SWP 42/87
CONSUMER BOYCOTTS AND CORPORATE
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
DR N CRAIG SMITH
Cranfield School of Management
Cranfield Institute of Technology
Cranfield
Bedford MX43 OAL
United Kingdom
(Tel: 0234-751122)
(Fax: 0234 751806)
Copyright: Craig Smith, 1987
ABSTRACT
Pressure groups are increasingly
becoming
more active in challenging
business.
This
paper looks at these challenges in terms of the business and society relationship
and
focuses on the use of consumer
are
included.
lobbying
by pressure groups.
Most notably,
These observations
that it represents an attempt at the social control of
have a wider
of business by pressure groups.
shown to be potentially
social responsibility
misleading,
or the outcome
application
to the many other forms
The term social responsibility
unless it is used to refer to corporate
of a conflict
between
corporate interests and other interests in society, including
groups.
Case examples
Conclusions are drawn on how pressure group use of the consumer boycott
may be understood.
business.
boycotts
of
in business is
doctrines
(and accommodation
on
of)
those represented by pressure
2
Lobbying
the CorDoration
Pollution,
nuclear disarmament,
are of concern to a lot of people.
apartheid
Quite rightly,
some of the major problems facing society.
by pressure groups.
groups are likely
in South Africa
they are interested in and worried about
These people are - in a sense - represented
In the course of their efforts
to challenge business.
they may be understood, within
and many other issues,
to tackle such issues, these pressure
This paper considers these challenges and how
the context of the business and society relationship.
There have been many instances of pressure group challenges
of business in
recent years and their incidence is increasing.
Case studies are given later in this paper
but other
mentioning.
Anti-Apartheid
have been prominent
in campaigning
instances are worth
groups, for example,
with South Africa
protesters.
international
critical
campaign.
and damaging publicity,
industry
dissatisfied
directly.
radioactive
General
Meetings
of the pressure group activity
This has involved
many UK
with
efforts
to influence
government,
It was Greenpeace who, while attempting
material from Sellafield
accident
blamed
the
trying
Sellafield
to prevent.
for improvements.
The outcome,
public
was
British
management,
discipline
promises
against
active.
chose to tackle
The
the
to ‘cap’ a pipe discharging
by
Nuclear
by the government
The government
management
recommendations
opinion,
is the
(Windscale) into the sea, came across an extremely
and which Greenpeace were (illegally)
this
by
companies in
disaster, pressure groups were campaigning
high level of discharge. This was well in excess of the level permitted
of
links
being disrupted
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have been particularly
group,
having
with quite severe consequences for some (1).
Long before the Chernobyl
latter
Annual
But the main thrust
consumer boycott
nuclear power.
against firms
since the Sharpeville shootings in 1960. Companies such as RTZ and
Shell have become accustomed to their
anti-apartheid
and associated pressure
and
in addition
Fuels
made
twenty-three
to the mobilisation
Ltd.,
some employees, spend an extra f 12 million
and accelerate plans to reduce radioactive
investigation
to
reorganise
to improve
of
its
safety,
discharges into the sea. Greenpeace observed
that this accident may not have been the first and still sought an end to all radioactive
discharges (2).
However,
Pressure group actions alone rarely
Greenpeace has played a major role in creating the current
towards nuclear power.
public
achieve the aims of the group.
The industry,
concern over the issue.
belatedly
and clumsily,
public
antipathy
is at last responding
Greenpeace have also tackled other firms
to
- again using
‘direct
action’ - over environmental
issues such as the dumping
of hazardous chemicals
at sea and whaling.
Another
issue which greatly concerns many people is animal welfare.
had an impact on many firms,
animals
to laboratories
welfare
has, for a minority
such as the Animal
from
involved
year.
Liberation
More
recently,
Front (ALF)
are involved
feared.
containing
action
by the ALF,
groups in Britain.
Their efforts
business: apartheid
and company
of social responsibility
notes warning
reflect
of dental
(3).
of business by pressure
concern about issues of social responsibility
involvement
in South Africa,
They may be interpreted
environmental
in
issues,
as being protests at a perceived lack
on the part of the firm.
