a company, tends to buy products or services as a form of reward.

Similarly, other studies have proved how a bad CSR orientation perception can influence consumer behavior as to make him stop buying a product or service (Post, 1985; Curbach, 2008; Wiedmann, Seegebarth, Hennings, Pankalla & Kassubek, 2011; Cruz, 2013a). That way, considering the consumer as a stakeholder, as well as employees, suppliers and the whole society (Fremman, 1984; Retolaza et al, 2015), one of the initial research questions was the possibility of broadening the Labor Boycott concept presented by Friedman (1999) into Social Boycott. This nomenclature amendment extends boycotts analysis’ previously described in marketing literature studies (Hussain & Hussain, 2015; Castelo-Branco & Delgado, 2012; Smith, Palazzo & Bhattacharya, 2010; Palazzo & Basu, 2007) which cannot be defined as well as Labor Boycott - since such studies are not restricted to the labor conditions aspects, but also to the ones involving strategic choices and internal processes issues.

So, the Social Boycott considers, at an early reflection perspective, characteristics related to corporate social responsibility, cutting across the base of the Labor Boycott concept by specifically considering situations involving forced, semi-slavery or child labor. As other identified investigations in literature usually point to consumers’ low CSR orientation perception as a motivating factor for the boycott, only considering the characteristics presented by Friedman in relation to Labor Boycott would seem, in the present contemporary society, to be incomplete - even though the author has robustly presented the concept. Therefore, the Social Boycott concept could consider other features that go beyond labor issues as reasons for the boycott, such as those contained on the CSR approach.

Thus, the objective of this paper is to present the concept of Social Boycott considering labor issues contained in the Labor Boycott concept presented by Friedman (1999), but going beyond that, by relating aspects of a company’s performance regarding corporate social responsibility aspects. In particular, it seeks to: (i) discuss the absence CSR concept related characteristics to the Labor Boycott concept; (ii) consider and statistically test the impact of a low consumer perception of the management context of CSR in a company towards variables such as Boycott Intention (IB) and Boycott Efficacy (BE); and (iii) introduce the concept of Social Boycott in the literature, by associating it to the ideological dimension of the motivations for the boycott.

The relevance of this article for the consumer behavior literature stands on the importance of expanding the concept of Labor Boycott - which ignores consumers’ perceptions on management context of CSR aspects. Besides this, it also makes the possibility of new research related to the types of boycott in the literature to be carried out, updating the contributions already made by the theme of researchers over the past two decades. The next item brings the types of boycott already found in the literature, mainly considering the characteristics of the Labor Boycott concept.

2 Boycott in Consumer Behavior Literature

The word Boycott is used by the media and the population in general to report any kind of repudiation of a person, group or social movements to a situation, context or third party acting (people or organizations). Even in literature there are different perspectives on the use of the term, being both used for (i) expressing generic rejection relations (Culcasi, 2016; Gould, 2013; Schmidmayr, 2013. Viana, 2007) as well as for (ii) analyzing a dismissive attitude by the customer towards a brand, company, products or services (Makaren & Jae, 2016; Albrecht, Campbell, Heinrich, & Lammel, 2013; Cruz, Ross, Braga & Abelha, 2012; Friedman, 1999; 1991).

The concept of boycott used in this study is strictly related to the principles based on the consumer’s perspective, and it is indeed justified because in Marketing, the literature defines boycott as the act of deciding not to buy a product when the company preaches values, concepts or beliefs which are nonetheless distant from the consumer’s. So, the main characteristic of the concept of boycott is the consumer’s choice not to purchase goods or contract services from a company that fails to keep its reputation. This conceptual delimitation is important from the very beginning taking into consideration the fact that there are still two concepts which are closer to boycott (Backlash and Anti-consumerism).

Particularly relating to the backlash, Cruz (2013) deepens his analysis regarding the difference between backlash and boycott in consumer’s behavior research. The author describes the boycott as a type of backlash - once understood as a rejection of an individual to something/someone. Thus, in Marketing, from the perspective of the consumption process, the boycott is the rejection strategy used by the consumer against a company to show their outrage towards them.

The reasons to join a boycott may be different (Klein et al., 2004; 2002; Hoffmann, 2013) between each group of consumers or even among consumers of the same group boycotting the same company, products or services. Friedman (1999) pointed out five types of boycott in one of the first robust studies in the literature on boycott from a consumer perspective: economical, environmental, religious, minorities, relational and labor boycott, cutting across the early important research and reflections agenda published in 1991 in the article named ‘Consumer Boycotts: A Conceptual Framework and Research agenda’. Thus, the author also presented a contrast to the boycott act: the buycott - which means consumers rewarding a company by choosing to purchase their products or services, as far as they meet their own ideologies or values.

Currently, digital platforms that allow the accomplishment of the virtual social networks and interaction between consumers in the virtual space concept provide a large amount of data regarding consumer Boycott. Some studies have already demonstrated consumer engagement to conduct the backlash, trying to influence other consumers to cease purchasing (Cross & Botelho, 2015) or analyzing which kind of feelings drive consumers to post messages regarding the boycott of companies on Twitter (Makarem & Jae, 2016). Although the boycott and backlash concepts are identified in consumer behavior literature, in this study the analysis definition happens through the consumer boycott act. The types of boycott in the literature are presented below.

2.1 Types of Boycott

Friedman (1999) presented an important and robust contribution to literature by systematizing five types of boycott carried out by consumers regarding their individual motivations. Further investigations have focused on the analysis of the boycott from different perspectives, such as: consumer gender difference and the boycott (Klein et al., 2004; Barda & Sardianou); the boycott as an ideological perspective of a group of consumer activists regarding a cause (Culcasi, 2016); the reasons for the engagement of consumers in boycotts (Albrecht et al, 2013.); or the possibility of consumer boycott to be influenced, for example, by famous people in virtual social networks (Cruz et al., 2012).

Since the publication of the book named ‘Consumer boycotts - effecting change through the marketplace and media’ (Friedman, 1999) up to 2015, no contributions related to the theoretical discussion regarding the types of boycott were found. Looking at the types of boycott, Koku (2011) did not deepen his analysis relating to motivations and possible new types of boycott, associating only empirical cases to the types of boycott already existing at that time. It was just with Cross & Botelho (2015) that the update of the types of boycott in consumer behavior literature was brought to discussion while they systematized the concept of relational boycott. Therefore, Table 1 shows the types of boycotts identified in the literature as from their theoretical characteristics, by associating them with some empirical case with high awareness on digital platforms, or also by print and broadcasted media.

