A leadership shake-up

On Sept. 9, 2024, Starbucks CEO Laxman Narashiman stepped down after only 17 months of leading, with former Chipotle boss Brian Niccol taking his place. For some, this sudden resignation may seem inconsequential — a distant change that doesn’t affect their daily coffee routine. Yet, for many others, it serves as a powerful testament to the effectiveness of consumer action. 

In an era where social media amplifies public voices and organized campaigns can rally global attention, consumers have increasingly wielded their collective influence to hold corporations accountable. No official reason has been given behind Narashiman’s resignation. However, his exit has been reported amidst falling sales and stock prices for the company; casualties credited to the cultivation of years of socioeconomic action from the public.

There are more than 17,000 Starbucks locations in the United States alone, and that number is only rising. However, with Starbucks’ previous and current controversies, boycotting Starbucks has remained a relevant trend. With pressure mounting, it’s critical to ask ourselves what the effects of withholding our dollars from multinational corporations like Starbucks are –– and why our choice to do so matters. Every dollar adds up, creating tangible financial pressure that can affect corporate behavior and policy. Choosing where our money goes also affirms our values, reinforcing our sense of morality and purpose, and allowing us to feel that we are contributing to positive change in the world.

The Starbucks boycott, a movement that has gained momentum over the past few years, highlights this growing shift. What began as a push for labor rights has now expanded into a broader statement on corporate ethics, from fair wages to political stances. Whether it’s the company’s resistance to unionization or its controversial legal battles with Starbucks Workers United, public backlash has put pressure on the coffee giant—leading to tangible financial consequences. 

With the history of Starbucks’ fluctuating sales, it’s clear that collective action has an impact. But how effective are boycotts, really? Do they create lasting change, or are they just temporary trends? And why do so many people see withholding their dollars as a meaningful form of protest? Ultimately, to understand the Starbucks boycott in its comprehensivity, it’s essential to break down how consumer activism is shaping the future of corporate responsibility.

Unionization and corporate resistance

Boycotting Starbucks has stemmed from the unionization of Starbucks workers. Unionization and corporate resistance have become a pivotal issue in the broader conversation about workers’ rights and corporate accountability. For companies like Starbucks, collective bargaining represents a direct challenge to existing power structures and impacts operational strategies. Typically, share prices are determined by expectations of future earnings, and those expectations can change for various reasons, including collective unionization.

A union contract, or a Collective Bargaining Agreement, is a workers’ rights agreement negotiated between employees and executives. For Starbucks, collective bargaining started in late 2021 when employees started unionizing to address issues such as working conditions, wages and treatment. After this, unionization by ‘Starbucks Workers United’ spread like wildfire in the U.S. Today, more than 500 stores are unionized, but none have won a Collective Bargaining Agreement contract.

“Unions try to negotiate for better wages, better [and] safer working conditions, better working hours [and] things like that. The workers pay for the Union to represent them, and the larger the union, the more power it has,” social studies teacher Kristen Collins said. “If Starbucks is trying to put pressure on members not to join, then that decreases the power of the Union. A lot of businesses try to do that.”

Starbucks’ response to unionization was maintaining the belief that employees are better served through direct management rather than union representation. They have publicly opposed unionization efforts, arguing that the company’s benefits are sufficient. They have been accused of anti-union tactics, intimidation and surveillance of employees and even firing pro-union employees. In response, calls to boycott Starbucks by union supporters continue, driven by the conviction that our collective and individual decisions to boycott can effectively pressure Starbucks to end its anti-union practices and finally negotiate union contracts. 

“Corporations in general, can have a global impact. Boycotting is one way people can exercise their voice and disapproval of something. It’s important as consumers to try and be aware of what corporations are doing, what they’re supporting, whether their workers are treated fairly and where they’re putting their money,” social studies teacher Lara Boles said.

With multiple complaints of unfair treatment by Starbucks, from low wages to harassment, leading to a movement of unionizing, it is crucial to recognize that our dollars have an impact on how employees are treated. By spending elsewhere and avoiding companies that mistreat employees, we signal our support for ethical practices and worker well-being. Through boycotts and protests, we help empower workers across the U.S. to claim their rights. Each of us plays a role in deciding where our money goes, collectively amplifying the demand for change.

The ripple effects of collective action

Eventually, as unionization awareness spread, so did boycotts and protests. Students occupied Cornell University’s main administrative building in 2023 as part of their efforts to pressure the university to stop serving Starbucks on campus. This action was in response to Starbucks closing all three unionized stores in Ithica, making it the first U.S. city where every Starbucks location was unionized. This intense student pressure led to Starbucks being kicked off campus and no longer being sold in their dining halls. After Cornell, universities from all over the U.S. called for the ousting of Starbucks due to the unionization efforts. Today, the unionization and boycotting efforts continue, as unions continue to attempt to negotiate contracts. 

“Boycotting can alleviate the monetary or moral support of a business or organization you disagree with. For example, historically, if I am opposed to segregation, but continue to eat at a segregated restaurant, then I’m still supporting segregation both personally and financially,” history teacher Mel Trotier said.

Student protests like these serve to raise awareness and unify voices, demonstrating that collective action can bring about significant pressure on corporations. Boycotting underscores the power of consumer choice as a force for change. Where we choose to spend– or withhold– our money directly influences corporate practices and, in this case, amplifies demands for fair labor practices. Supporting these actions is an assertion that corporations must prioritize people over profit– a message corporations cannot ignore. It is when each of us collectively come together and individually choose to use our voices and decide where our money goes, that meaningful change begins to take shape.

