The Psychology of Fairness and Boycotts
Insights from Loblaw’s Brand Crisis in Grocery Retail
Loblaw Companies Ltd. sparked considerable debate and outrage with its plan to discontinue the 50% discount on near-expired foods. It would be remiss to dismiss the outrage as merely reflecting consumers’ self-interest in paying as little as possible. Instead, stakeholders could benefit by considering the following question: What factors influence perceptions of fairness in pricing, and what are their implications for collective action and profit-seeking in the grocery retail industry?
Our sense of fairness and justice evolves from the protestations of infancy over unequal treatment to the sophisticated moral sensitivities of adulthood (Olson & Spelke, 2008; Schmidt & Sommerville, 2016), undergoing a transformation that echoes the journey from primal instincts to profound understanding. The concept of fairness has garnered significant attention across a vast literature encompassing many scientific disciplines. Researchers focusing on the psychology of fairness and its impact on consumer perceptions have traditionally concluded that fair behavior by firms is instrumental for maximizing long-term profits (Campbell, 1999; Kahneman et al., 1986; Xia et al., 2004).
However, contrary to this perspective, Loblaw Companies Ltd., a grocery retail giant in Canada, has managed to alienate consumers on numerous occasions, seemingly disregarding any value in appearing fair in its decision-making. Loblaw’s plan to discontinue the 50% discount on near-expired foods was a watershed controversy. Loblaw's mismanagement of the fallout from their plan, coupled with their mishandling of the debate surrounding the grocery retail industry’s role in cost of living increases, has ignited a firestorm of controversy and prompted plans for a boycott.
At a time of unprecedented surges in cost of living that are spiraling out of control, growing numbers of Canadians, barely managing the cost of housing, are increasingly grappling with food insecurity (Uppal, 2023). For many that find themselves in this growing vulnerable population, the 50% discount has been a lifeline to feed themselves and their families.
Even within the stability of my family's relatively privileged position, where we can afford housing and provide for our children without constant worry and struggle, we've been deeply alarmed by the rising prices at grocery stores, prompting a reassessment of our shopping habits. Sticker shock prompted us to scale back on various indulgences we once purchased on our weekly trips to the grocery store. Snacks like chips, once a regular treat, no longer seem worthwhile given their inflated prices and smaller packages due to shrinkflation. We have also made significant changes in our approach to staple foods like bread. Dissatisfied with the quality of store-bought loaves compared to their exorbitant prices, we made the decision to start baking our own bread at home.
The combination of escalating prices, shrinkflation, and ultra-processed substances has rendered pre-packaged and convenience foods less appealing economically, gastronomically, and nutritionally. Overall, we find ourselves increasingly reliant on cooking meals from scratch. While the privilege of being able to prepare healthy, tasty, and economical food has many benefits, it comes with significant trade-offs, forcing us to prioritize investing time in cooking for our family at the expense of working and furthering our careers.
Loblaw’s plan to discontinue the 50% discount quickly made them the poster child for greedflation, shinkflation, and the cost of living crisis. The outrage against Loblaw, which has been posting record profits, was swift. In the face of mounting public anger that showed no sign of abating, Loblaw conceded that their plan was misguided: They nixed the discontinuation of the 50% discount.
The decision to cancel their plan supports what media reports suggest consumers likely suspected from the outset: Loblaw’s intention was not to offset cost escalations, which would have made cancellation impossible. Instead, Loblaw's primary objective was likely perceived to be a strategic move towards implementing a price hike on nearly expired foods, capitalizing on its market dominance and inflationary conditions within the broader economy to increase profit margins (Lord, 2023).
Loblaw’s maneuvers not only reveal the strategic motives underlying their plans but also highlights a direct link between their marketing fumble and scientific research on profit-seeking. Specifically, the reversal of its plan underscores the delicate balance between profit motives and ethical considerations in corporate decision-making and is thus a real-world example of fairness constraints on profit-seeking.
