Many believe China’s systematic persecution of the Uyghur Muslims necessitates a boycott of goods linked to their labour and suffering or a boycott of Chinese goods in general. The same can be said of the many brands whose products are tainted by Uyghur forced labour (the list is long and includes household name such as Nike, Adidas, GAP, one estimation includes half of the top 150 European companies). Other companies such as Siemens maintain partnerships with Chinese military contractors complicit in Uyghur surveillance and detention.
But one might ask how effective such a boycott might be? Can it put pressure on those companies who benefit from Uyghur human rights abuses and in turn the Chinese government? Could there be unintended consequences that affect the Uyghur population?
The term boycott was coined to describe the action of the Irish tenants who protested against British estate manager Charles Cunningham Boycott in 1880. The word is now synonymous with protest against companies and countries, both successful and unsuccessful.
Nestle – Outrage and apathy?
In the 1970s and 80s a boycott of Nestle was organised in response to the deaths of babies caused by their aggressive marketing of baby milk formula (and discouraging of breast feeding) to those in the third world who could ill afford it. This boycott gained huge publicity at the time bringing in legislation about ethical marketing but Nestles ubiquity in the home (the conglomerate owns thousands of brands selling bottled water to breakfast cereal) meant its future was never really in danger. In the end consumer apathy meant people returned to these brands.
Nike – Child labour and unintended consequences?
In the 1990s the revelation of Nike’s use of child labour in factories in Pakistan and Cambodia caused a boycott and a subsequent scramble by Nike to first excuse and then eventually improve its practices. There are those who believe however that the abolishment of child labour in these factories had unintended consequences. Poor rural families dependent on the wages of their children may have been pushed over the edge into destitution.
South Africa – Shame and success?
From the 1960s to the mid 1990s when South Africa held its first fully democratic elections the international boycott of the country which was to become known as the anti-apartheid movement grew. The boycott was wide-ranging and widely upheld because of eventual UN backing. Interestingly later analysis suggests the boycott was not especially economically damaging to the South African government. However the international shame the country was subjected to was eventually effective with apartheid coming to an end in 1994.
These historical boycotts are of course different to the situation in China regarding Uyghur labour and human rights abuses. However some parallels can be drawn. As with Nestle the huge conglomerates profiting from Uyghur labour have a multitude of household name brands. These products are so ubiquitous that a boycott would require some effort on the part of consumers. As with Nike the public may be concerned about unintended consequences for the Uyghurs if the products they make are boycotted. However in this instance these fears are probably unfounded as their labour takes place in prison camps not the free market. As with South Africa it is as much a question of action by the international community to shame China into changing its policy to the Uyghurs as it is one of economics if we are to have success.
Comments