Table 1:
Boycott cases happening in and outside Brazil

• Note. * Websites which allow customers to publicly report their experiences and frustrating relationship with a company to which the consumer has established a purchasing relationship. Adapted from “Consumer boycotts: Effecting change trough the marketplace and the media”, de M. Friedman, 1999; “On boycotts organized through the internet”, de P. S. Koku, 2011, Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5, pp. 82-93; “Boicote dos consumidores: Demarcação de conceitos and boicotes no Brasil, de B. P. A. Cruz, 2013b, Revista de Administração do Gestor, 3, pp. 61-73; e “Proposition of relational boycott”, de B. P. A. Cruz e D. Botelho, 2015, The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 13, pp. 315-333.

Specifically regarding the economic boycott, consumers cease buying from a company when they realize that there are exaggerations related to product prices in a particular market (Friedman, 1999; Koku, 2011; Barda & Sardianou, 2010). This would be merely related to the price choice if they were not considered a monopolistic or oligopolistic market structure. Concerning this type of boycott, allegedly, in a monopolistic market structure and depending on the essential nature of the good for the consumer, the economic boycott can be less efficient when analyzed from the perspective of consumer participation in a perfect market. That is, the greater the need for the good, the lower the Boycott behavior intention (Cruz, 2013a). Thus, according to Soule (2009), the concentration of economic power of some companies in an oligopolistic market influences the price of the product offered to the consumer. And, in response to abusive pricing in imperfect markets, consumers can boycott due to economic characteristics not only as a choice or budget constraint situation.

Another type of identified boycott in the literature is the environmental which is driven by consumers’ issues related to the environment - as initially discussed (Friedman 1999). An interesting aspect regarding this kind of boycott is the engagement of consumers and activists in an attempt to make it efficient and with great repercussions in the media. Literature describes and discusses some cases, such as the multinational Shell in Brent Spar (Aaker, 2004) with intangible impacts on the company’s reputation; the Brazilian company Arezzo which suffered retaliation from activists who criticized the use of animal fur in their products on digital platforms (Cruz, 2012); and, in an individual perspective, the influence of consumer personality in an ecological consumer behavior - Boycott (Fraj & Martinez, 2006).

Minority groups within society such as blacks, homosexuals and feminists, among others, organize themselves to boycott companies as well (Friedman, 1991). In the early 1990s, the boycott against Philip Morris was one of the first cases identified in the literature which was conducted by minority groups in society. Along the whole 90s decade, the American gay community boycotted Marlboro (from Philip Morris) due to a donation made to an American senator who presented laws and measures against AIDS funding research and fighting (Offen, Smith & Malone, 2003; Friedman, 1991). Hawkins (2010) considers that the behavior and motivations for this type of boycott by the gay community is quite similar to feminist groups’ motivations, which are also considered a minority.

Empirically, it is clear that virtual social networks (VSNs) seem to empower these minority groups even more, due to the capillarity of these digital platforms. Specifically, in Brazil, feminists have developed boycott campaigns against sexist companies, as well as gay groups have already boycotted artists who position themselves against the LGBTs’ cause. On the other side, there are the religious groups, which some are Christian fundamentalists, who act as leaders influencing their followers’ decisions to boycott in social networks, as pointed by Cruz et al. (2012).

Being the religious people as a general rule, Christian fundamentalists, there is a mismatch of opinions between these individuals and those who defend the LGBTs’ cause. The religious boycott occurs due to the fact that the premises and consumer’s values do not match the actions and values of a company, and thereby a conflict of values arises as shown in some studies (Friedman, 1999; Cruz, 2013b). Gastaldo (2004), for example, mentions the Du Loren company boycott case, which took place after an alleged company’s blasphemous campaign against the Catholic Church in Brazil.

As pointed by Cruz (2016), there were some highlighted cases in Brazil which were related to these Christian fundamentalists and their opposing attitudes against the LGBTs’ cause, as (i) the attempt to boycott C&A Dutch company for launching a Brazilian collection with clothes which do not consider the consumer’s gender; (ii) the Frente Parlamentar Evangélica do Congresso Nacional (a protestant parliamentary group acting in the National Congress) that tried to interfere in a popular soap opera’s script, due to the involvement of a gay couple in the TV production; and (iii) the boycott against Natura, a Brazilian cosmetics company, for sponsoring merchandising campaigns in the same soap opera. Cruz & Ross (2016) surveyed consumers’ intentions towards the “O Boticário” (another Brazilian cosmetic company) communications campaign for 2015’s Valentine’s Day, since it was led by a gay couple. The authors found that, whereas some protestants intended to boycott the company, the gays community intended to buycott - a consumer strategy to reward the company.

An unsuccessful consumer experience with a company also turns into motivation for a boycott, as pointed by Cruz & Botelho (2015). In the authors’ opinion, unsuccessful consumer experiences during or after purchasing a product or service, failure to deliver purchase orders on time, as well as a flawed communication process, which does not prevent quick problem-solving is also motivation for boycott from consumers already impacted by a previously frustrating relationship with a company. The study moreover presents as results, the engagement of these consumers in backlash actions, in which they try to influence third parties (either being people who are close or not) in this type of boycott act.

Labor conditions were consumer’s motivations identified by Friedman (1999) on the Labor Boycott concept. Thus, if a company hires slaves, child or semi-slave labor these actions might be quite shocking for consumers’ ethical values and can influence the decision to cease buying their products and services. Although the author believes that this type of boycott has mainly focused on labor conditions, it also analyzes other issues such as (i) the conflicting interests’ management between employees and companies and (ii) non-representative groups in the market as immigrants, who were found in miserable conditions while exploited by some third-party companies.

Picture 1 presents the boycott as previously described in the literature, considering the relationship between the motivations (on both economical and ideological dimensions), and according to Cruz (2013b). Friedman (1999) opted to present a contrasting option to the boycott - the buycott. Some studies analyze consumer’s action as a way of rewarding a company when they realize that its performance meets their values or ideology, as can be verified in Cuadras-Morató & Raya, 2016), Holland (2016) e Neilson (2010). This article however, is based on consumer act to cease buying - the boycott - although Picture 1 presents Friedman›s typology (1999).

Figure 1:
Types of Boycott on Literature and Consumer Boycott Motivations.

It is also noteworthy that, although the Cuadras-Morató & Raya study (2016) considers that, either the boycott or the buycott could possibly be influenced by political tensions, the authors’ analysis focused in emphasizing the Cava Catalan wine purchasing growth (the buycott) as well as the sales decrease (boycott), on each geographical regions of Spain. Based on data gathered by the Symphony IRI Group, the authors present a robust econometric analysis while checking data from 17,000 wine stores in the Spanish market, in a historical data series built between 2001 and 2012. The analysis however, does not takes the consumer’s perspective or their ideological motivations (politics) into account. Nor does it include the political boycott aspects and analysis. Likewise, existing studies in the literature regarding the boycott and politics have a different bias from the one found in consumer behavior studies and do not analyze consumer motivations but issues surrounding Political Science and International Relations (S.C. Ann. II-35-5300- 2015, 2016; Schwartzman, 2001) or the economy perspective (Ashefelter, Ciccarella, & Shatz, 2007; Chavis & Leslie, 2009; Clerides, Davis, & Michis, 2015).