This view of pressure groups and their actions involving
on one’s beliefs
pounds a
because of Mars’ funding
These are just a few examples of the increasing lobbying
and interests,
responsibility
in business.
all,
at the meaning
experienced
Groups
products;” though the bars did not prove to be poisoned, as
This direct
animal issues, and so on.
animal
stores such as Boots and against butchers, to bomb attacks
research using monkeys, cost the company f3 million
straightforward
for
in around 2000 actions a year,
1984, Mars chocolate bars were found
against eating “cruelty-based
looking
concern
tested on
They are said to be causing damage estimated at six million
In November
at first
in vivisection.
cosmetics and toiletries
at least, changed to a concern for animal rights.
from various actions involving
on vivisectionists.
those marketing
This has
but also how one defines,
Hence such an interpretation
of
social
as it might appear.
responsibility
business depends greatly
and the limits
is considered
in business.
Indeed, there are many similarities
by Alice in Alice in Wonderland,
to whom Humpty
to, social
here by, first of
This
is not
as
to the confusion
Dumpty
said: “When 1
use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
What is Social Resnonsibilitv
in Business?
Most managers, and many other people, have an idea about what the term social
responsibility
in business means. After
on the subject (4).
responsibility
all, there has been a considerable amount written
Hay, Gray and Gates, for example, write:
. . . would encompass not only a deep commitment
also an understanding
of
the
firm’s
responsibility
to
its
“a modern view of social
to social problems,
contributors
and,
but
most
importantly,
a realistic comprehension
of the need for profit
for operating at higher levels of social responsibility”
the American
clergy have commented
consider the social implications
as an essential prerequisite
a._._,.While two leading members of
(5).
that “corporate
decision-makers
of their decisions as carefully
should begin to
and with as much weight
as they do the economic . . . life and death are more important
than profit
and loss” (6).
And Philip Sadler, from Ashridge in England, has said, “society has the right to require
industry
(which is part of itself) to pursue social objectives” (7).
Much of what has been written
sort of vein.
As an admonition
value-laden.
Heilbroner
(8).
This
syrupy
about social responsibility
in business is in this
to management, it’s well-meaning
but often excessively
has observed that this is an area in which “syrup flows freely”
quality
isn’t the only
problem,
these statements
give
very
little
guidance on what managers should actually &.
Reasonable definitions
of social responsibility
and Hogue suggest corporate social responsibility
society in the future,
are seen to have been of maximum
may
find
as possible” (9).
a suitable
responsibility
crystal
in relation
notion that corporations
stockholders
and beyond
Powers and Vogel write:
However,
ball.
to the firm’s
help in providing
financial
more
useful
stakeholders.
as to where managers
approach
is to
have an obligation
to constituent
that prescribed
by law or union
“In its more sophisticated
on corporate activity
are seen as stakeholders,
however,
groups which
acknowledge
social
groups in society other than
contract”
forms, corporate
(10).
Similarly,
responsibility
has
are no longer seen
which must be managed; instead these constituencies
have legitimate
whose claims should be met and reconciled
sources,
define
So Jones suggests it involves “the
come to mean that the interests of the several corporate constituencies
as constraints
necessary
and social costs, distributed
they give no indication
A
Farmer
involves “actions that, when judged by
amounts of desired goods and services at minimum
as equitably
in business can be found.
the
interests,
and at least some of
in the management
problems
in
process” (11).
understanding
corporate
Both
social
responsibility.
The position
of this author is that if one accepts that firms
then clearly
they have social responsibilities.
questions:
How
management
may
determine
these responsibilities
their
relative
have a social role
Yet this does leave four
be defined
priority?
How
or identified?
far
does
fairly
How
corporate
major
does
social
/’
5
responsibility
extend?
(That is to say, over what issues and to what extent?)
How do
managers actually act in practice?
So, for
all these reasons, it is sensible to exercise considerable
people start talking
mean anything.
about social responsibility
Within the literature,
Substantial differences
one examines
meaning.
corporate
All firm’s
difficult
are elicited
statements
in business.
caution
when
The term doesn’t actually
there is a great variety of definitions
to be found.
if managers are asked to give their definitions
on responsibilities.
