Boycotting companies is effective against abuse, say readers – 03/03/2023 – Reader’s Panel

Boycotts of products marketed by companies that commit illicit or unethical acts are effective in affecting the profitability and image of the brands involved, in the opinion of the majority of readers who responded to the poll by Sheet about the subject.

Many, however, consider that the impact of blockades is only temporary if they are not accompanied by punitive actions by the responsible bodies.

In recent days, several campaigns have appeared on social networks proposing boycotts of wines and grape juice produced by wineries in Rio Grande do Sul where workers were kept in a situation analogous to slavery. Workers were subjected to workloads of 15 hours a day and suffered punishments such as electric shocks and beatings, in addition to racist offenses.

The Aurora, Cooperativa Garibaldi and Salton wineries initially said that the workers were outsourced and that they were unaware of the conditions to which they were subjected in the grape harvest. After the repercussions of the case, the Aurora winery apologized and said it was ashamed.

“Two hundred workers in a situation of slavery, it is not possible to accept, regardless of any grade. We are in times of reviewing various attitudes in our daily lives. It is a duty; we all need to stop reproducing structural racism, especially if we are white”, he pondered Bachelor of Law Roni Heverson Donizeti, 39, from Curitiba (PR).

“The boycott could affect the only sensitive ‘organ’ of a company, billing,” said electronics technician Ricardo Candido de Araujo, 61, from Taboão da Serra (SP).

“Company seeks profit, and profit presupposes selling something. A drop in profit as a consumer reaction to unethical conduct can lead the company to review policies and adopt socially responsible practices”, agreed veterinarian Luiz Augusto de Souza Loredo, 57, from Londrina (PR).

“Even if those responsible for the business do not really believe in the benefits of good governance practices and promote changes only aiming at profit again, the result will be positive for society and may consolidate over time.”

For teacher Simone Rodrigues, 44, from Cascavel (PR), the boycott is a powerful pressure weapon that is still little known to Brazilian consumers.

“The boycott makes companies afraid of losing customers and business, making them adapt to what is within the law. Unfortunately, in Brazil, consumers ignore the power they have to put this kind of pressure on companies If we were aware of our strength as consumers, many companies would treat their workers and customers with more respect,” he said.

For Lília da Silva Sendin, 51, public servant in Rio de Janeiro (RJ), “companies have to know that society does not agree with certain practices and that they can lose their customers when they displease the consumer”.

“The brand and the image are valuable assets of the company that seeks, above all, profit. The boycott not only affects its billing, but also its relations with suppliers and consumers”, opined federal public servant Rodrigo Evora, 45, from Brasilia DF). “In the case of work analogous to slavery, among other sanctions, and always guaranteeing due legal process, the company should suffer the expropriation of the factory unit, the production unit, the property or the goods used in the odious practice.”

“These companies have a differentiated competitive position in the market and higher profit margins as they reduce costs by denying basic rights to employees. Therefore, the most effective way to combat these practices is boycotting these companies and choosing products from others that follow the laws and regulations. “, opined audit manager Leonardo Cota, 38, from Belo Horizonte (MG).

“Often a company adopts unethical practices in order to reduce expenses and increase its profit. If a boycott financially penalizes the company to the point of making the unethical practice more costly than the ethical practice, the company will choose to do the right thing”, said the professor. José Antônio Silveira Gonçalves, 61, São Carlos.

For him, the boycott is a form of social participation, but those who adhere must be careful to have reliable sources of information and never use physical violence.

For chemical engineer Maurício Ribeiro, 66, from Poços de Caldas (MG), boycotts are not very effective. “When the subject is in evidence, it becomes effective; however, as the days go by, the subject in people’s perception decreases, which shows the low effectiveness of boycotts.”

Lawyer Paulo Junges, 61, from Campo Grande (MS) agrees and suggests another option of action. “The boycotts work for a very short time. What could be effective would be to confiscate a portion of the companies’ revenues for a long time to finance a fund for the inspection of these illegal practices.”

For advertiser Flávio Melo Machado de Oliveira, 41, from Belo Horizonte (MG), the impact of the boycott is personal and not on the company.

“The boycott is good for the conscience of those who do it. I do not believe that it significantly impacts the company’s cash, nor does it bring justice to those who had their rights violated. But the application of the law penalizing those responsible, demanding adjustment of conduct and payment of indemnities, yes, I believe they are effective actions”, he said.

Student Fernando Alves, 38, from Sao Paulo, said boycotts would have to be long and comprehensive to be effective.

“Most of these chain boycott movements do not result in anything because most of those who say they are going to boycott the brand are not even consumers. It is not surprising that boycotts do not give results here in Brazil, since the organization capacity of movements is very low.”

As for university professor Carlos Alberto Pereira de Oliveira, 61, from Rio de Janeiro, long boycott actions could end up generating “vulnerability for populations that depend on the boycotted activity”.

Cristopher Alexander Martins Vidor, 34, a civil servant in Porto Alegre, warned that boycotts, like the cancel culture, are dangerous.

“There is a lot of room for injustice and disproportionate treatment based on the heat of the moment and uncontrolled popular sense, and geometrically greater weight can be given to an action that is much less serious than another just because it had more reach and grip,” he said.