Even having Chavis and Leslie’s (2009) studies identified, for example, that there was an approximate 13% drop of French wine sales in the United States six months after the onset of France not supporting the US in the Iraq War, econometric analysis in the study did not deepen issues related to consumer’s attitude, behavior or possible motivation, presenting only the result of accumulated demand. Due to the perspectives presented in studies in which the political motives and boycott are discussed, without consumer behavior’s analysis aspects, in Figure 1 the Political Boycott is not considered a kind of boycott. Maybe this is an identified gap in the literature review regarding the types of boycott.

1.2 Labor Boycott or Social Boycott?

Studies involving private organizations/salary/employees’ quality of life linkage are old - starting with Frederich Taylor in the systematization process of the Administration as science with the concept of homo economicus. The Labor Boycott concept, discussed by Friedman (1991), rescues the perspective of excesses adopted by the company while establishing limits for its labor relationship with its employees in different excesses perspectives definition, turning therefore, the consumer, into the potential external transformer agent trying to minimize the damage caused by a company to these workers.

Thus, as shown by Friedman (1999), the labor boycott considers consumer motivation to cease buying items related to the type of labor conditions which often stablish an unbalanced relationship which allows the beginning or even the deepening of the vulnerability situation of these individuals in society or in their relationship with counterparts within and outside a company. By discussing this type of boycott specifically, the author makes his bias regarding the analysis explicit building his arguments on the labor environment, considering, for example: (i) the change of the legal context for workers stemmed from the twentieth century due to the conflicts between workers and companies, being the strikes, good examples of such changes; (ii) the boycott as a form of stimulating losses for businesses should the strikes held by workers been ineffective; or (iii) activists’ and NGO campaigns that support that consumers should cease buying from companies that exploits employees and infringes human rights.

Friedman’s analysis’ perspective lies on a question of management characteristic: the kind of job and its conditions. This way, the strike could be an effective way to solve such problems between employees and companies. In this context, however, employees could be vulnerable and have only partially solved problems. Thus, the consumer as a stakeholder in this context can be an effective agent of change while he can cease buying from companies that violate minimum conditions of health, quality of life of its employees or even overlook other labor issues.

Interdisciplinary studies point issues related to the type and conditions of work of some companies’ employees as an important mechanism to combat (i) child labor (Basu, Chau, & Grote, 2006; Di Maio & Fabri, 2013; Doepke & Zilibotti, 2009) in developing countries with explicit economic and social needs; and (ii) the slave labor - even being structured by different international bodies measures. But generally, the studies empirically address critical development of practices or relate them to the image and reputation of a company (Hunter, Le Menestrel, & De Bettignies, 2008).

Thus, while deepening his analysis on characteristics related to work, Friedman (1999) disregarded at the time other important characteristics that could influence the consumer attitude to boycott, stemmed from their individual perception of the management orientation of a company regarding corporate social responsibility. Studies published in important Management journals demonstrate the impact of a business on society starting with products available to consumers (Pergelova & Angulo-Ruiz, 2013); the bullying relationships generating a disharmonious corporate climate among employees (Martiningo & Smith, 2008); or the analysis of corruption and lack of transparency (Castelo-Branco & Delgado, 2012), for example. Such established characteristics in the literature are found in the CSR discussion, but were not discussed either in the labor boycott nor on other types of boycott concept (minorities, religious, economic, ecological and relational). But, as shown in the literature (Aaker, 2004; Cross, 2013th;. Smith et al, 2010), the attitude towards boycott seems to be the influenced by these characteristics every time the consumer’s perception of a company’s management orientation for CSR aspects is low.

This way, an important knowledge gap was identified as crucial to be considered while analyzing CSR aspects in any of the boycotts types already identified in literature, revisiting thus all types of boycott or identifying a new one. While on one hand, the creation of a new type of boycott would seem reasonable from the innovation perspective, with a new concept, there would be the possibility of questioning the overlapping of characteristics of two types of boycott (labor boycott and social boycott), whereas the Stakeholders Theory (which underlies the concept of CSR) also considers issues related to the work environment and labor relations.

Thus, instead of creating a new kind of boycott and simultaneously considering the labor boycott, it is understood that its expansion to the Social Boycott concept is important in the epistemological perspective of Business Administration (specifically in corporate social responsibility theory), as well as more appropriate to consider other features beyond labor relationships - as discussed by Friedman (1999). The conceptual model for Social Boycott, nomenclature presented here, is found below in Picture 2.

Consumer’s perception regarding a company’s CSR orientation is individual and depends on personal values and experiences, and may also be influenced by demographic variables such as gender, age, education level and income (Cruz, 2013th; Klein et al. 2004; Neilson, 2010), for example. In this sense, the items on the Boycott Efficiency (BE) dimension of Motivations range for Boycott scale, measure the individual consumers’ perception regarding their understanding of the boycott as an effective strategy for a company to change its practices in general or in specific topics. In other words, the items on this scale, originally presented in the study by Klein et al. (2004) and validated in the Brazilian context by Cruz, Pires and Ross (2013), measure consumer perception about the efficiency of their boycott as a way to change a company’s performance. This way, by understanding this variable and linking it to the studies that examine CSR and to the boycott related characteristics (Aaker, 2004; Cruz, 2013a; Nan & Heo, 2007; Smith et al., 2010; Soule, 2009), it is possible to elaborate the first hypothesis in this study:

Figure 2:
Possible Consumer Social Boycott Motivations.

H1: There is a negative relationship between consumer’s CSR perception and his Boycott Efficiency.

Previous studies have examined both consumers’ activism and backlash actions (Albuquerque, Pereira & Bellini, 2011; Swimbergue, Flurry, & Parker, 2011) and as well as a boycott action to a company stemming from different motivations (Cross, 2016; Fraj & Martinez, 2006; Makarem & Jae, 2016; Post, 1985). But it always seems to be difficult to measure Boycott Efficiency - particularly regarding financial losses (either tangible or intangible) because these are private data and their disclosure could cause losses for publicly held companies. In addition, one should also consider that the consumer’s attitude towards boycotting is different from his intention to boycott. Thus, the intention is constructed from the consumer’s attitude (either positive or negative) and his subjective future behavior of acquiring or rejecting a product or service (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In this sense, the intention can turn into a boycott behavior (or not), as some authors consider that the buying behavior occurs after the construction of beliefs and attitudes (Nord & Peter, 1980). Thus, the consumer may have the intention to boycott a company depending on its CSR management orientation, but this does not mean a sure later boycott behavior. Thus, we present this study’s second hypothesis:

H2: There is a negative relationship between consumer’s CSR perception and his intention to boycott.