A term
or if
so debased has no
say, or would say if asked, that they are socially responsible.
to see how
one can disbelieve
them.
therefore,
David
“The chief executive who assumes that his company is a good corporate
citizen
Clutterbuck
Not
surprisingly
It’s
has advocated total corporate social responsibility:
because it has well-meant
mistake
policies
towards
some social issues is making
of assuming that social responsibility
company’s
happy.
activities
- an external
is something
veneer aimed at keeping
The moment social responsibility
to add on to a
the outside world
becomes part of the company’s public
relations
activities,
through
the sham, but people inside the company
social responsibility
it is a dead duck.
the
Not only will
outsiders
will
frequently
see
soon get the idea that
does not really matter, that it is only for show, and that they
are at liberty to slide around social responsibility
issues if it becomes convenient”
(12).
For the current author, the term social responsibility
refer
to managements’ attempts
doctrines
at self-regulation
of
in business is best used to
their
activities;
on good practice. There is a more useful way of looking
between business and society and the role of pressure group activity
to corporate
at the relationship
within
that.
Corporate Power in the Business and Society Relationship
Milton
One person’s view of business social responsibilities
not as yet considered
Friedman’s;
less often practiced
managers.
a view often espoused - though probably
He has said “there is one and only one social responsibility
use its resources and engage in activities
stays within
competition,
without
deception or fraud” (13).
- by
of business - to
designed to increase its profits
the rules of the game, which
is
so long as it
is to say, engages in open and free
6
He,
along
responsibility
with
Hayek,
Theodore
Levitt,
of business is to make a profit.
and
others,
dismissed without
the
Often, however, it is
any thought given as to why Friedman
and others should
advance it. This author doesn’t subscribe to Friedman’s position - principally
the inaccuracies
of and disagreement
arguments against social responsibility
principal
1.
with,
social
This isn’t the sort of ‘wishy-washy’
position earlier found and it actually gives guidance to managers.
summarily
argues
his model
beyond profit
of capitalism.
maximisation
because of
However,
his
are worth noting.
Six
arguments may be identified:
Spending someone else’s money.
The costs of social actions are involuntarily
borne by shareholders, customers or others.
2.
Competing
claims - the role of profit.
Other
claims involve
the deliberate
sacrifice of profits or at least muddy decision-making.
3.
Competitive
4.
Competence.
disadvantage.
Social actions have a price.
How are firms to know what their social responsibilities
are?
Do
firms have the skills to deal with social issues?
5.
Fairness - domination
6.
Legitimacy
by business. Do we want corporations
- the role of government.
playing God?
Social actions are the legitimate
concern of
government not business.
The last two arguments
alternative
tolerable
are particularly
interesting
in that they point
perspective on the business and society relationship.
that these public functions
of taxation,
by the people who happen at the moment
chosen for those posts by strictly
the social control of business.
responsibilities
beyond profit
“Is it
be exercised
to be in charge of particular
enterprises,
Unlike Friedman,
maximisation.
asks:
and control
private groups ?” (14).
upon it which it can today no longer avoid.
responsibilities
expenditure,
Friedman
to an
This highlights
the problem of
this author believes business has social
Indeed, business has responsibilities
thrust
To ensure that business deals with these
and in a way that society would approve, there must be social control of
7
A focus on the social control of business is a far more useful way of looking
business.
at the business and society relationship
(15).
So, not only is the social responsibilities
society relationship
approach to examining
weak - and best seen as providing
the business and
a doctrine for management in the
absence of any other basis for action - but it also diverts attention
from the real issue,
that of corporate
for
responsibility
power
in business proving
actions, including
relationship
and the control
of it.
it is preferable
elusive,
consumer boycotts,
With meaning
to examine
from the perspective
the term
social
pressure group
of the business and society
and in terms of a focus on the core issue, the social control of business.
Social Control of Business
Studies of power, while acknowledging
identify
the complexities
three types: force, inducement and manipulation.
power as “the production
Bertrand Russell, who defines
of intended effects” (16), neatly illustrates this:
“The most important
organisations
of power that they exert.
incentives
and
influencing
opinion.
are approximately
distinguishable
by the kind
The army and the police exercise coercive power over
the body; economic organisations,
organisation
of the concept, generally
deterrents;
in the main, use rewards and punishments
schools,
churches
But these distinctions
and
political
parties
are not very clear-cut,
uses other forms of power in addition
aim
as
at
since every
to the one which
is most
characteristic” (17).
Similarly,
looking
Galbraith
identified
condign,
compensatory
at the types of power business exercises (18).
and conditioned
However,
look at the types of power society exercises over business.
model of the social control of business, shown in Figure
power, in
one can, conversely,
This gives rise to a simple
1.