The science of fairness
Profitability is a central objective for businesses. In an era marked by unprecedented inflation spikes, many would speculate that the pursuit of profit is perhaps only limited by firms’ legal and budgetary constraints, regardless of the potential long-term implications for society's viability. Self-interested corporate executives maneuvering to maximize their earnings and career velocity may also prioritize short-term profits at the expense of their firm’s long-term earnings potential (Rappaport, 2005).
However, economic theories on pricing have long held that firms’ decisions are also constrained to maintain the appearance of fairness (e.g., Okun, 1981). Studies on consumer psychology show that consumers are sensitive to the fairness of pricing decisions (Bolton et al., 2003; Campbell, 1999; Kahneman et al., 1986; Xia et al., 2004). Researchers studying this topic have assumed that firms, with the aim of maximizing long-term profits, strive to maintain the appearance of fairness to dissuade consumers from seeking alternatives or abstaining from purchases altogether.
A particularly important study by Kahneman et al. (1986) laid the groundwork for research on the perception of pricing fairness. This seminal study revealed an interplay in consumer perceptions that reconciles fairness for both consumer and seller: Consumers perceive price increases as justifiable when they reflect sellers' rising costs but deem them unfair when sellers exploit market conditions for profit gains.
To study consumer perceptions of fairness, the authors crafted scenarios depicting different pricing decisions made by firms and used telephone surveys to gauge participants’ perceptions of fairness. Consider the following example (the prices seem like a steal because the study was carried out in 1984):
A hardware store has been selling snow shovels for $15. The morning after a large snowstorm, the store raises the price to $20.
The participants were asked to rate the store’s action as “Completely Fair,” “Acceptable,” “Unfair,” or “Very Unfair.”
Although the rating task methodology in this study may seem far removed from the real world experience of evaluating prices, the rating decisions for such scenarios provide a simple model that shares important features with the more complex fairness perceptions that researchers actually aim to understand.
The store’s action in the hardware store scenario may seem like an appropriate attempt to maximize profits by capitalizing on increased demand following a snowstorm.
The participants of the study did not agree: The action was rated by 82% as Unfair or Very Unfair.
The authors provided a straightforward interpretation of the ratings for the hardware store scenario: Consumers believe it’s unfair for firms to capitalize on demand by burdening consumers with losses. The initial price of $15 sets a reference price that consumers feel they are entitled to.
The study's results for analogous scenarios consistently support the same conclusion: Consumers perceive increasing reference prices without valid justification, solely to boost profits while burdening consumers with losses, as an unjust exploitation of market power.
Nevertheless, participants in the study also believed that firms are entitled to a reference profit and can adjust prices in response to rising costs, thereby ensuring the maintenance of that reference profit. Consider the following scenario from the study:
Suppose that, due to a transportation mixup, there is a local shortage of lettuce and the wholesale price has increased. A local grocer has bought the usual quantity of lettuce at a price that is 30 cents per head higher than normal. The grocer raises the price of lettuce to customers by 30 cents per head.
The price increase was rated as fair by 79% of the participants.
Similar results for comparable scenarios suggest that consumers generally support firms' rights to reference profit, indicating a belief that price increases can be justifiable measures to safeguard against losses.
The findings from the study indicate that fairness perceptions are influenced by an interplay between dual entitlements: Consumers assert their right to a reference price, while also recognizing firms' entitlement to a reference profit, even at the expense of consumers bearing higher prices.
The interplay between dual entitlements offers a simple framework for understanding the public outrage over Loblaw's plan to discontinue the 50% discount. Loblaw's arbitrary price increase (i.e., the cancellation of a long-standing discount that had in effect become the reference price) was perceived by the public as being unrelated to the firm's cost escalations, violating consumers' expectation of fair treatment.