The empirical validation of the two hypotheses in this study comes from a statistical experiment. In case the null hypotheses are rejected, identifying thus, a difference between the experiment groups, it will be possible to identify that the lack of, or negligence of some aspects related to a company’s CSR orientation can influence consumers to participate in a boycott as an effective strategy to change the company’s practices (H1) and its intention to boycott a company (H2). The methodological approach used to verify these assumptions is presented below.

3 Variables of this investigation

The Management Context of Corporate Social Responsibility (MCCSR) is the independent variable in this research. The Boycott Efficacy (BE) and Boycott Intention (BI) are the dependent variables. BE is a factor (with two items) measured by Boycott Motivations scale (13 items) presented originally by Klein et al. (2004) and validated in a Brazilian context with 281 consumers by Cruz et al. (2013). Despite this validated scale, a 10 points scale was used, in which 1 means total agreement and 10 means total disagreement. Given the fact that BI was originally built for this study, being this variable a seven differential semantic scale, in which 1 means total agreement and 7 means total disagreement (annex 1).

In the construction of the independent variable MCCSR the aspects related to the Stakeholders Theory in the epistemological foundation of RSC were considered, according to its presentation in the previous section. As it can be verified in Table 2, MCCSR was built in the existing difference between a managerial context with positive RSC to the fake company Alfa and a different context with negative RSC.

Table 2:
Aspects related to the variable MCCSR in the study

3.1 Experimental Design

The variable manipulated in the experiment is The Management Context of Corporate Social Responsibility (MCCSR), considering a context of positive RSC and another negative context. The experiment of the factorial type could be conducted with only 30 participants for the control group (positive MCCSR) and 30 participants for the manipulated group (negative MCCSR), according to Campbell and Stanley (1979). Thus, only 60 participants would be necessary, but 240 participants were taken, considering that a wider sample would enhance the reliability of the hypothesis test.

The threats that would put the internal validity of an experiment at risk were considered, as Field and Hole (2003) and Selltiz, Wrighstman and Cook (1976) point out. Thus, in the implementation of the experiment, the following were sought to be controlled: (i) threats associated with order; (ii) threats associated with time; (iii) threats associated with differential mortality; (iv) random distribution of the subjects; (v) maturation, and (vi) instrumentation. As the assumptions were complied, the data collection tool was built, as well as the pre-test and data collection were performed.

3.2 Manipulations of the variable MCCSR and data collection tools

The choice of a video as part of the data collection process was made due to the difficulty of the individuals answers in the moment of the pre-test of the questionnaire with 12 undergraduate students, 04 Master degree students, 04 PhD students and 04 professors (PhD in Business Administration who also work in the Marketing field), with a total of 24 participants. In the pretest, there was a text of approximately one page, what made the participants tired and not interested in reading and answer the questions. Considering that this tiredness could increase the threats associated with time and generate differences in the process of the instrumentation of the experiment, problems that should be minimized in this type of study according to Field and Hole (2003), in order to improve the internal validity of the experiment, a script that considered the theory in a deep and detailed manner was elaborated, so that a video could be recorded in which the manipulated variables were presented in a less tiring and therefore, more realistic way, trying to minimize internal validity problems in the experiment.

As underlined in Table 3 and explicit in Table 2, three situations in the video that relate to the approach of RSC in light of Stakeholders Theory: corporate climate, corruption and socio-environmental issues (impact of the company or suppliers on the society). Getting the script of the video closer to the reality of the respondents (Business Administration undergraduate students) was one of the strategies used to call more attention to the content presented. One of the strategies of proximity with the viewer was the discussion of the working routine of the three actors who had the roles of interns in a company and who would gather to study for a test, making comments of their joys and dreams, along the process, (positive MCCSR) and their disappointments and frustrations (negative MCCSR) while being interns. In this script, other aspects were worked on beyond the managerial orientation to the corporate social responsibility.

Table 3:
Manipulations of the variable MCCSR in the video

Regarding the process of instrumentation of this experiment, the students were previously invited to participate at the moment that the professors authorized the entrance of the researchers in the classroom. Eight undergraduate groups were visited in a single day (evening period) with the objective of enhancing the internal validity of the experiment. The students were informed that it was a five-minute video and that at the end, they would answer a brief questionnaire about that content. The proximity of the topics, plot and soundtrack with the reality of the students may corroborate with the solidity of the data collection. This strategy of using a video was decided to improve the internal validity of the experiment and it becomes more interesting in light of the arguments of Das and Long (2010), as they discuss the importance of novelty in Business Administration studies. Besides that, creativity and its relationship with technology are characteristics of the Marketing studies - such as, for example, Netnography and Videography as strategies of data collection in studies of consumers’ behavior (Belk & Kozinets, 2016).

As Cosby (2009) points out, an experiment in the field of Applied Social Science should contain a question to check for the manipulation to verify if the context which was manipulated by the researchers was noticed by the individual. In this sense, the Annex presents the questionnaire used in this research, being question 14 responsible for checking the manipulation. As for the results of Test T, which analyzes the difference of the averages, the assumptions for the checking of the manipulation for the variable MCCSR was significant (p=0,0000 e F=37,403), highlighting that the hypothesis of equality between the groups with and without RSC cannot be accepted (Table 4).Therefore, the respondents noticed the difference between the two groups, which corroborates with the understanding that the assumption related to the manipulation was perceived by the 240 respondents.

Table 4:
Mean, median, standard error and standard error from the mean for the experiment manipulation check

3.3 Data Analysis

Regarding the data analysis process, SPSS was used as software to conduct the tests in the database. Therefore, a previous Factorial Analysis was conducted to the variable BE presented in the study of Cruz et al. (2013), and the assumptions related to the Factorial Analysis were met; it means, KMO and Alfa de Cronbach the statistics, as well as the Bartlestt test, presented results that do not violate the assumptions of a Factorial Analysis, according to Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tathan (2005).

Subsequently, for the analysis of cause-effect relationship of the variables, the data was verified as to whether they would be parametric or not, as the estimate of the parameters should comply with the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity (Gujarati, 2000), as the assumptions of independence had already been guaranteed in the instrumentation of the experiment. Considering that the data were parametric, Anova was used to verify the cause-effect relationship. Thus, before performing the hypothesis test, the Levene (homoscedasticity) and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (normality) tests were used to verify the compliance of the assumptions in relation to the data, as both tests presented results that supported the non-violation of the assumptions. In conclusion, as the main assumptions were met, the hypothesis test in SPSS was performed.

4 Results

This section presents the results of this field research. Notably, two analysis of variance matrixes is presented, aiming to verify the impact that MCCSR has on dependent variables (BE and BI). The project’s assumptions of BE variable were based on: KMO Test = 0,639; Bartlestt’s Test = 72,516; and Cronbach’s Alpha value = 0,603. These results make clear that BE variable may be used in this experiment as raised by Hair et al., (2005) when referring to the use of a scale.