Stirring the pot: Further controversy

The Starbucks boycotts are part of a broader movement of activism. They are tied to pro-Palestine demonstrations on U.S. university campuses and echo actions like the 2023 Cornell student protests. To cause further impact, people have been boycotting based on the Boycott Divest Sanctions (BDS) movement. Founded in 2005, this movement is a nonviolent Palestinian-led movement promoting boycotts, divestments, and economic sanctions against Israel. The goal of BDS is, as the campaign puts it, to “put pressure on Israel to comply with international law and to persuade private companies to end their participation in Israel’s crimes.” BDS has a list of companies for individuals to boycott. However, Starbucks does not fit the criteria to be put on this list by the BDS movement. Instead, Starbucks became one of the faces of pro-Israel sentiment due to antagonism of Starbucks Workers United over the conflict.

“Boycotting helps people feel like they are taking action and making a difference, which is a very important part of a protest movement,” Boles said. “If a group can convince a lot of people to align their consumer decisions with their values by boycotting a company, then each individual knows they are a part of something larger than themselves.”

After the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, the Starbucks Workers United union tweeted in support of Palestine. The union expressed solidarity with the people of Gaza amid the intensifying conflict. In response, Starbucks Corporation distanced itself, emphasizing that Starbucks Workers United does not represent the company’s views. The company further filed a lawsuit against the union, alleging reputational damage. Starbucks’ reaction sparked immediate backlash among the pro-Palestinian community. This move drew further scrutiny, with some interpreting it as an attempt to suppress pro-Palestinian voices among workers. For many already boycotting Starbucks over anti-union practices, this incident added a new dimension to their actions, as the controversy tied labor rights to broader political and human rights concerns. Many saw the union’s actions as an attempt to suppress pro-Palestinian voices, further fueling calls for boycotts.

“Corporations can be seen as having connections to political actions or governments, whether through campaign donations or perceived alignments, which makes them a focal point for consumer-driven protests,” Trotier said. “If people start protesting other companies that do business with or in Israel, economic pressure has the power to influence not just corporations but voters, which may eventually lead to changes in government policies or leadership.”

The purpose of boycotting for unionization is to leverage consumer power– every coffee not bought becomes a demand for change. As the boycott grows, it sends a powerful message that consumers will not support companies actively working against employees’ rights and fair treatment. After controversial conflicts over abortion, support for the LGBTQ community, and unethical sourcing, Starbucks’ controversy over the war in Gaza was the last straw for protesters. This led to the surge of boycotting, causing Starbucks to lose $11 billion within a few weeks after Oct. 7 2023. Starbucks’ stock declined for 12 consecutive stock market sessions, the longest-ever recorded streak since the company went public in 1992. 

“Boycotting proves a point. Every sale makes a difference, and showing that you are going to hold your morals so strong that you’re gonna pass up on coffee and make sure that your lives aren’t supporting the [oppression] that Palestinians are living [through] just shows your character and values. That’s a moral thing you’re doing,” junior Zoya Hasan said. “It sounds ridiculous when you put it in coffee perspective, but you’re sacrificing that cup of coffee to prove the point that [you] will not conform to these standards because [you] do not support what they stand for. Starbucks lost $11 billion. The point of the boycott is showing that Starbucks knows that these groups of people will not support them.” 

Blending it all together

Boycotting is more than just a refusal to purchase; it is a collective assertion of values, a means of leveraging economic power for moral and political ends. Whether or not your stance aligns with opposing anti-union practices or advocating for human rights in Gaza, your consumer choices carry significant weight. Boycotting is not merely an act of protest — it is a statement of principles, a reflection of the values we wish to uphold in the world. Even if boycotts may not always achieve immediate or sweeping results, the moral dimension remains vital. 

“Boycotting can raise wider awareness of a moral problem and put extra pressure on society and the organization with a type of public shaming. Calling on people to align their shopping with their values is a persuasive way to recruit people to a cause. So even if the boycott isn’t effective in persuading a company to do something differently, the activism has raised a collective awareness of the problem and created change on an individual level. I think this shows that a boycott can invoke moral goodness in people responding to something that is greater than themselves,” Boles said.

Boycotting reminds us that we are not powerless in the face of corporate or governmental actions we disagree with. While no single consumer can topple a multinational corporation, the combined actions of thousands — or even millions — send a powerful message. Each skipped coffee or unsold product becomes a demand for accountability.

In the end, boycotts have a ripple effect: they create awareness, shift conversations, and, in some cases, drive change — as we have seen with the $11 billion dollar loss after a few weeks of a single tweet. Still, whether or not they achieve immediate economic results, they are a testament to the idea that our dollars reflect our values and that collective action, however small, can challenge the status quo and inspire hope for something better. Your dollars are not just currency; they are a vote for the kind of world you want to see. Make your choices thoughtfully—because they matter.

“When I have discovered that certain industries or companies are complicit in wrongdoing, I stop buying that product. I know that the few dollars that I refuse to spend probably aren’t going to make a dent, but I also feel better about not contributing financially to something that I take issue with, even if I want their product. There are plenty of people that couldn’t care less, but if enough people do care and sacrifice just a little bit, that can force positive change,” Collins said.