The weaknesses of each
form of control are also given.
So, legislation
act within
over business is society exerting power by force.
the law or face sanctions.
Business has to
The market as a mechanism for the social control
of business is society exerting power by inducement.
Simply stated, it is a method by
which
with
society rewards corporate
with losses. Social responsibility
social responsibility
profits
by virtue of market forces assumes
and irresponsibility
i
I
8
F O R M O F CONTROL
1.
2.
TYPE O F POWER
WEAKNESSES
Legislation
Coercive
Overloaded
(government
Force
Limited effectiveness
intervention)
Condign
Threat to market system
Market forces
Remunerative
Insufficient
Inducement
Compensatory
3.
Moral obligation
Normative
‘Unfair’/elitist
(self-regulation)
M a n ipulation
Inadequate
Conditioned
F igure 1. Social Control of Business - A Simple M o d e l
the exercise of purchase votes, as G ist puts it:
“A fundamental tenet of our economic system is that scarce economic resources
are ultimately
allocated by the preference patterns of final consumers; that is, we
as consumers vote, as it were, for
particular
types of
institutions
and for
particular types of products and services. W e vote by purchasing things we wish
to encourage in institutions
we wish to encourage. W e vote by not buying things
we wish to discourage” (19).
The market does provide a big incentive for business to do as people (customers)
want.
So, in response to critics of business practices W e idenbaum writes:
“The fiction
that business does not care about people because profit
should be exposed for the errant nonsense that it is.
incentives to take actions that result in improving
comes first
Business has all the
human welfare.
The reasons
for doing so arise, of course, not out of benevolence but out of hard-nosed,
practical
and
effective
economic
incentives.
More
purchases by
willing
9
customers do tend to generate more profits
and greater accumulation
of capital”
(20).
The third
form
of control,
moral
obligation,
business is achieved by virtue of society exerting
in self-regulation.
within
a frame
There
will
As Berle writes, “corporate
of surrounding
inevitably
Confederation
of British Industry
establishes the minimum
power through
the social control
conditioning,
which
precedents
in time
to work
impose themselves” (21).
to business action.
has commented,
of
resulting
managements . . . are constrained
conceptions
be cultural
is where
in recognition
In the UK,
the
of this: “While the law
standard of conduct with which a company must comply if it is
to be allowed to exist and trade, a company, like a natural person, must be recognised as
having functions,
the specific
duties and moral obligations
requirements
of legislation”
that go beyond the pursuit of profit
(22).
So, under
Self-regulation
managers are guided by social norms.
are conditioned
according to the social conditioning
The
model
distinguishes
limitations
of the social control
between &l the different
different
paramount?
interests,
Legislation
social responsibilities,
how
Put crudely,
managers, like all
business is useful
forces are generally
can
it
be ensured
considered
that
society’s
and, because of the difficulties
in effectiveness.
It is also, as a market
insufficient
it
not only
according
interests
in defining
intervention,
because they emphasise efficiency
Finally,
and don’t take
moral obligation,
to a doctrine of social responsibility
also manager beliefs about what is ‘right’ arising from socialisation,
and elitist and, partly for that reason, inadequate.
are
and many others argue (24).
such as equity or altruism
- especially social costs - into account.
deliberate attempts at self-regulation
in that
If one recognises that business and society
(and a freedom of sorts) above other criteria
externalities
behaviour,
ways in which society controls business, but also
considered a threat to the market system, as Weidenbaum
Market
their
on all human choice behaviour.
of
seems overloaded
limited
of control,
as Berle conveys
in such a way that constrains
suggests how control may be increased (23).
can have
form
also involves,
above, the unconscious guidance of what society expects.
members of society,
the third
and
The considerable
firms’
but
is considered unfair
weaknesses of the
first and third forms of control suggest greater use might be made of market forces, the
second form.
climate.
It would,
after all, be in keeping
with
the current
politico-economic
10
This is where consumer
action, fit
in most aptly.
sovereignty.
boycotts,
Markets
of all the various
operate through
forms
of pressure group
and are legitimised
Why shouldn’t that power - the authority
of consumers in the marketplace
- be harnessed in the social control of business on social responsibility
course, it has. The first black American
boycotts in his campaigning
presidential
for civil rights.