Regarding statistics aspects, the determination coefficient (R2) is not the only metric to be verified, according to Gujarat (2000), since both the logical and theoretical magnitude should be considered for the statistic effect. The author considers that, if the R2 coefficient is low, it does not mean that the quality of the analysis model is bad, as well as if it is low, it also does not mean that it is good. Thus, here are the statistical analysis results.

4.1 The MCCSR’s Impact on Boycott Efficacy (BE)

As we can see in Table 5, consumers do have intention to punish Alpha company based on their belief that this could change Alpha’s management context and decisions related to CSR. This makes it possible to assure that MCCSR does impact on BE. In other words, the lower the consumers perceive the management context of corporate social responsibility of a company to be, the higher his perception of the real effectiveness of an individual boycott strategy to force this firm to change their CSR orientation is. This helps us understand that the CSR management orientation, or even the lack of it, does influence on the effectiveness of consumers’ perception of their own engagement on a boycott. There is no reason to reject H1 in this study then, as the negative MCCSR group showed a higher Boycott Efficacy than the positive MCCSR group.

Table 5:
Boycott Efficacy Factor’s ANOVA

• Note. a. R²= ,158 (R2 adjusted= ,072)

These results prove that CSR related aspects actually impact consumers’ boycott intention. In other words, there is a strong indication among this group, that the lack of a CSR orientation could determine their boycott decision, based on their attitudes and beliefs. Thereby, reviewing the aspects of the Boycott Effectiveness dimension validated by Cruz et al. (2013) we can conclude that the consumer, as perceiving himself as a boycotter, could still consider that gathering others could make the boycott stronger. They also seem to become more motivated to boycott a company with low MCCSR in their own perception.

4.2 The MCCSR’s Impact on Boycott Intention (BI)

As we can see on Table 6, H₂ is not rejected in this study. Thus, there is statistical difference between groups with or without MCCSR on boycott intention as an individual strategy to punish the Alpha company. The p-value (around zero) evidences that consumers have intention to boycott Alpha when this company did not present a CSR context. In particular, consumers have considered labor conditions, the Alpha’s impact on society (as to corruption, work corporate climate and disposal of garbage, e.g.).

These results show the same direction as others such as Aaker (2004) Smith, Palazzo & Bhattacharya (2010), Soule (2009), Nan & Heo (2007) e Cruz (2013a) which have presented in a theoretical perspective the CSR company context influencing on consumer intention to boycott. The experiment results in this investigation show the lower the consumer perceives the management context of corporate social responsibility of a company to be, the higher their boycott intention. However, we cannot affirm the impact of this intention on future consumer boycott behavior.

Table 6:
Boycott Intention Variable’s ANOVA

• Note. a. R²= ,144 (Adjusted R Squared = ,118)

The rejection of these two alternative hypotheses (H₁ and H₂) in this sample corroborates our idea to amplify the labor boycott concept to social boycott. Manipulating MCCSR variable incorporating CSR Theory concepts, the impact of these concepts was verified on BE and BI. Thus, it is possible to affirm CSR aspects based on Stakeholders’ Theory impact on boycott (intention or behavior). In this way, we highlight labor boycott as limited in comparison to social boycott. Next section presents the social boycott definition.

4.3 The Concept of Social Boycott on Consumer Behavior Literature

On the MCCSR variable aspects of CSR based on Stakeholders’ Theory were considered. The MCCSR’s impact on BE and BI variables shows us labor boycott concept adopted by Friedman (1999) is incomplete because there are no CSR characteristics - only labor conditions context were analyzed on Friedman’s consumer behavior perspective. Rejecting H₁ and H₂ here, MCCSR’s impact on Boycott Efficacy (BE) and Boycott Intention (BI) was verified. Therefore, consumers have boycott intention or perceive boycott as a way to change company behavior related to negative CSR context, highlighting the influencing of CSR on consumer boycott. These results are not superficial or exploratory as others (Cruz, 2013a; Smith, Palazzo & Bhattacharya, 2010; Soule, 2009) which were concerned to just comment on the relationship between CSR and boycott.

In other words, analyzing H₁, the consumer considers that boycott effectiveness depends on his participation and participation of others consumers and together they can make pressure to change the negative MCCSR company behavior. Despite this, the lower the consumer perceives the management context of corporate social responsibility of a company to be, the higher the probability of boycott strategy is used as a way to change their CSR orientation.

Regarding H₂, a negative MCCSR context consumer has intention to boycott a company. Intention and behavior in consumer field are different concepts (Nord & Peter, 1980; Fishbein & Ajsen, 1975) and because of this, we cannot suggest in a real behavior decision context that consumers will have a boycott behavior. To measure real boycott behavior, we should ask consumers about previous boycott experiences related to some company or brand - it was not possible here in a quasi-experiment method. However, the consumer’s intention to boycott a company due to its neglectfulness to follow CSR guidelines is empirically shown in this study. The consumer carries out self-reflection towards the behavior of a company and chooses to boycott, as a form of punishment, the one that is not in accordance with CSR valeues and beliefs.

In Brazil, Cruz (2013a) made propositions of relationships between consumer boycott and CSR. However, this author presented just a theoretical perspective and there were not empirically evidences about CSR and boycott (just ideas). Therefore, results reveal in this quasi-experiment conduced here that social boycott emerges on boycott theory, as we can highlight under:

The Social Boycott occurs when a consumer ceases to buy products or services from a company because his personal values, beliefs and ideology conflict with a negative management context of corporate social responsibility. Therefore, when consumer analyzes some company context where workers do not have a good work corporate climate (moral harassment, semi or slave job) involving labor conditions; when company makes part of corruption context (as to embezzling money or money laundering); when company is not worried about its impact on society influencing citizen well-being; she/he has an intention to punish that company. This intention will able to become a consumer behavior if consumer ceases to buy in a real situation.

Thus, the Social Boycott concept presented here does not consider the labor characteristics in Labor Boycott (overburdened workers, work harassments and abuses) discussed by Friedman (1999) but amplifies this theoretical discussion related to consumer motivations. As we could see, consumers boycott a company because a negative management context of corporate social responsibility.

The context and set of features involving social and labor boycott are the same in respect of analysis: the managerial lócus and its specifically details on company business management. Friedman (1999) considered labor conditions which are a response of managerial decisions. Therefore, the CSR orientation considers features related to workers (Crane, McWillians, Matten, Moon & Siegel, 2008), in addition to other aspects of business theories. Here, we have the most important argument to amplify Friedman’s perspective (labor boycott) to social boycott on consumer behavior theory: the managerial perspective involves some company phenomena, such as internal processes, administrative procedures, and routines, which neglect corporate social responsibility. In other words, while at (i) religious and minority groups boycotts a CEO speech or advertises can affect consumer boycott; (ii) at economic boycott there are some market characteristics (monopoly, e.g.) and price influencing consumer ceases to buy; and (iii) ecological boycott consumer analyses the company impacts on environmental; on social and relational boycotts consumers’ motivations are built by managerial context. In this managerial consumer perspective, Social boycott considers the company’s negligence of CSR; and relational boycott considers the negligence a good relationship and communication among company and consumers.