Perceptions of unfairness and emotional contagion
As frustrated consumers boycott in response to the perceived unfairness of Loblaw’s actions (Judd, 2024), it prompts reflection on whether responsible managers had carefully considered the implications of their decisions. The catalyst for the boycott, Loblaw’s plan to discontinue the 50% discount, was not driven by rising costs but was seemingly devised to boost profit on nearly expired foods by matching the higher prices of competition on near-expiry discounts (Baxter & Bimman, 2024), which raised concerns among government officials about collusion (Yun, 2024). If so, pricing managers would have been aware that price increases driven by profit-seeking would antagonize consumers. It would be surprising if Loblaw did not foresee any consumer reaction to the price increase. It’s possible that pricing managers assumed consumers would attribute the price increase to inflation and not push back too hard. Alternatively, maybe some backlash was expected, but less than what actually ensued, potentially based on the assumption that discontinuing a discount would be perceived as less unfair than other types of price increases. Their miscalculation forced them to cancel their discount discontinuation plan. While there is research suggesting that consumers perceive the elimination of discounts as relatively less unfair than price hikes, developing a pricing strategy around this single idea fails to account for the multifaceted nature of unfairness perceptions.
Adopting a holistic perspective in pricing decisions involves integrating psychological elements that underlie perceptions of unfairness. One established framework delineates four factors pivotal in shaping these perceptions (Xia et al., 2004). First, high similarity between two pricing situations/transactions is required for an unfairness perception. When consumers view two transactions as highly similar, price differences between them will elicit stronger unfairness perceptions compared to transactions that are less comparable, which offers a natural explanation for price differences. Second, responsibility for price increases influences unfairness perceptions. When consumers believe that a firm is responsible for price increases, because the firm raised prices to boost profit, price differences lead to stronger unfairness perceptions compared to when price increases are attributed to rising costs. Third, trust influences attributions for price increases. When a firm neglects to cultivate trust, price increases will evoke stronger unfairness perceptions relative to firms that have established trust, which decreases negative attributions by consumers. Fourth, social norms and knowledge of the firm and marketplace influence moral evaluations of firms’ behavior. When social norms dictate that essential goods should be accessible to all, irrespective of socioeconomic status, a firm that prices necessities such as groceries beyond the means of vulnerable consumers, while simultaneously reporting record profits, will trigger stronger unfairness perceptions compared to firms that do not exacerbate food insecurity out of profit-seeking.
It is probable that all four factors described above aligned unfavorably against Loblaw and gave rise to the 50% discount controversy and ensuing boycott. First, transaction similarity likely played an instrumental role. Unlike a discount for a specific product, the standardized 50% discount for a variety of products all belonging to a common category (i.e., nearly expired foods) links together many transactions. The large number of links between transactions would augment the saliency of the planned price difference, leading to a strong sense of entitlement to the reference discount.
Second, compounding challenges for Loblaw was the public’s perception of the firm’s responsibility in the price increase. The media reported that Loblaw’s intention behind the 50% discount discontinuation plan was to match higher competitor prices on near-expired foods. It is probable that consumers were also generally aware that escalating costs would have been accounted for in higher list prices and that grocers discard expired food. Given this background knowledge, consumer judgments would have focused on possible motives to increase prices on food destined for the trash, and consumers likely gravitated towards accusations that Loblaw was capitalizing on inflation to strategically increase profit margins on near-expired foods (e.g., Lord, 2023). This type of speculation places responsibility for price increases on profit-seeking executives at Loblaw and not on factors outside Loblaw’s control like supplier costs or inflationary forces.
Third, Loblaw’s loss of consumer trust also contributed to the negative reaction to its discount discontinuation plan. Consumer trust in Loblaw likely eroded over a long period. A few years ago, it was revealed that Loblaw participated in an industry-wide bread price-fixing agreement (Evans, 2017). Loblaw has also been posting record profits for several years amid a cost of living crisis. In 2023, its profits continued to climb higher despite the fact that Canadians actually spent less on groceries to contend with inflation (Canada's Food Price Report 2024, 2024). Loblaw’s struggles in cultivating consumer trust are reflected in its placement at 303 out of 405 brands on an index of brand trust (Gustavson Brand Trust Index, 2023), highlighting challenges it faces in trust-building and brand reputation.
