Power to the people

The outrage generated by yesterday's revelation that Nestlé is demanding a £3.7m payment from famine- and debt-ridden Ethiopia has doubtless already been translated into a more palpable force, as shoppers hesitate before opting for their usual KitKats, Perrier or Shredded Wheat. This would not, of course, apply to those consumers already boycotting the company as part of the 24-year-old Baby Milk Action campaign, which began in protest at Nestlé's much-criticised marketing of breast milk substitute to the third world.

The question of boycotts, their lifespan and effectiveness, is endlessly debated within the activist community. There have been notable successes. When Greenpeace called for a lightning boycott of Shell in June 1995 over the company's decision to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at the bottom of the Atlantic, sales plummeted by 70% in some countries, prompting a dramatic change of heart within days.

During the 80s, growing international horror at the injustices of apartheid prompted a proliferation of boycott campaigns. Following an intensive push from the NUS, for example, Barclays' share of the student market dropped 10% within two years.

The anti-apartheid movement was uncompromising in its insistence that a consumer buying South African oranges or wine was as culpable as a multinational investor, and became the first campaign to succeed in encouraging individuals to connect their purchasing power with international politics. Such international ostracism had a powerful effect on the ruling government, but elsewhere some campaigners began to voice concern that organisations were being unsophisticated in their activism, opting for a knee-jerk boycott in every instance and risking the public's goodwill.

Boycotts need to have a very clear outcome and a moral premise to be effective, argues comedian and activist Mark Thomas, who has made two television programmes about Nestlé's trading practices. "An individual has to both feel that they will be making a difference by not buying or joining something, but also have a sense that they would actually think less of themselves if they did," he says.

"You can't ever underestimate the ability of consumers to annoy companies. No brand is invincible, and it does seriously effect their image to be seen to be in conflict."

He points out that it is only two days since McDonald's, bete noire of the anti-globalisation movement, issued a profits warning, its seventh in the past two years. "If you think of boycotts in isolation they are often not as effective as you might want them to be," says Thomas. "But if you can raise the issues, bring the company out to debate them, and provide the consumer with an alternative, then you stand a really good chance of making a difference."

The rise of ethical consumerism has been a significant factor in how the tactics of campaigners have changed, he adds. "We have come quite a long way from saying, 'Don't buy that,' to saying, 'Here's a fairly-traded alternative.' "

Campaigners are becoming far more sophisticated, agrees Scott Clouder, research manager of Ethical Consumer magazine. "Groups campaigning against sweatshops, for example, are extremely equivocal about asking consumers to boycott the likes of Gap or Nike. They would rather encourage the companies to improve conditions for their workers than simply withdraw from the area and create more unemployment."

The Burma Campaign UK recently staged an extraordinarily successful boycott of the underwear company Triumph, forcing it to reverse its position and withdraw from the country within eight weeks. "Triumph had a factory in Burma which it was renting from the military regime," says campaigns coordinator Mark Farmaner. "We thought hard about whether to call a boycott, but we'd already had success with other clothing retailers. We were confident that we would get the support, and that the company would get upset. They are not like Nestlé, which is used to being campaigned against."

Its posters of a woman wearing a barbed-wire bra, reading "Support breasts not dictators" found their way into the newspapers, and Triumph was inundated with complaints. "The fact that it was about bras helped," he admits. "We knew that would appeal to the media."

The Stop Esso campaign, organised by a coalition of Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and People & Planet, might have appeared to be an overly ambitious boycott. But it emerged as a result of the public desire for an outlet for their anger and frustration at George Bush's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol process, says climate campaigner Nick Rau.

"We identified Esso as the most active anti-Kyoto company behind Bush. It's hard to hit the company in this country unless you target consumers." By June this year, a Mori poll found that the campaign had effected a 7% drop in the number of regular petrol buyers who said that they used Esso, while 47% claimed they would join the boycott if they were asked to by environmental groups.

"The logic is that you don't need to have 100% success. Levels as low as 5% can have an effect on a company's profits. We are always hearing about public apathy, but the experience of our campaigners at the pumps is that there is a high level of awareness and support, and that people do welcome the opportunity to express themselves."

It is important to have an endpoint, Rau adds, to prevent a boycott dragging on. "We're happy with the progress so far," he says, "but we have a timeline in mind. An extended boycott can dissipate support and effectiveness."

Twenty years on, however, Patti Ruell, policy director of Baby Milk Action, is adamant that their boycott remains relevant. "This latest news [about Ethiopia] shows the powerful forces we are up against and how difficult it is to get a company to change its practices.

"Nestlé has been trying to reposition themselves as a force for good, and say that the baby milk issue is a thing of the the past, but our consistent independent monitoring shows that there is still a real problem. A boycott is a marvellous way for consumers to show companies what they will and will not tolerate. Now it's in Nestlé's hands. It always has been."