As we could see at Figure 2, RSC theory aggregates labor boycott features. Thus, it is possible to understand that Social Boycott definition can explain better consumer boycott phenomena (intention or behavior) related to corporate social responsibility, since labor boycott was defined highlighting just worker labor conditions. This way, social boycott concept is relevant because it contributes to consumer behavior literature - specifically, types of consumer boycott.

5 Conclusion

The process of empirical investigation which were carried out here proved that the characteristics related to the consumer’s perception about managerial orientation to CSR of a company may have influence on the consumer’s intention to boycott, as well as on the comprehension that this individual action of boycotting a company can, to a certain extent, contribute to the changing of actions of a company. Taking into consideration that a quasi-experiment is a method that makes it viable to compare variables which are manipulated when the relationship of cause and effect is verified, it is possible from this study’s perspective to empirically understand that the perception of the consumer’s CSR influences the boycott. And, as mentioned before, the concept of labor boycott lies within the theory of CSR, then the amplification of the Social Boycott concept is chosen, avoiding the creation of a new type of boycott in the literature, based on the fact that its analysis perspectives are about the same - the inner actions related to workers add up to the external actions which may have impact on society.

Therefore, while labor boycott restricts its analysis to labor conditions only, the concept of social boycott incorporates such characteristics but it goes beyond also considering: (i) the work corporate climate (which is not necessarily slavery work situation, child or semi-slavery but it can be a type of harassment - moral or sexual); (ii) the consumer’s possibility of getting to know that a company is engaged to other corrupt firms through their supply chain, indirectly contributing to corruption; (iii) the impact of its actions on society in choices related to the production process of the waste management; (iv) and the dealing with nearby communities in social economic vulnerability.

The presentation of Social Boycott concept, as an amplification of Friedman’s concept (1999), updates the literature as far as CSR and boycotts are concerned, bringing this discussion to more current issues - once the consumer seems to be more critical about various actions and contexts of a company’s behavior. This way, analysis shown in this paper presents impacts on the consumer boycott theory as presented below.

5.1 Theoretical Implications

The findings of this study have impact on types of boycott previously found in the literature. Cruz’s study (2013b) developed the dimensions in which types of boycott could be aligned with consumers’ motivations when opting to boycott: the economic and ideological dimensions. The economic boycott would be the only type of boycott in accordance to the economic dimension, being its motivations related to economic issues (such as abusive practice of price or monopolistic market) for instance, the setting that would motivate a consumer to boycott. On the other hand, the ideological dimension suggests that motivations are built up based on the consumer’s values, beliefs, assumptions and even dogmas, being therefore in accordance with the religious, ecologic, minority groups, and now, the social boycott. Types of boycott, which form the ideological dimension, happen due to the ideological conflicts and the consumers’ assumptions about the running of a company, services or products, and a lack of alignment between the consumers’ assumptions and the actions of a company.

Based on the fact that social boycott goes hand in hand with the ideological dimension, the consumers’ motivations are created based on some characteristics of labor conditions but expended when the activities impact of a company is considered with its stakeholders (direct or indirect ones). In other words, the consumers might take into account for example, (i) corruption, and its consequences in the company, in the market and in society; (ii) the bosses’ misuse of power towards workers, bringing about a disharmonious work corporate climate which can be extended to the supply chain; (iii) the negative impact on society because of the acting of a company (generating sound pollution, unfair appropriation of local knowledge leading to uneven economic competition between locals and companies; or, financing of militias). The social boycott motivation only exists because of a shock between ideology, values, beliefs, the consumer’s assumptions and the reckless acting of a company regarding its corporate social responsibility.

Besides the fact that the amplification of this concept and the confirmation that the low perception of MCCSR may influence the boycott, they are two marginal contributions to the general aim of this paper which can be presented here as they impact on the theory of consumer’s boycott.

The first one is a possibility of identifying some characteristics which motivate consumers in relation to a specific type of boycott - the political one. The revision of literature about political boycott has made it evident that there are country motivations to stop buying goods from other ones because of differences in external policies or in relation to human rights (Chavis & Leslie, 2009; Schwartzman, 2001), but there is also a microanalysis which involves consumer’s motivations deciding on their own being influenced by public or private agents. Thus, deepening the understanding of motivations which lead to political boycott and presenting this type of boycott in the consumer’s behavior literature, it is possible to propose a new type of boycott in this perspective.

The second tangential contribution is the reflection process related to the non-adherence of the relational boycott concept to the dimensions presented by Cruz (2013b). That means, if the relational boycott has as motivations the consumer’s experience with a company, these motivations are not based on economic or ideological issues. In this aspect, as shown Figure 3, it is also necessary to consider the experiential dimension so that the relational boycott can be analyzed, considering Cruz’s contribution (2013b). Figure 3 highlights the contributions of all these theoretical implications.

Figure 3:
Types of boycott in the literature and the dimensions and motivations to boycott.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

In relation to limitations and relevance of this study, it would be naive to consider that this paper is not limited as far as methodology is concerned. The first limitation is about the sample which was by conveniently held with Business Administration graduate students, and despite being consumers, the ideal thing would be the conduction of this research out of the academic environment. The second one is regarded to the experiment method which aims to generalize results; but at the same time, this limitation is suitable to the objective of this research as its targets was to verify the difference among groups of consumers who were influenced by MCCSR variable (manipulated group, negative MCCSR) and those who were part of a control group (positive MCCSR). However, considering that the literature goes towards the consumer boycott engagement (Klein et al., 2004), the boycott intention and the backlash (Cruz, 2013a) including characteristics related to educational level, the knowledge regarding an issue, analyzed through this perspective, may lead to the understanding of the choice of the individuals in this sample as a strategy which combines the theory (educational level) with the possibilities of data collection.

Even with these limitations, this paper presents us with contributions to the Marketing area. The first of them is focused on the impact analysis on the consumer’s perception in relation to CSR boycott. For instance, Aaker (2004), Smith, Palazzo & Bhattacharya (2010), Soule (2009) e Nan & Heo (2007) adopted a tangential perspective when CSR was analyzed; even Cruz’s study (2013) in Brazil, which proposed the relationship between CSR and boycott lies on the theoretical field of propositions without having an empirical analysis of the ideas presented. In this regard, when presenting empirical results using the CSR approach (it is not tangential and simply theoretical) this paper brings implications to the study of consumer boycott, not only in the empirical presentation of the research results (the consumer’s perception of impact regarding the relation between MCCSR and boycott), but also in relation to reconfiguration of the types of boycott approached in the literature, when discussing and presenting the concept of social boycott. The second relevant contribution of this paper is about its general objective. When the labor boycott concept is broadened, it is bearable to not only update the literature in relation to a concept it was established in 1999 but mainly align this concept with the area of consumer’s behavior with the managerial orientation of companies concerning CSR.