“We have the power, nonviolently,
the direction
simultaneously
of the American
candidate,
economy.
you will
unless you guarantee us a franchise
issues? And, of
Jesse Jackson, has used
He has commented:
just be controlling
“General Motors,
by consumer
our appetites, to determine
If black people in thirty
cities said
not sell cars in the black community
here next year and help us finance
it,” GM
would have no choice but to comply” (25).
There are many other illustrations
of this (26).
Consumer boycotts involve not buying from a firm in protest at a perceived lack
of social responsibility.
examined
This is illustrated
to see whether
control of business.
consumer
in the two cases which follow.
boycotts
may be understood
Both cases are presented in summary
form,
They are then
as a form
of social
but may be found in
more detail elsewhere (27).
MAN-VW.
Tarmac and the Campaian for Nuclear Disarmament
The boycotts
in Britain
of Tarmac and MAN-VW
missiles were organised by what at the time was probably
promotional
pressure group in Britain.
over their links with cruise
the largest and most influential
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
comprised around 1,500 local groups and 400,000 people.
population
supported
their
opposition
to cruise.
Moreover,
Yet
the
(CND)
a majority
boycotts
were
of the
clearly
unsuccessful.
The 1979 decision
by NATO’s
European
members
to site cruise missiles
Europe, provided
a focal point for the peace movement and CND achieved a forty-fold
increase in size.
At its previous peak in popularity
of direct
this time its leadership
protest.
action,
CND
endorsed non-violent
devise suitable campaigns.
CND
was prepared
direct action (NVDA)
in
had been divided
on the use
to tolerate different
forms of
and set-up working
groups to
The more extreme forms of direct action, such as the peace
11
camps, received most publicity,
boycott
MAN-VW,
Tarmac,
extensive
coverage.
suitability
of these targets.
but CND did, in May 1983, announce their intention
and the National
Even
at this
to
Savings Bank (NSB), and this received
stage however,
CND
had its doubts
about
Yet although the NSB action was never initiated,
the
the other
two boycotts went ahead.
Tarmac was the main contractor
missile storage facilities
at Greenham
for an El 1 million
Common
airbase.
had already responded to her boycott
CND were simply picking up this campaign.
attention
towards
authorities
to CND’s
and hinted
felt they couldn’t publicly
legal action, but some surreptitiously
had
announcement.
Tarmac’s response to CND’s announcement
had reported that it would no longer
This emphasised that many firms were involved,
government,
cruise
about Tarmac, and Southwark
request prior
reiterated its position as expressed when Southwark
be using the company.
to provide
A peace camp protestor
approached the Nuclear Free Zone (NFZ) local authorities
Council
contract
at unemployment
sought to direct
or legal threats.
NFZ
support the campaign because of the likelihood
boycotted Tarmac, not including
the firm
of
- one of
the largest contractors in the country - on their tender lists.
As the campaign did not materialise as CND
a low profile;
but it would have used legal action otherwise.
resistance to Tarmac remains over their
firm’s
decision
in August
seemed to fade away.
noting that in October
Ridley,
announced
legislation
He specifically
if it did not significantly
support.
referred
to discrimination
but the boycott
to boycott
The announcement
the cruise missile launchers, whereas MAN
tractor
units.
political
the boycott.
Secretary, Nicholas
conditions
against construction
on their
companies
of the cruise missile base.
The launch of the campaign
contact with the firm.
promote
This suggests the boycott had some impact, even
affect the commissioning
of its intention
military
as revealed in the
office,
to actively
imposing
CND put far greater effort into the MAN-VW
standard
cruise,
1986, the Environment
to stop councils
in nuclear missile sites (28).
announcement
with
Peterborough
as with CND’s failure
it is worth
unqualified
It is possible that customer
This probably has as much to do with the NFZ authorities’ other
Though
involved
involvement
1985 to close their
problems and higher priorities
contracts.
had threatened, Tarmac maintained
MAN
boycott, though it did not have its
was a series of blunders.
was made without
suggested MAN
(in Germany)
This confusion
having
were involved
were supplying
CND’s
had any
in supplying
400 allegedly
was repeated when the boycott
was
12
subsequently launched and after the company had been in contact with CND to clari.fy
Moreover,
the point.
therefore
the vehicles were to be delivered
not be as visible
as expected.
Finally,
company, the letter from CND Chairwoman
wrong person.
of MAN
Joan Ruddock
Yet this latter blunder was unimportant
concessioniare.