Fourth, in a society that values supporting vulnerable populations, the increasing food insecurity in Canada likely augmented widespread outrage against Loblaw’s decision to discontinue the 50% discount. Research shows that while grocery retailers continue to post record profits, Canadians have reduced the quantity and quality of their purchases in response to inflation (Canada's Food Price Report 2024, 2024). This self-restriction has likely hit the growing number of food-insecure families the hardest, particularly affecting households led by female earners, younger demographics, and the chronically unemployed (Uppal, 2023). Given that many vulnerable Canadians depend on the 50% discount to feed their families, Loblaw’s decision was particularly ill-timed.
Moreover, the public’s negative reaction was likely intensified by dissonance between consumer expectations of corporate responsibility and awareness of how retailers handle expired food. Typically, retailers discard expired items or donate them to reduce disposal costs (Dubey, 2024). Amid rising food insecurity among vulnerable Canadians, consumers may have been dismayed by Loblaw’s intention to discontinue the 50% discount and discard or donate food rather than maintain affordable prices, seemingly preferring to temporarily absorb greater losses to normalize a strategic price hike on near-expired foods. This move exacerbated negative optics and raised questions about Loblaw’s commitment to addressing societal challenges.
While the psychological factors described above individually play important roles in unfairness perceptions, their cumulative effects should be particularly concerning for retailers. Our brains generate and access information in a way that supports a coherent narrative through a phenomenon called the assimilation effect (Lord et al., 1979). This bias was initially identified in evaluative judgments of people, where contextual information—whether negative or positive—creates an impression that biases perceptions to support that impression. Insidiously, this bias affects perceptions regardless of the specific attributes being evaluated and can even extend to individuals associated with the initial person for whom the context was provided. Perceptions are thus not merely passive reflections of objective reality but are actively shaped by subjective interpretations through narratives and biases.
Similarly, negative information about a firm will bias consumers, prompting them to perceive events and form beliefs that align with the negative narrative. Moreover, a higher number of negative factors creates a stronger biasing effect through a more salient and coherent narrative, rendering the negative impression less susceptible to modification by the objective balance of negative vs. positive experiences with the firm. Thus, a series of missteps by a firm, whether minor or major, can snowball into an entrenched perception of a company that exploits its customers and disregards their well-being, priming consumers for anger and resentment.
Faced with widespread outrage, Loblaw’s reversal of their plan was likely an effort to halt the spread of anger and resentment and is a demonstration that retailers must balance profit-seeking and public perceptions of fairness. Grocery retailers, who operate in a market in which sellers depend on repeat business from their clientele, must maintain mutually satisfying long-term relationships with buyers (Okun, 1981). Appearing unfair produces strong negative emotions like anger or outrage in buyers, leaving them feeling dissatisfied and taken advantage of. If allowed to persist, negative emotions produce a lingering dissatisfaction that destabilizes the seller/buyer relationship.
Once this dissatisfaction spreads to a critical mass of buyers, sellers can expect mass consumer retaliation. Researchers have shown that outraged consumers will retaliate even at expense to themselves to cope with their negative emotions (Bechwati & Morrin, 2003; Xia et al., 2004). For example, when alternatives are available, consumers may switch to less-than-optimal competitors. Negative emotions can also lead to more aggressive actions like spreading negative word-of-mouth to “get even.”
In today’s hyperconnected world, negative word of mouth can spread via social media platforms far beyond an individual’s personal network, generating anger throughout the entire customer market. The ensuing outrage can lead to negative newspaper stories and regulatory scrutiny which fuel and feed upon more consumer outrage, damaging the firm’s reputation in a vicious cycle. This vicious cycle can ultimately foster an enduring belief that the firm has behaved strikingly wrong.
In the case of Loblaw, this belief has spurred a boycott among people who believe it necessary to defend themselves and society from the company’s actions.