As boycott studies are still underexplored in the consumer’s behavior literature, the third contribution emerges from issues related to future research, with the use of research questions such as: (i) Although there are motivations based on consumer ideology, would social boycott have more impact on the boycott intention than on the ecological one? (ii) Would there be additional characteristics related to CSR (besides the ones analyze here) which could be considered while developing the theoretical concept of social boycott afterwards? If so, which ones? (iii) What are the individual and group consumer motivations who use virtual social networks in order to try to engage other people in the social boycott? (iv) Would the experiential dimension here shown in Figure 3, which considers relational boycott, be composed of another type of boycott - the one based on the user’s experience with the product or service? (v) Does the political boycott exist from a consumer’s perspective? If so, which would be its main characteristics? These and other research questions may be explored by researchers who have interest in these new concepts presented in this investigation.

To sum up, according to the Das & Long (2010), this paper meets some features of a well-structured exploratory research in the Business Administration field, such as: (i) novelty - the creation of a video to present the data collection concept and strategy; (ii) relevance - the impact on the literature and strictness and validity - the experiment was controlled and its process of instrumentation was drawn in order to preserve the internal validity and methodological strictness throughout the process.

Referências

• Aaker, D. J. (2004). Leaveraging the corporate brand. California Management Review, 46(3), 6-18.
• Albrecht, C.-M., Campbell, C., Heinrich, D., & Lammel, M. (2013). Exploring why consumers engage in boycotts: Toward a unified model. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(2), 180-189.
• Albuquerque, F. M. F., Pereira, R. C. F., & Bellini, C. G. P. (2011). Do repertório de comportamentos do consumidor: retaliação e vingança no ciberespaço. Revista de Administração da USP, 46(2), 135-149.
• Ashenfelter, O., Ciccarella, S., & Shatz, H. J. (2007). French wine and the U.S. boycott of 2003: Does politics affect commerce? Journal of Wine Economics, 2(1), 55-74.
• Barda, C., & Sardianou, E. (2010). Analysing consumers’‘activism’ in response to rising prices. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(2), 133-139.
• Basu, A. K., Chau, N. H., & Grote, U. (2006). Guaranteed Manufactured without Child Labor: The economics of consumer boycotts, social labeling and trade sanctions. Review of Development Economics, 10(3), 466-491.
• Belk, R., & Kozinets, R. V. (2016). Videography and netnography. In K. Kubacki (Ed.), Formative research methods in social marketing: Inovative methods to gain consumer insights (Chap. 12). London: Springer.
• Boaventura, J. M. G., Fischmann, A. A. (2007). Um método para cenários empregando stakeholder analysis: Um estudo no setor de automação comercial. Rausp, 42(2), 141-154.
• Boaventura, J. M. G., Silva, R. S., & Bandeira-de-Mello, R. (2012). Performance financeira corporativa e performance social corporativa: Desenvolvimento metodológico e contribuição dos estudos empíricos. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 23(60), 232-245.
• Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1979). Delineamentos experimentais e quase-experimentais de pesquisa São Paulo: EPU - EDUSP.
• Castelo Branco, M., & Delgado, C. (2012). Business, social responsibility, and corruption. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(4), 357-365.
• Chakrabarty, S., & Bass, A. E. (2015). Comparing virtue, consequentialist, and deontological ethics-based corporate social responsibility: Mitigating microfinance risk in institutional voids. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 487-512.
• Chavis, L., & Leslie, P. (2009). Consumer boycotts: The impact of the Iraq war on French wine sales in U.S. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 7(1), 37-67.
• Clerides, S., Davis, P., & Michis, A. (2015). National sentiment and consumer choice: The Iraq war and sales of US products in Arab countries. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 117(3), 829-851.
• Cosby, P. C. (2009). Methods of behaviour research (5a ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Costa, B. K., Vieira, S. F. A., Boaventura, J. M. G., & Añez, M. E. M. (2013). A influência dos stakeholders na estratégia de órgãos públicos: O caso da Diretoria de Turismo de Guarulhos/SP. Revista Gestão Organizacional, 5(1), 28-40.
• Crane, A., McWillians, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cruz, B. P. A. (2012). The netnography in the consumers’ boycott studies: The Brazilian company Arezzo case? Revista de Administração do Gestor, 2(2), 119-146.
• Cruz, B. P. A. (2013a). Boicote de consumidores em relação à responsabilidade social corporativa. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 7(1), 19-33.
• Cruz, B. P. A. (2013b). Boicote dos consumidores: Demarcação de conceitos e boicotes no Brasil. Revista de Administração do Gestor, 3(1), 61-73.
• Cruz, B. P. A. (2016). Curtir, comentar, compartilhar: Redes Sociais e TV no Brasil Curitiba: Editora CRV.
• Cruz, B. P. A., & Botelho, D. (2015). Proposition of relational boycott. The Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 13(3), 315-333.
• Cruz, B. P. A., Pires, R. J. M., Jr., & Ross, S. D. (2013). Gender difference in the perception of guilt in consumer boycott. Review of Business Management, 15(49), 504-523.
• Cruz, B. P. A. & Ross, S. D. (2016). The Buycott Intention analyzed from sexual orientation and religion: The O Boticário’s Brazilian case. Almanaque Interdisciplinar de Pesquisa, 1(1), 04-31.
• Cruz, B. P. A., Ross, S., Braga, J. J. M., & Abelha, D. M. (2012). Influência de brasileiros famosos no boicote de consumidores que usam redes sociais virtuais. Revista de Negócios, 17(3), 91-110.
• Cuadras-Morató, C., & Raya, J. M. (2016). Boycott or buycott?: Internal politics and consumer choices. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy, 16(1), 185-218.
• Culcasi, K. (2016). Engaging in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) debate. Geographical Review, 106(2), 258-263.
• Curbach, J. (2008). Zwischen boykott und CSR: Eine beziehungsanalyse zu unternehmen und NGOs. Zeitschrift Wirtschafits - und Unternehmensethik, 9(3), 368-391.
• Das, H., & Long, B. S. (2010). What makes management research interesting? An explorary study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 127-144.
• Di Maio, M., & Fabbri, G. (2013). Consumer boycott, household heterogeinity, and child labor. Journal of Population Economics, 26(4), 1609-1630.
• Doepke, M., & Ziilbotti, F. (2009). Do international labor standards contribute to the persistence of the child-labor problem? Journal of Economic Growth, 15(1), 1-31.
• Field, A., & Hole, G. (2003). How to design and reports experiments London: Sage Publications.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
• Fraj, E., & Martinez, E. (2006). Influence of personality on ecological consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 5(3), 167-181.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach Boston: Pitman Publishing Inc.
• Friedman, M. (1991). Consumer boycottes: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Social Issues, 47(1), 149-168.
