National Super Alliance leader Raila Odinga last Tuesday spelt out various measures his National Resistance Movement (NRM) wing intends to use to fight the Jubilee government.
One of his six-point interventions was labelled, “Economic sabotage and boycott of select companies”.
Many such boycotts are often called by consumer advocates and not partisan political leaders.
Reasons for calling consumer boycotts largely revolve around bad quality, excessive pricing, labour and human rights issues within the firm manufacturing a product or offering a service in question.
Examples of ongoing consumer boycotts would suffice. Adidas is battling a boycott call for using kangaroo skin to make football boots. As a result, Adidas is phasing out the use of kangaroo leather by 98 per cent over 12 months, but will still use small amounts of it - so the boycott continues.
One of the political consumer boycotts is the campaign against Cadbury “until we see evidence that Cadbury are paying tax commensurate with their sales in all countries in which they operate, we will refuse to buy from a company who avoid making their appropriate contributions to wider society”.
Another is against Starbucks from the US Organic Consumer’s Association over its treatment of Ethiopian coffee farmers.
It is also heavily criticised by Ethical Consumer over corporate tax avoidance.
If Mr Odinga called a consumer boycott, it is most likely to take immediate effect in areas where he wields huge political influence. But the end results may be devastating. Why?
First, the security of distributors of the boycotted products won’t be guaranteed. As such, the first casualty will be transport companies. Given the perishable nature of products such as milk or bread, the manufacturer will stop optimal production.
Second, the manufacturer will suffer losses. Layoffs will follow. Eventually, the economy will be hurt. Third, the move is likely to invite legal battles focusing on defamation and libel. Even then justice through the courts may come too late for the affected entrepreneurs and the brand goodwill may be soiled forever.
The problem with political consumer boycotts is that they are divisive. There is a likelihood that some Nasa financiers and/or supporters may have direct interest or shareholding in firms whose products are to be boycotted.
Given that it’s political, another danger would be that other suppliers will equally shun the alternative products to the boycott hotspots.
If affordable options do not exist, then enforcing the same might be difficult. Such a move would be counterproductive.
With extremely low supply, the demand will surge higher, escalating prices beyond reach of many.
The other danger is that it could take the anarchist angle of ethnic profiling where some shopkeepers might choose not to sell certain high-demand products to suspected members of a given community.
Enforcing a consumer boycott against the near-monopoly market leaders in some sectors would prove to be a major test. In short, therefore, economic sabotage is a dangerous endeavour that shouldn’t be allowed.
DEVASTATING EFFECTS
It will leave devastating effects on the economy long after short term political targets are attained.
It would interest the government of the day to find ways and means of dissuading Nasa from engaging a politically driven consumer boycott.
Our local and international trade would be adversely affected.
President Uhuru Kenyatta must ensure that political intrigues are not allowed to interfere with trade.
His government must ring-fence the market and protect the consumer from a political boycott.
Mr Mutoro is the secretary-general, Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek). [email protected]
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Why Nasa should go slow on boycotts"
Post a Comment