Perceived egregiousness and boycotts
Consumer boycotts have a long history, stretching back to at least as early as the fourteenth century, and played significant roles in catalyzing societal transformations that led to enduring changes for marginalized groups. At its core, boycotting is an act against self-interest for the sake of others: It’s a prosocial helping behavior in which a person sacrifices the individual benefits of consumption so that the collective can partake in the shared benefit of a successful boycott. Through boycotts, individuals exert consumer power, compelling businesses to align their behavior with societal concerns.
This consumer power increases with size: The greater the number of consumers participating in a boycott, the larger the effect on the market. However, while consumer power increases with group size, larger groups are paradoxically less successful in furthering their interests than smaller groups, which align and organize more efficiently (Olson, 1971). Thus, the surging consumer population in Canada creates a dynamic that diminishes retailers’ incentives to dissuade consumers from seeking fairer prices: The larger population, with its myriad and sometimes conflicting concerns, hampers voices from rallying consumers to oppose unfair pricing decisions. The increasing population also provides a continuous stream of new consumers to make up for would be boycotters that do try to oppose unfair prices.
Moreover, even if consumers are motivated to seek fairer prices from alternative sellers, an increasingly consolidated grocery industry, which has reduced competition to the lowest levels in generations, has further reduced incentives for retailers to appear fair in their pricing decisions (Canada Needs More Grocery Competition, 2023). For consumers that lack access to alternative sellers, the only option to reject unfair prices is to forgo purchases, which is not feasible for many basic staple foods that are important for people’s everyday lives.
Thus, the challenge for activist consumers is mounting a sufficiently large collective action that will incentivize fairness in pricing decisions and ultimately contribute to price stabilization. The key to this challenge is cultivating a sense of community and solidarity to motivate a critical mass of consumers. The strategic missteps by decision makers at Loblaw described above likely played a key role in eliciting emotions and biasing perceptions that helped activists galvanize support for collective action and orchestrate a boycott.
While individual decisions to join a boycott are influenced by myriad factors, the perceived egregiousness of the targeted firm’s actions plays a pivotal role and is a key concept in the scientific study of boycotts. Perceived egregiousness reflects the belief that a company's actions are strikingly wrong and harmful to society. Although this belief cannot be directly observed or measured like weight on a scale, researchers can translate this abstract concept into a measurable quantity by assessing related phenomena, a process called operationalization.
Studying anxiety involves similar challenges. Anxiety itself is an internal, subjective experience that cannot be directly assessed. However, psychologists can indirectly assess anxiety by measuring observable phenomena that are driven by internal experiences of anxiety, such as self-reported feelings of nervousness, physical symptoms like sweating or a racing heart, and behavioral signs such as avoidance of certain situations. By operationalizing unobservable experiences like anxiety through related observable indicators, researchers can study how the unobservable phenomenon shapes complex behaviors.
Researchers can use the same operationalization approach to measure perceived egregiousness through observable indicators, making this abstract concept tangible to study its effects on consumer behavior. Typically, researchers use surveys and questionnaires to assess the egregiousness of a firm's actions as perceived by consumers. For instance, respondents may be asked to rate their agreement with statements regarding the fairness and impact of a company's practices. This allows researchers to indirectly measure perceived egregiousness and link these perceptions to behaviors such as boycott participation.
Researchers studying collective action have shown that perceived egregiousness is the key trigger for boycott participation (Klein et al., 2004). This perception drives consumer motivation to participate in boycotts as a form of protest against practices deemed unacceptable. As levels of perceived egregiousness rise, so does the willingness of consumers to participate in boycotts against the firm. In the case of Loblaw, the key event that increased willingness to participate in the boycott was the decision to discontinue a long-standing discount. This decision was likely perceived as an egregious plan to increase profit margins by pricing managers who assumed that consumers, during a time of unprecedented increases in cost of living, would attribute the financial losses imposed on them to rising inflation. Changes in company policies, such as Loblaw’s cancellation of their plan, demonstrate that even the anticipation of collective action driven by public outrage can help hold firms accountable.
