The Impact of Boycotting Fast-Fashion Brands

60% of consumers worldwide currently choose to shop from brands that align with their politics.

Quite a staggering figure isn’t it? Based on Edelman’s Annual Trust Barometer which polled 15,000 consumers around the world, it is safe to say that shopping is now largely considered an act of politics and solidarity.

No high consumer recognition industry has been left untouched by today’s hyper-aware consumer. Certainly not the fast-fashion industry. Clothes are seen and perceived on a daily basis and hence form a large part of one’s self-expression and political alignment. Keeping that in mind, thousands of consumers and activists over the last decade have found a plethora of occasions to hold fast fashion brands accountable for their actions. From the Rana Plaza tragedy in Bangladesh, unsustainable production practices, unethical supply chains, worker exploitation, body representation, fat tax, and most recently, brand’s stances on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Activists and consumers alike continue the good fight, but what exactly do their protests manifest into?

An age-old, tried and tested method of attracting and maintaining a brand’s attention is to boycott against them. This usually takes place when customers refuse to shop from certain brands because they do not align with their values. A refusal to purchase is believed to impact a brand on the basis of reduced demand and hence sales, leading to lesser revenue. In recent times, a boycott on two brands that are perceived to support Israel in the Gaza conflict has proven successful. Giants such as Starbucks and McDonalds have felt significant impacts from consumer boycotts related to the Gaza war, with the former laying off thousands in the Middle East and the latter experiencing reduced sales respectively. These events display the power of consumer dissent and boycotts.

On the other hand, it is imperative to evaluate which stakeholder is truly experiencing the brunt of the boycott. More often than not, in the context of the fashion industry, it is the garment workers who spend upwards of 12 hours a day in sweatshops that lose their livelihoods as a result of boycotts. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, demand for clothes faced a rapid decline which resulted in buyers rescinding their orders and several Bangladeshi factories shutting down and thousands of workers were unpaid or inadequately paid. Moreover, since it is one of the least developed countries in the world, it depended even more on external first-world countries for economic growth. Hence, driving its workforce, particularly female workforce farther under the line of poverty. The Bangladeshi workforce is said to experience similar consequences in the event of a major fast-fashion boycott.

Conscious consumers have the power to drive change and to do so in a highly tangible manner. However, reflecting upon the means of fighting for change in a manner that is beneficial and considerate to all parties involved might be a fruitful direction to head towards.

Article written by : Sanchita Chopra