MAN-VW
of the boycott
(UK),
an
with the
When it seemed likely
publicity.
to go
Yet the
10 truck centres, proved to be a “damp squib” in the
there was further
picketing,
this boycott also faded away.
was negligible.
Its failure
is attributed,
by the firm,
The
to the
of this by CND supporters.
The
response was to be as open as possible, emphasising the tenuousness of the link,
with legal action, although
poorly
MAN-VW
not to provoke further
tenuousness of its link with cruise and the recognition
firm’s
anyway as the group’s demands
outside their VW car showrooms.
launch, which CND said involved
Although
the
was sent too late and to the
quite concerned by the campaign, particularly
ahead they urged their dealers to be careful
eyes.
with
The boycott did not get off to a good start!
were initially
threat of demonstrations
impact
when seeking a meeting
could not have possibly been realised, at least through
independent
firm’s
by air not road, and would
organised
explained:
“It
possible, as definitely
but it had essentially
doesn’t matter
how
a last resort.
got it wrong.
effective
a publicity
CND was found
As one MAN-VW
to be
manager
or PR machine
is, if
it’s
spreading things that are basically not valid, it won’t get any further.”
Douwe Egberts and AnPola Coffee
The Angola Committee
were far better organised and more committed
boycott of Douwe Egberts than CND were on the Tarmac and MAN
demand was also realistic.
to their
boycotts.
Their
They wanted the firm to stop processing coffee from Angola,
then (1972) seeking independence from Portugal.
Before launching its action, the pressure group contacted the company to arrange
a meeting.
group.
This was despite the scale of the action planned, public concern about Angola,
and Albert
Dutch
The company agreed to this but did not feel it could give in to the pressure
Heijn,
supermarket
the second largest coffee roaster (to Douwe Egberts) and the largest
chain, having
agreed not to process Angola
coffee.
Two
more
13
supermarket
chains
followed
suit
before
the
campaign
was launched
amid
much
publicity.
Consumer support for the pressure group was clearly demonstrated
from
the sales force
supermarkets
and in
a market
research
ensured that consumers were likely
study.
Picketing
in feedback
of
to express this support
shops and
in purchase.
But pressure on the firm also came from other directions.
Some of the media SUppOTted
the Angola Committee,
it with funds and the Dutch
Labour
a quasi-government
Party registered its support.
under pressure, from picketing
family;
the union
action.
Under
found
body provided
Meanwhile,
by the Committee,
Douwe Egberts’ employees had been
but also criticism
it could no longer support
from
the management
all this pressure, Douwe Egberts finally
capitulated
friends
and
and threatened
and agreed not to
process any more Angola coffee because “consumers have objections.”
The company received some criticism
long-run
did not suffer because of this.
Heijn’s example.
for deciding
to capitulate,
but sales in the
The management wished they’d followed
Albert
The pressure group’s success prompted a similar, also successful, action
against Gulf Oil.
Conclusions
The events described in the two cases are fairly
group inspired
typical
consumer boycott that firms are ever more likely
between the unsuccessful and the successful boycotts,
highlights
pressure group success with this tactic which can be briefly
and foremost,
of the sort of pressure
however, there is the requirement
the business and society relationship.
to face.
The contrast
many of the factors in
commented
on here.
First
to examine these boycotts in terms of
More specifically,
can they be understood
as
attempts at the social control of business?
In both cases, the pressure groups concerned - CND and the Angola Committee
-
were seeking to exert some control over business. CND were saying to Tarmac that their
involvement
were
not
authorities
in the building
particularly
of cruise missile silos was not in society’s interests.
vulnerable
to action
chose to respond by considering
by consumers,
but
a number
Tarmac
of
local
whether they wanted to give business to the
firm.
It seems likely that Tarmac did suffer as a consequence, though the extent of this
would
be difficult
to quantify
even for those in a position
to do so within
Tarmac.
14
However,
if CND’s objective
the silos,
Tarmac’s
then
- assuming there was one - was to stop Tarmac building
they were unsuccessful.
image with
Their
success seems limited
some of its customers (and others),
contracts with some of the 147 NFZ local authorities,
action
illustrated
activities
the recognition
to the government.
by CND
a firm
to probably
denying
them
and to generating
publicity.