Advice for firms
Ideally, firms should avoid controversies and recognize fairness constraints on profit-seeking. Executives can then focus on innovating to increase profits rather than exploiting existing products and services. Unfortunately firms generally incentivize a narrow focus on strategies aiming to increase short-term gains, even if they erode long-term profitability. One factor driving this narrow focus is executive compensation schemes, which generally maximize annual bonuses for boosting stock prices with short-term earnings increases. These compensation schemes, combined with self-interest, incentivizes executives to push firms into an "exploitation trap" (Rappaport, 2005). This trap focuses attention on short-term metrics, which elevates strategies maximizing profits from existing products or services. These exploitation-focused strategies neglect exploration of new opportunities that could secure long-term growth in favor of gouging tactics that increase earnings in the short-term but may ultimately erode customer trust, deplete profit centers, and sabotage the long-term profitability of the core business.
Fortunately, adopting a psychological perspective can help firms address these challenges and researchers have provided advice on how to effectively manage self-inflicted controversies like the 50% discount debacle (e.g., Klein et al., 2004; Xia et al., 2004). Knowing when to revisit decisions is crucial, and this signal can be identified by monitoring perceived egregiousness. In today's digital age, even minor missteps can rapidly spread negative emotions beyond individual personal networks and lead to widespread consumer backlash. Social media platforms and the click economy have also made brands more vulnerable by sustaining attention on firms’ actions and facilitating the collective scrutiny of their decisions. This increased focus amplifies consumer dissatisfaction with decisions perceived to be unfair, behooving firms to monitor how perceived egregiousness evolves in response to strategic plans, allowing managers to promptly address challenges to brand image and firm reputation.
The first step in addressing challenges is to investigate allegedly egregious conduct to understand why consumers find the company decisions objectionable. Firms can then formulate a strategy that revisits decisions and practices, engages in mitigation actions, or more effectively communicates actions. The greater vulnerability of brands and the rising power of consumer activists increases the need for firms to carefully assess response strategies.
In the earliest phases of managing consumer actions, a key strategic decision is whether to resist or acquiesce to consumer demands. An inappropriate response at this stage can infuriate consumers and galvanize support for a boycott, spreading outrage throughout the customer market, damaging brand image among boycotters and non-boycotters, and prompting an embarrassing climbdown for the firm in a potentially futile attempt to limit further reputational damage. Pior investments in customer relationships can facilitate communications that reduce perceptions of egregiousness, which will lower boycott participation.
If an egregious act cannot be reversed, communications should focus on addressing consumer motivations to participate in boycotts. Firms can influence consumer motivations for boycott participation in several ways. For example, firms can discourage boycott participation by encouraging the perception that a boycott will not influence company decisions. In this strategy, firms must carefully convey that they have heard and understood consumer grievances but must also decisively communicate that collective action will not lead them to alter their practices.
Another communication strategy focusing on consumer motivations aims to highlight the negative repercussions of boycotts. This strategy aims to reduce boycott participation by highlighting the downsides of collective action. For example, firms can argue that the boycott will have unintended harmful effects on consumers or a third party.
Firms can also discourage boycott participation by encouraging diffusion of responsibility. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when individuals feel less compelled to take action because they believe others will do so. Boycotts require widespread support to succeed. This strategy aims to limit boycott participation by encouraging consumers to free ride, thereby making each person feel that their individual contribution is unnecessary.
Firms can also use advertising to highlight both the benefits of consumption and the personal cost of boycotts. Firms may be tempted to cut back on advertising in response to boycott calls, thinking it would be a waste of budget. That would be a mistake. Boycotting requires consumers to sacrifice personal consumption. By emphasizing the advantages of their products through ads and offering incentives for purchases, firms can reinforce positive associations and create a fear of missing out. Such strategies will increase the perceived cost of boycott participation.
