The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has extended beyond geopolitical arenas, deeply impacting multinational corporations like Starbucks and McDonald’s. Activists both online and in physical spaces are increasingly calling for consumers to boycott these brands, alleging their support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza, which have resulted in a staggering number of Palestinian casualties. These boycott calls resonate with the broader Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a campaign aimed at exerting international pressure on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories.
While Starbucks and McDonald’s are not alone in facing such pressures, their global prominence has placed them squarely in the spotlight—and they are feeling the repercussions. Starbucks CEO Laxman Narasimhan recently acknowledged a downturn in sales at the start of 2024, directly linking it to “misperceptions” about the company’s stance on the Middle East conflict. This admission followed McDonald’s own reports of missed sales expectations due to decreased demand in the Middle East and Muslim-majority countries, further highlighting the tangible impact of these boycott campaigns.
Analysts are still working to precisely quantify the economic impact of these war-related boycotts, but the unease felt by these corporate giants is undeniable. It has compelled these brands to publicly clarify their positions amidst the highly sensitive Israel-Hamas war. Understanding the roots and reach of this movement is crucial to grasping the current wave of consumer activism.
The BDS Movement: A Quarter-Century of Advocacy
The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a non-violent, Palestinian-led initiative that began nearly two decades ago. Its core objective is to pressure Israel to comply with international law concerning the rights of Palestinians. Inspired by the successful anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, BDS advocates for boycotts of Israeli and international companies deemed complicit in violating Palestinian rights. Historically, BDS has also campaigned for divestment from companies operating in Israel and for sanctions against the Israeli government.
The BDS movement aims to achieve several key goals, including ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, ensuring full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and upholding the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. Luqa AbuFarah, the North America Coordinator of the BDS National Committee, emphasizes the movement’s significance, stating, “BDS is the most effective way for people of conscience to put their solidarity with Palestinian human rights into action.”
Despite its commitment to non-violence, BDS has faced considerable controversy. Critics argue that it unfairly targets Israel and sometimes veers into antisemitism, accusations that BDS organizers strongly deny. Furthermore, numerous U.S. states have enacted anti-BDS laws to penalize companies participating in boycotts against Israel, reflecting the contentious nature of the movement.
Why Starbucks Faces Boycott Calls: The Union Dispute and “Solidarity with Palestine”
Starbucks, a seemingly ubiquitous coffeehouse chain, found itself unexpectedly embroiled in boycott calls stemming from the current Israel-Gaza conflict. Interestingly, Starbucks was not initially a primary target of the BDS movement itself. The current wave of boycott actions against Starbucks is largely rooted in a dispute between the corporation and Starbucks Workers United, the union representing its employees.
On October 9th, shortly after the escalation of the conflict, Starbucks Workers United posted a message on social media expressing “Solidarity with Palestine.” While quickly deleted, this post ignited a firestorm. Starbucks Corporate swiftly responded by filing a lawsuit against the union, alleging trademark infringement and arguing that the union’s unauthorized use of the Starbucks name and logo created customer confusion and damaged the company’s reputation. The union subsequently filed a countersuit, escalating the legal and public relations battle.
Starbucks maintains that it is a non-political organization and does not take a stance on international conflicts. However, the lawsuit against its workers’ union, perceived by many as an attempt to silence pro-Palestinian voices, fueled widespread calls for a Starbucks boycott. Protesters began targeting Starbucks locations, chanting slogans and urging consumers to choose alternative coffee options. The perception that Starbucks was suppressing employee free speech regarding Palestine, regardless of the company’s neutrality claims, became a central reason for the boycott movement to gain traction.
McDonald’s Boycott: Franchisee Actions and Corporate Fallout
McDonald’s, another global fast-food giant, is facing parallel boycott pressures, though the reasons are distinct from the Starbucks situation. The calls to boycott McDonald’s are primarily linked to actions taken by its franchise in Israel. Following the Hamas attack on October 7th, McDonald’s Israel announced and implemented a policy of providing free and discounted meals to Israeli soldiers and security forces.