The
that a pressure group needn’t
As an activist
may well be easier to influence
to tarnishing
commented
restrict
its
at the time in Peace News: “it
than the government.
And if we break one link
in the chain, the whole will be weaker.”
In targetting
vulnerable
MAN-VW,
CND
was at least tackling
a firm
to consumer action.
MAN
and VW in Germany
had only the slightest
relationships
for
MAN
(joint
in
manufacture
the UK
vehicles.
However,
VW (UK)
and MAN
MAN
in the UK,
MAN
vehicles.)
(VAG,
largely
of a light commercial
a Lonrho
subsidiary)
(Germany,), little
support could be found
(Local
authorities
VW had been a major
convoys, then, particularly
to a firm
unblemished
supplier
given the ‘liberal’ profile
the boycott may have been very different.
irritation
which,
handled
although
over business.
both
MAN
between
and VW
MAN-
for the action against
were not major
purchasers
of vehicles
cruise missile
for
of
of VW’s customers, the outcome of
As it was, the boycott proved to be a minor
part of a parent
company
with
CND were attempting
a less than
to exert some control
For the most part, and especially in the case of MAN-VW,
were unsuccessful because they were unable to command wider support.
Committe
achieved
widespread
support.
Consumers
could
they were presented with a relatively
their concern.
straightforward
their efforts
In contrast, the
readily
Douwe Egberts with the oppression in Angola - a matter of great public
associate
debate - and
means by which they could register
Pressure also came from other quarters: employees, the union, the media,
The outcome was that the firm
and politicians.
society,
principally
director
commented in response to difficulties
through
the use of market
was brought
forces.
under the control
As the Douwe
of
Egberts sales
reported by the firm’s sales force:
“We told them that the company could not take a political
hand, they know that they should follow
right.
of
record, seems sensitive to social issues.
With both Tarmac and MAN-VW,
Angola
more
but the concessionaires
because of the tenousness of the link
let alone VW.
If
vehicle),
potentially
position.
On the other
the customer - the customer is always
This was Ok as long as the customer was only interested in the taste of
15
coffee.
Now,
for
the first
time,
the customer
expressed an opinion
about
something very different.”
In other words, consumer sovereignty
need not be restricted
The consumer may vote in the marketplace
to the product itself.
against a firm for any activity
it is involved
in, in any sphere of its operations, which the consumer is aware of and concerned about.
Most recently,
of course, with consumers having chosen to vote against Barclays Bank,
prompted by anti-apartheid
South Africa
control
pressure groups, Barclays has been forced to withdraw
(29). Again, other pressures played a part, but it was principally
of business through
success for anti-apartheid
market forces which
to achieve control
about this quite considerable
pressure group use of the consumer
over business on social issues.
business, as the group succeeded in attracting
other
cases show,
pressure group
success with
However,
the consumer
it is not sufficient
group to be active on an issue of great concern to the public at large.
the choice of target - specificaliy,
product to be boycotted - is also important.
in
this became social control of
wider support for its campaign.
dependent on public response to the action.
illustrates,
boycott
In the Douwe Egberts and
Angola Coffee case (and with Barclays and South Africa)
and many
the social
groups.
So in sum, the cases illustrate
efforts
brought
from
the appropriateness
As these
boycott
is
for a pressure
As the CND case
of the firm
So too, is the organisation
and the
and strategy of
the pressure group (30).
The consumer boycott
firms.
is not the only tactic
There are many others.
business on social issues.
However,
used by pressure groups against
they are also efforts
The aim is corporate
to seek control
social responsibility
over
as these groups
define it.
If they succeed through the support of society at large, then the outcome is
corporate
social responsibility
responsibility
reality
doctrines
accommodation
would
in business cannot be defined
of conflict
corporate
as society
resolution.
Hence,
on good practice,
of different
define
it.
in the abstract,
social responsibility
but
interests within
Perhaps the term social
but only in the concrete
in business can refer
also be seen as the
society over a social issue.
end-result
of
to
an
16
Notes and References
1.
See Smith,
Business:
N. Craig,
An Investigation
Particularlv
Brown,
Cranfield
and Social Responsibilitv
of Pressure Group Influence
Institute
of Technology,
Paul and Colin Brown,
The Guardian,
3.
Purchase Behaviour
February
‘Government
blames Sellafield
A BLAISE
(British
cited
HD60.5.U5,
Library
81 books
the Library
chiefs for leak’,
15 1984.