Advice for activists
Adopting a psychological perspective can also help activists orchestrate impactful boycotts and researchers have described strategies aimed at holding firms accountable (e.g., Klein et al., 2004). The strategic imperative for activists is sustaining and amplifying perceived egregiousness. In instances where the target firm reverses the egregious act or implements remedial measures, activists must be ready to counter the firm’s claims, stress the negative consequences of the firm’s actions, and emphasize the track record or culture of exploitative practices that initially triggered the boycott. This approach ensures that the firm's attempts at remediation do not entirely neutralize the momentum of the boycott, maintaining pressure and encouraging broader accountability.
When firms are unable to rectify the egregious act or implement meaningful remedial measures, activists face the challenge of countering potential discouragement tactics employed by the firms. Firms may seek to dissuade participation in the boycott by promoting the notion that consumer actions will have negligible influence over corporate decisions. In response, activists must strategically counter these assertions by nurturing a sense of efficacy and empowerment among consumers. This involves emphasizing the pivotal role of individual participation and instilling a steadfast belief in the success of the boycott. By citing examples of past successful boycotts, activists can bolster consumers' confidence in the efficacy of collective action and enhance their faith in the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes through continued engagement.
In addition to discouraging boycott participation by downplaying its impact, firms may also resort to communicating potential negative repercussions of boycotts as a means to dissuade consumers from participating. They may also surreptitiously try to convince consumers that their individual participation is unnecessary, suggesting that others will bear the responsibility and make up the difference. This tactic capitalizes on the human tendency to free ride and aims to make consumers feel less accountable for the boycott's success. To effectively counter these tactics, activists must convincingly illustrate to consumers the potential benefits they stand to gain if the boycott succeeds. By emphasizing how consumers' interests and values align with the objectives of the boycott, activists can cultivate a sense of collective empowerment and aspiration for positive change. Moreover, activists should meticulously prepare fact-based rebuttals to refute any claims made by companies regarding the alleged harms induced by the boycott. Additionally, activists can imply, provided that it can be communicated carefully, that abstaining from participating in the boycott may evoke feelings of guilt, thereby motivating consumers to align their actions with their moral convictions.
Furthermore, activists can employ strategies to elevate consumer self-esteem and engagement in the boycott. Leveraging endorsements and support from influential figures, such as celebrities, can imbue consumers with a sense of pride and significance in their participation. By associating the boycott with esteemed personalities and opinion leaders, activists can foster a heightened sense of collective identity and purpose among supporters. Moreover, seeking opportunities for media coverage and publicity surrounding the boycott can serve to amplify awareness and disseminate negative sentiment regarding the perceived egregiousness of the firm's actions. Through a multifaceted approach encompassing strategic communication, endorsement, and media advocacy, activists can effectively confront corporate resistance and mobilize sustained consumer action toward achieving meaningful change.
Another tactic firms may implement to discourage boycott participation is intensifying efforts to reinforce positive brand associations and attract customers with enticing incentives. To counter these strategies, activists must emphasize the simplicity and ease of boycott participation. By publicizing the availability of comparable substitutes, activists can reassure consumers that they won't be sacrificing quality or convenience. Furthermore, activists should emphasize that the individual sacrifices being made are minor but collectively crucial in achieving a greater good. This greater good not only addresses the specific egregious acts of the target firm but also contributes to a broader movement for corporate accountability, ultimately benefiting society as a whole. Through clear communication and strategic messaging, activists can maintain public engagement and momentum in the boycott, ensuring its sustained impact and success.
Conclusion
The spiraling cost of living has prompted consumers to question why they sometimes feel they are being treated unfairly and thrust the issue of price fairness and the impact of boycotts into the spotlight. This article explored the importance of community standards of fairness and the psychological factors that make violations of reference prices particularly salient to consumers. In competitive markets, firms are incentivized to appear fair, as consumers can take their business elsewhere. However, these fairness constraints on profit-seeking only function effectively in markets with robust competition.
