Boycott calls against the U.S. ring out, but will they do anything?

Calls for boycotts are sounding out, but experts in economics, commerce and labour movements are hesitant to say whether they will have any effect.

Carlo Tarini was planning on going to New York City on vacation, but his plans changed.

“We decided that it would be much more interested to go somewhere where we’re wanted and appreciated as Canadians,” said the Saint-Lambert resident on Montreal’s South Shore.

He and his son are likely going to the Bahamas and he started a call on social media to boycott of American goods and services and promote Canadian ones like many are north of the border.

In addition to avoiding Florida oranges, Tarini is asking residents to choose Quebec made Yum Yum brand chips rather than Pringles or Doritos as part of a Super Bowl chip boycott.

“Obviously we don’t want to become the 51st state that Donald Trump is dreaming about and we’re going to work economically, vote with our dollars and cents and hopefully we’re going to bring about some changes that are going to make this country stronger,” said Tarini.

Tarini posted a list of items on social media and is looking to start a discussion about what products to avoid and support.

Will it work?

HEC Montreal commerce professor Jacques Nantel said American exports to Canada represents two per cent of the US economy while Canadian exports south represent 20 per cent of Canada’s economy.

“So if the objective of such a boycott were to be to harm the American economy, don’t count on it,” he said. “Now, it doesn’t mean that it’s useless because if the objective is essentially to regain part of our own economy, it can make a difference.”

Nantel said rechanneling business that would go south of the border to local industries would increase Canadian business by several billion dollars.

“So if the objective is essentially to regain a comprehension of what our country is all about, and the fact that we can be pretty profitable, just like buying our own product, that would be sufficient for a boycott,” he said.

In addition, Nantel said that a boycott would have a large symbolic effect, but that it is not sustainable long-term.

“To be honest with you, it’s totally unsustainable for both economies,” he said. “Just look at the auto industry. The whole industry is so entangled that if tomorrow you impose a 25 per cent tariff both sides, the whole thing shuts down. It’s pretty much the same thing for energy… Essentially, it’s totally unsustainable, especially in a country where the actual president that just got elected, like a few months ago, promised to lower inflation rates. I don’t think it’s sustainable.”

McGill University professor Barry Eidlin studies labour and social movements and said calling for a boycott is a fairly standard response when people are morally outraged.

He cited boycott calls against Amazon and Meta, as examples of big calls that had limited actual effect.

“For the most part these end up being fairly limited in their ability to actually do anything,” he said. “For starters, they lack organization so after the initial outrage dissipates it’s very hard to keep them going.”

Eidlin said that for a boycott to be effective, organization is the key, and that the effect winds up being one of reputation rather than bottom line.

“Even successful boycotts rarely succeed in the direct way that people think they do,” he said. “It’s really much more the reputational cost of the boycott that exerts pressure on the boycott target that pressures them to change course more than the literal dollars and cents bottom line.”

A symbolic expression

He said the vast majority of boycotts are similar to Tarini’s.

“In those cases, it is much more symbolic expression of your own values and how they differ from the entity that you’re claiming to boycott,” said Eidlin.

He said boycotts that involve organizations backing them with clear demands that target something that is vulnerable can be effective.

For example, the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott or Apartheid South Africa boycott had backing from organized groups or governments that went after vulnerable targets, he said.

“It can be an effective tactic but it’s very contextually specific and it really depends on the level of organization because the initial outrage only lasts so long,” he said. “In order to effect a meaningful, lasting change, you need something to sustain that energy.”

Economics aside, Nantel is concerned of other effects of the possible tariff war.

“It is indeed totally crazy,” said Nantel. “But the point is that there are people who will be will get hurt. I feel sorry about that, because, you know, yeah, we can look at the whole thing. we can look at it as a chess game, but the point is that people will get hurt.”