This decision by the Israeli franchise was widely publicized and sparked outrage among pro-Palestinian activists and consumers worldwide. Images and reports circulated on social media showing McDonald’s Israel actively supporting the Israeli military. While McDonald’s Corporation, headquartered in Chicago, attempted to distance itself from the actions of its Israeli franchisee, stating that it does not fund or support any governments involved in the conflict and that local franchisee actions were independent, this explanation did little to quell the boycott movement.
Edmonton Boxing Day Protest By PalestiniansProtesters in Edmonton hold “Boycott McDonald’s” banner during Boxing Day protest, referencing McDonald’s boycott amidst Israel-Gaza conflict.
Activists argue that McDonald’s, as a global corporation, bears responsibility for the actions of its franchisees, particularly when those actions are perceived as supporting military actions that are causing significant civilian casualties. The boycott against McDonald’s has been particularly impactful in Muslim-majority countries, where public sentiment is strongly pro-Palestinian. Ironically, the boycott has negatively impacted McDonald’s franchisees in these regions, who are now facing financial losses and even suing the BDS movement for defamation, highlighting the complex and far-reaching consequences of these consumer actions.
Measuring Boycott Impact: Real Effect or Fleeting Protest?
Both Starbucks and McDonald’s have acknowledged experiencing a downturn in sales and revenue, particularly in regions affected by the boycotts. Starbucks cited “misperceptions” related to the Middle East conflict as a contributing factor to slower sales, while McDonald’s specifically pointed to reduced demand in the Middle East and Muslim-majority nations. However, definitively attributing these financial impacts solely to the boycotts is challenging.
Analysts suggest that various factors can influence sales fluctuations, including broader economic trends, consumer sentiment shifts unrelated to boycotts, and regional market dynamics. For Starbucks, some analysts propose that a general cooling in consumer enthusiasm in the U.S. and economic challenges in China, its second-largest market, could also be contributing to slower sales.
Despite the difficulty in precise quantification, the cultural and symbolic impact of these boycotts is undeniable. Successful boycotts often achieve longevity by fostering a sense of consumer agency and impact. When individuals believe their purchasing choices can contribute to broader social or political change, boycott movements can gain momentum and exert sustained pressure on corporations.
Recent examples illustrate this point. Puma’s decision to end its sponsorship of the Israeli Football Association, while officially unrelated to the Gaza conflict, coincided with renewed boycott calls. Similarly, Ben & Jerry’s public call for a ceasefire in Gaza, following its earlier attempt to halt sales in occupied Palestinian territories, demonstrates how corporate stances can be influenced by consumer activism and boycott pressures, even if companies officially deny direct links to the BDS movement.
Expanding Boycott Targets: Sports, Culture, and Beyond
The boycott movement extends beyond businesses, increasingly targeting sports and cultural institutions to isolate Israel on the global stage. Drawing parallels to the cultural and sporting boycott of Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, activists are advocating for similar measures against Israel.
Notably, several Middle Eastern soccer associations have urged FIFA to ban the Israeli Football Association, citing Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Calls are also growing to exclude Israel from the Olympic Games and the Eurovision Song Contest. These campaigns reflect a broader strategy to exert multifaceted pressure on Israel, encompassing economic, cultural, and sporting arenas.
In conclusion, the calls to boycott Starbucks and McDonald’s are multifaceted, rooted in the Israel-Gaza conflict, and amplified by the BDS movement. While the precise economic impact remains debated, these boycotts underscore the growing power of consumer activism and its potential to influence corporate behavior and international perceptions amidst geopolitical conflicts. The reasons to boycott Starbucks are intricately linked to perceived stances on the Palestinian cause, whether through union disputes or broader associations with the conflict, making it a focal point of current consumer-driven activism.
