In my previous essay I discussed the company side of corporate advocacy. As noted in the essay, in the before time the group One Million Moms called for a boycott of Kraft in response to the rainbow Oreo. However, what motived my decision to write about consumer advocacy was the quandary faced by a friend of mine about Chick-Fil-A. On one hand, my friend really likes the food at Chick-Fil-A and has been a loyal customer for years. On the other hand, my friend supports same sex marriage and was dismayed to learn that Chick-Fil-A donated about $2 million to anti-gay groups in 2009. As might be imagined, my friend was worried that their purchases contributed (however insignificantly) to anti-gay groups. This friend isn’t me; I’ve only eaten Chick-Fil-A when it’s been given to me. I was told by my parents that people are starving in China, and my wasting food would, I had to infer, make them starve more. I assume people now tell their kids that people are going hungry in America unless they are the ones going hungry. In that case, they obviously know they are going hungry. But to get back to the tangent, I’ll eat Chick-Fil-A rather than throw it away because I’m conditioned to not waste food. But to get back to the point, let’s look at the ethics of consumer advocacy.
On the face of it, a person is free to decide whether to buy goods or services from a company as a matter of advocacy (or any other reason). So, for example, if someone was pleased by the rainbow Oreo and decided to buy Oreos, she has every right to do so. Likewise, if someone was displeased with the rainbow and decides to switch to another cookie, then he has every right to do so. This is a matter of personal choice and on par with buying (or not) based on any factor—be it the actor shilling for the company or a taste preference.
It might be objected that buying based on advocacy would be unfair—after all, a person should buy based on the quality of the product or service and other such relevant factors rather than by the (alleged) irrelevant factor of company advocacy. The easy and obvious reply is that by using (probably performative) advocacy, the company makes this a legitimate factor in purchasing decisions. If the company does not wish to be judged or impacted by its advocacy choices, then the only course of action (other than secrecy) is to not engage in that advocacy.
A more interesting moral problem is the issue of whether a person should buy from a company that engages in advocacy that they morally disagree with. For example, a person who finds same-sex marriage morally unacceptable faced the question of whether to buy Kraft products in the light of the rainbow Oreo. As another example, a person who supports gay rights faces the issue of whether to patronize Chick-Fil-A.
This problem is like the issue of taxes addressed by Thoreau in his essay on civil disobedience. He argued that people should not pay taxes to a state whose actions they found morally reprehensible. In Thoreau’s case, his concern was with the wickedness of slavery and an unjust war with Mexico. As he saw it, a person has an obligation to at least not be a party to what they see as evil. After all, a person who contributes to the doing of misdeeds bears some of the blame. At the very least, the person’s involvement shows that they accept or at least tolerate those misdeeds.
In the case of the state, the consequences of not paying taxes tend to be serious for some citizens. It is also difficult for the average citizen to get beyond the reach of the state. As such, citizens should probably be given slack when it comes to paying taxes to states that do wicked things. After all, all states do wicked things and living on a decommissioned offshore oil rig or on an ice sheet are not viable options for most folks.
Fortunately, it is much easier when it comes to companies. After all, there are sometimes other companies that offer similar goods and services. As such, it can be easy for a person to avoid contributing to cause that they find morally unacceptable. For example, a cookie lover who is opposed to same-sex marriage could have abandoned Oreos for another cookie. As another example, a person who favors gay rights can consume chicken from a company that does not contribute to anti-gay groups.
It might be countered that people should not have to make such choices. After all, it could be argued that by buying from those companies the consumer is expressing a preference for the product or service and not an approval of a specific moral or political agenda that the company might endorse.
The obvious reply to this counter is that while a person can patronize the company without supporting its advocacy, the customer is contributing to that advocacy. For example, the money Kraft made from selling products paid for the creation of the rainbow Oreo. As another example, $2 million of the money Chick-Fil-A made from selling food was given to anti-gay groups. So people who bought from them contributed to those groups, albeit indirectly.
It could be objected that very little of the money a company receives ever ends up in advocacy and each customer only spends a small amount. If one were to calculate what, for example, the average Kraft or Chick-Fil-A customer spends per year with those companies and what percentage a company spends on advocacy, then each customer would make a miniscule contribution. As such, saying that a customer contributes to advocacy would seem absurd.
But even a miniscule contribution is still a contribution, and the individual is thus responsible to that miniscule degree for advocacy conducted by that company. As such, if someone opposed to same sex marriage bought Kraft food, they made some microscopic contribution to the rainbow Oreo. Likewise, if a person who is for gay rights ate at Chick-Fil-A, then they helped fund anti-gay organizations. Naturally, a person’s responsibility can be mitigated by legitimate ignorance. For example, most customers have no idea what companies contribute to and many never see the performative advocacy advertisements.
Because being a customer of a company that engages in advocacy helps fund that advocacy, it would seem to follow that a person who sees the advocacy position taken by a company as immoral should not patronize that company. Otherwise, they would be contributing to something they regard as wrong and that would be wrong.
That said, there is obviously the question of whether the person is right in their moral assessment. For example, if homosexuals are morally entitled to equal rights, then Chick-Fil-A would be acting wrongly in supporting groups that seem intent on denying gay rights. Kraft would, in contrast, be acting rightly in showing its support. In this scenario, boycotting Chick-Fil-A would seem right, but boycotting Kraft because of its support of gay rights would have been wrong.
In closing, one obvious problem is that all major corporations are morally awful—so supporting any of them would be wrong. But they excel at ensuring there are few if any alternatives and so we are trapped in supporting evil.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.