When market consolidation diminishes competition, boycotts become a crucial tool for consumers to compel firms to align their behavior with societal expectations. These collective actions serve as a powerful form of consumer power and an essential mechanism for social control in the absence of effective competition regulation. While boycotts may be unwelcome disruptions to firms and marketing departments, they align with the marketing concept they seek to exploit, exposing the failure of targeted firms to maintain a strong consumer focus.
The growing public attention on corporate social responsibility and the heightened vulnerability of brands have made collective actions and perceptions of fairness more critical for management decision-making. Firms often use psychological insights to develop tactics that exploit vulnerabilities in the human psyche, driving consumers to define themselves by their purchases in an illusory world of symbolic consumption and, at worst, forcing difficult choices on them regarding basic needs like feeding their families. However, these insights can also empower consumers to protect themselves in increasingly consolidated markets. Armed with a deeper understanding of the psychological factors driving unfairness perceptions and boycott participation, consumers can become active participants in shaping a more responsible and ethical business landscape.
References
Baxter, D., & Bimman, A. (2024, January 16). Loblaw discount change spurs backlash: 'How can they do that?' - National | Globalnews.ca. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/10228781/loblaw-food-expiry-discount/
Bechwati, N. N., & Morrin, M. (2003). Outraged Consumers: Getting Even at the Expense of Getting a Good Deal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 440-453. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1304_11
Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2003). Consumer Perceptions of Price (Un)Fairness. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 474-491. https://doi.org/10.1086/346244
Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(May 1999), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152092
Canada Needs More Grocery Competition. (2023, June 27). Competition Bureau Canada. Retrieved June 28, 2024, from https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/canada-needs-more-grocery-competition
Canada's Food Price Report 2024. (2024). Dalhousie University ‑ Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Retrieved June 27, 2024, from https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/sites/agri-food/EN_CANADA'S%20FOOD%20PRICE%20REPORT%202024.pdf
Dubey, R. (2024, February 16). Food donations: How grocery stores try to reduce waste. CTV News. https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/what-happens-to-food-that-grocery-stores-in-canada-don-t-sell-1.6771643
Evans, P. (2017, December 20). Metro, Sobeys say they didn't violate Competition Act as bread price-fixing story unfolds. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bread-price-fixing-1.4457991
Gustavson Brand Trust Index. (2023). University of Victoria. Retrieved June 27, 2024, from https://www.uvic.ca/gustavson/brandtrust/
Judd, A. (2024, March 20). 'Out of control': Reddit group calls for Loblaws boycott in May | Globalnews.ca. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/10373051/loblaws-boycott-reddit-out-of-control/
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728-741. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1806070
Klein, J. G., Smith, N. C., & John, A. (2004). Why We Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 92-109. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.3.92.34770
Lord, C. (2023, February 23). Loblaw is 'not taking advantage' of food inflation to drive profits, CFO says - National | Globalnews.ca. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/9505801/loblaw-earnings-q4-2022/
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
Okun, A. M. (1981). Prices and Quantities: A Macroeconomic Analysis. Brookings Institution.
Olson, K. R., & Spelke, E. S. (2008). Foundations of Cooperation in Young Children. Cognition, 108(1), 222-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.003
Olson, M. (1971). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Second Printing with a New Preface and Appendix. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjsf3ts
Rappaport, A. (2005). The Economics of Short-Term Performance Obsession. Financial Analysts Journal, 61(3), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v61.n3.2729
Schmidt, M. F.H., & Sommerville, J. A. (2016). Fairness Expectations and Altruistic Sharing in 15-Month-Old Human Infants. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e23223. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12674
Uppal, S. (2023, November 14). Insights on Canadian Society Food insecurity among Canadian families. Statistique Canada. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2023001/article/00013-eng.htm
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The Price Is Unfair! A Conceptual Framework of Price Fairness Perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.1.427
Yun, T. (2024, January 17). Loblaw 50% discount ending: MP calls for investigation. CTV News. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-mp-calls-for-competition-bureau-investigation-after-loblaw-reduces-discounts-on-last-day-sale-items-1.6730997