Reported on ‘Brass Tacks’, Channel 4 television,
search
on Purchase Behaviour
1985), Chapter Ten.
June 19 1986.
David, “spiked’ sweet eaters unscathed’, The Guardian,
4.
in
in the Use or Threat of Consumer Bovcotts (Ph.D. thesis, School of
Management,
2.
Ethical
in
Automated
Information
the
MARC
LCC
November
19 1984.
Service) database literature
file
of Congress classification
Also see Hearst,
(1977
to
current)
under
for business and society.
Most
of these were business and society texts.
5.
Hay, Robert D., Edmund R. Gray and James E. Gates (ed.), Business and Society
(Cincinnati,
6.
South-Western
Quoted in Weidenbaum,
Publishing,
Murray
1976), p.13.
L., The Future of Business Regulation:
Action and Public Demand (New York, AMACOM,
7.
Sadler,
Philip,
‘The
Socially
Responsible
Private
1979), p.8.
Organisation’,
Professional
Printer,
Vol. 19, No.5.
8.
Heilbroner,
Robert L., ‘Controlling
the Corporation’,
the Name of Profit (New York, Doubleday,
9.
Farmer,
Richard
N. and W. Dickerson
in Heilbroner
and others, h
1972), p.237.
Hogue,
Coroorate
Social Resoonsibilitv
(Chicago, Science Research Associates, 1973), p.6.
IO.
Jones,
Thomas
California
M.,
‘Corporate
Social
Management Review, Vol. XXII,
Responsibility
Revisited,
No.2 (Spring 1980).
Redefined’,
17
Il.
Power,
Charles
W. and David
Managers (Hastings-on-Hudson,
Vogel,
Institute
Ethics
in the Education
of
Business
of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences
(The Hastings Center), 1980), p.9.
12.
Clutterbuck,
David,
How to be a good corporate
making social resoonsibilitv
13.
Friedman,
Milton,
citizen:
a manager’s nuide to
work - and pav (London, McGraw-Hill,
Cauitalism
and Freedom
(Chicago,
1981), p.3.
University
of Chicago
Press, 1962), p.133.
14.
Ibid., p. 134.
15.
See Jones on this: Jones, Thomas M., ‘An Integrating
Business and Society:
A- Step Toward
the
Framework
Elusive
for Research in
Paradigm’,
Academv
of
Management Review, Vo1.8, No.4 (1983).
16.
Russell, Bertrand,
published
17.
Ibid.
18.
Galbraith,
Power: A New Social Analvsis
(London,
Unwin,
1960 (first
1938)), p.25.
John Kenneth,
The Anatomv
of Power (London,
Hamish
Hamilton,
1984).
19.
Gist, Ronald R., Marketing
and Societv:
A Conceptual
Introduction
(New York,
Revolution
(New York,
Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1971), p.33.
20.
Weidenbaum, op. cit. (note 6), p.145.
21.
Berle, Adolf
Harcourt
22.
Quoted
A., Jr., The Twentieth
Brace and Company,
in
Department
Brookes,
Capitalist
1954), p.188.
Christopher,
of Employment
Century
Boards
of
Directors
Research Paper No.7, 1979.
in
British
Industry,
18
23.
For a more detailed discussion of the model, see Smith, op. cit. (note I), Chapter
Five.
24.
Weidenbaum, op. cit. (note 6).
25.
Vogel,
Authoritv
David,
Lobbvinn
the
Corporation:
See ibid. or Smith, op. cit. (note l), for further
27.
Smith, lot. cit. (note I).
Geert, ‘Angola
to
Business
Geoff,
‘Ridley
examples.
For the second case, as an alternative,
Coffee - or the Confrontation
Values in its Environment’,
Andrews,
Challenges
(New York, Basic Books, 1978), p.39.
26.
28.
Citizen
of an Organisation
see Hofstede,
with Changing
Ornanisation Studies, Vol.1, No.1 (1980).
aims
to
prevent
political
conditions
in
council
contracts’, The Guardian, October 22 1986.
29.
For an up-to-date
account of this, see Smith, N. Craig, Consumer Pressure for
Coroorate Accountabilitv
30.
(Beckenham, Croom Helm, 1987).
For detailed discussion and analysis of the factors in pressure group success with
the consumer boycott and a review of management response strategies, see ibid.