• Friedman, M. (1999). Consumer boycotts: Effecting change trough the marketplace and the media New York: Routledge.
• Gastaldo, E. (2004). Publicidade e movimentos sociais no Brasil: Uma reflexão sobre políticas de representação. Revista de Economía Política de lãs Tecnologías de la Informácion y Comunicación, 6(1), 1-13.
• Gould, R. (2013). To Boycott or Not? A moral conundrum. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 25(4), 584-589.
• Gujarat, D. (2000). Econometria básica São Paulo: Pearson Education.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Análise multivariada de dados Porto Alegre: Bookman.
• Harrison, J. S. (2015). Stakeholder theory as an ethical approach to effective management: Applying the theory to multiple contexts. Review of Business Management, 55(17), 858-869.
• Hawkins, R. A. (2010). Boycotts, buycotts and consumer activism in a global context: An overview. Management & Organizational History, 5(2), 123-143.
• Hoffmann, S., & Hutter, K. (2012). Carrotmob as a new form of ethical consumption. The nature of the concept and avenues for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 35(2), 215-236.
• Hoffmann, S. (2013). Are boycott motives rationalizations? Journal of Consumer Behavior, 12(3), 214-222.
• Holland, J. (2016). Social impacts “buycotts”: A tool for inovation, impact, and engagement to teach integrated marketing communications. Marketing Education Review, 26(1), 33-38.
• Hunter, M. L., Le Menestrel, M., & De Bettignies, H-C. (2008). Beyond control: Crisis strategies and stakeholder media in the danone boycott of 2001. Corporate Reputation Review, 11(4), 335-350.
• Hussain, J. S., & Hussain, J. (2015). A conceptual framework on the power of consumers in pushing corporate social responsibility towards sustainable development. Indian Journal of Corporate Governance, 8(1), 68-83.
• Jia, M., & Zhang, Z. (2014). How does the stock market value corporate social performance? When behavioral theories interact with stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3), 433-465.
• John, A., & Klein, J. (2003). The boycott puzzle: Consumer motivations for purchase sacrifice. Management Science, 49(3), 1196-1209.
• Klein, J. G. (2002). Exploring motivations for participation in a consumer boycott. Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1), 363-369.
• Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why we boycott: Consumer motivations for boycott participation. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 92-109.
• Koku, P. S. (2011). On boycotts organized through the internet. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5(6), 82-93.
• Loader, B. D., Vromen, A., & Xenos, M. A. (2014). The networked young citizen: Social media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 143-158.
• Makaren, S. C., & Jae, H. (2016). Consumer boycott behavior: An exploratory analysis of twitter feeds. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 50(1), 193-223.
• Martiningo, A., Fº., & Siqueira, M. V. S. (2008). Assédio moral e gestão de pessoas: Uma análise do assédio moral nas organizações e o papel da área de Gestão de Pessoas. Revista de Administração, 9(5), 11-34.
• McGriff, J. A. A. (2012). Conceptual topic in marketing management: The emerging need for protecting and managing brand equity: The case of online consumer brand boycotts. International Management Review, 8(1), 49-54.
• Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) iniatives. The Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.
• Neilson, L. (2010). Boycott or buycott? Understanding political consumerism. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9(3), 214-227.
• Nord, W., & Peter, J. P. (1980). A behavior modification perspective on marketing. Journal of Marketing, 44(2), 36-47.
• Offen, N., Smith, E. A., & Malone, R. E. (2003). From adversary to target market: The ACT-UP boycott of Philip Morris. Tobacco Control, 12, 203-207.
• Palazzo, G., & Basu, K. (2007). The ethical backlash of corporate branding. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(4), 333-346.
• Pergelova, A., & Angulo-Ruiz, L. F. (2013). Marketing and corporate social performance: Steering the whell towards marketing’s impact on societey. Social Business, 3(3), 201-224.
• Post, J. E. (1985). Assessing the Nestle boycott: Corporate accountability and human rights. California Management Review, 27(2), 113-133.
• Retolaza, J. L., Ruiz-Roqueñi, M., & San-Jose, L. (2015). An innovative approach to stakeholder theory: Application in Spanish transnational corporations. Review of Business Management, 55(17), 1007-1020.
• S.C. Ann. II-35-5300 - 2015. (2016). First amendment: Political boycotts: South Carolina disqualifies companies supporting BDS from receiving state contracts. Harvard Law Review, 129(7), 2029-2038. Retrieved from http://harvardlawreview.org/2016/05/s-c-code-ann-11-35-3500-2015/
  » http://harvardlawreview.org/2016/05/s-c-code-ann-11-35-3500-2015/
• Schwartzman, K. (2001). Can international boycotts transform political systems? The cases of Cuba and South Africa. Latin America Politics & Society, 43(2), 115-146.
• Schmidmayr, M. (2013). Conceptual reflections on boycott: Understanding and interpreting boycotts in the Arab world. Alternatives Turkish Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 20-34.
• Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L. S., & Cook, S. W. (1976). Research methods in social relations New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Smith, N. C., Palazzo, G., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2010). Marketing consequences: Stakeholder marketing and supply chain corporate social responsibility issues. Business Ethics Quartely, 20(4), 617-641.
• Soule, S. A. (2009). Contention and corporate social responsibility Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
• Swimberghe, K., Flurry, L. A., & Parker, J. M. (2011). Consumer religiosity: Consequences for consumer activism in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 453-467.
• Viana, M. T. (2007). Da greve ao boicote: Os vários significados e as novas possibilidades das lutas operárias. Revista da Faculdade de Direito da UFMG, 50, 239-264.
• Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Bronn, P. S. (2015). Reputation, responsibility, and stakeholder support in Scandinavian firms: A comparative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 49-64.
• Wiedmann, K-P., Seegebarth, B., Hennings, N., Pankalla, L., & Kassubek, M. (2011). A customer perceived value perpective on motivations underlying boycott participation. In S. M. Noble & C. H. Noble, Marketing 2011: Delivering value in turbulent times (pp. 117-118, AMA Educator’s Proceedings, Vol. 22). Chicago: American Marketing Association.

• 6
  Evaluation process: Double Blind Review

• Supporting Agencies: FAPERJ - Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

Supposing you are interested in buying an Alpha notebook. Considering the context of the company presented in the video you have just seen, please answer the items below. Note that if you choose 10, it means you completely agree with the statement, and if you choose 1 you completely disagree with it. As for example, would you feel uncomfortable to buy Dutt 500 with Alfa’s Social responsibility actions? If you feel uncomfortable, you can choose around 10. If you feel comfortable, please choose around 1.

Annex
Survey

Contribution of each author:

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Jan-Mar 2017

History

• Received
  24 Nov 2015
• Accepted
  08 Sept 2016