After a year-long campaign by the Palestine Action activist group, Barclays PLC has divested all of its shares in Elbit Systems Ltd, Israel’s largest weapons manufacturer. This was followed closely by a high-profile win against the Israel lobby and the arms industry, as prominent PR firm APCO Worldwide also dropped Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems as a client following sustained activist pressure.
These events are part of a growing movement and trend that demonstrate that people power and activism are not only on the rise and proving effective in terms of impact, but that global elite power is in crisis. These trends become impossible to ignore, especially when they trace back to predictions made by Forbes, IBM and Accenture as far back as 2018, and wider boycotts inspired by key global issues and causes.
Whilst the roots of activist movements are centred around injustice, it is important to note that this reflects in many ways an elite crisis across the globe, with a growing wave of discontent looming as ordinary citizens voice frustration over elites who appear increasingly out of touch with the needs and concerns of their populations.
This disillusionment is further exacerbated by the unyielding support many governments show for Israel, despite its vivid viral documentations of violations of international law and as the ICJ case demonstrates, plausible genocide against Palestinians. For many, this unwavering alignment with Israel – even amid international condemnation – exposes the establishment and elite class who are more invested in economic and geopolitical alliances than in upholding universal principles of justice and human rights.
This alignment has sparked protests and boycott movements worldwide, with critics arguing that it reveals a troubling disregard for democratic values and public opinion, not to mention a liberal international order that is clearly in crisis if not decline.
Without meaningful action and genuine engagement from the elite establishment, this disconnect may fuel further instability and push societies further towards polarisation and unrest, evidenced through an era of movements that are disruptive and unconventional, yet compellingly effective.
Forbes, Accenture, Mintel trends and predictions of market activity
Recent events can be traced to 2018, when Forbes, based on research conducted by Accenture, observed that consumers were no longer making decisions solely on product price and quality, but what a brand said, did and stood for, and thus, supporting companies whose brand purpose aligned with their beliefs.
In the same year it was observed by Inc that 73% of millennials cared about ethics and sustainability, focusing on how manufacturers and service providers related to these two areas when making a purchase. Meanwhile, Mintel, the global market-research company, observed that 73% of Americans considered a company’s charitable work when making a purchase.
By 2020, IBM had observed that brands resonating with consumers ‘personal values’ had become more important than actual product value.
The tendencies have been reflected in brands such as Starbucks, which has faced multiple boycott campaigns over the years, sparked mainly by its perceived positions on social, political, or ethical issues. Pro-Palestinian activists have frequently targeted Starbucks, accusing it of supporting Israel due to former CEO Howard Schultz’s vocal support for Israel, despite the company’s attempts at neutrality on political issues.
Also read: India’s Refusal to Back UN Arms Embargo on Israel May Be Linked to Adani Drone Exports
The boycotts not only fuelled an already existing sales slump and a staggering $11 billion market loss, they also led to its CEO, Laxman Narasimhan being ousted.
More recently, Starbucks has even encountered boycotts over its stance on unionisation, with labour rights groups criticising its opposition to union efforts. In 2018, Starbucks also faced backlash following the arrest of two black men in a Philadelphia store, sparking racial bias accusations and prompting the company to temporarily close over 8,000 US stores for bias training.
Compelling global boycott trends as inspired by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement
Recent boycott trends inspired by Palestine Action are becoming more systematic, directed and most worryingly for elite power and alliances, having an impact.
For example, until recently, Barclays held over 16,000 shares in Elbit, which has faced criticism for its role in supplying technology used in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestine Action’s campaign included 54 protests at Barclays branches across the UK, where activists smashed windows, sprayed red paint, and temporarily shut down several locations to draw attention to the bank’s investment in Elbit.
The divestment – regarded as a momentous victory for the activists – was closely followed by a further announcement that APCO’s London headquarters had been disrupted through direct action, including a September 3 protest where activists locked themselves outside APCO’s 40 Strand offices, drenching the site in red paint, and displaying a banner reading, “Stop lobbying for Genocide. APCO Drop Elbit.”
Videos of the protest circulated widely on social media, reportedly stirring internal unrest within APCO, with staff complaints and significant backlash in the firm’s Middle East offices.
Global boycotts against companies associated with supporting or operating in Israel have been influenced and inspired largely by the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and Palestine Action. Notable other cases of impact include SodaStream, an Israeli company producing home carbonation systems, and an early high-profile target.
Criticised for its factory located in the West Bank settlement of Mishor Adumim, SodaStream faced calls from BDS and other groups urging consumers to boycott its products. In 2015, the company closed its West Bank facility and relocated within Israel’s internationally recognised borders, a move widely attributed to mounting global pressure.
Similarly, Veolia, a French multinational providing services to Israeli settlements, faced boycotts that led to the loss of major contracts in Europe. By 2015, Veolia had sold all its Israeli assets and withdrew from projects in occupied territories, marking a major win for activists.
Other companies have also made notable changes in response to boycott campaigns. British security company G4S faced extensive reputational damage due to its involvement in Israeli prisons and checkpoints in the West Bank. Intense pressure from the BDS movement culminated in G4S’s 2016 decision to sell its Israeli subsidiary and end its contracts in the occupied territories.
Meanwhile, Airbnb, which listed rental properties in Israeli settlements, announced in 2018 that it would remove such listings after being targeted by activists, though it later reversed the decision under legal pressure from property owners. The Airbnb boycott highlighted the ethical complexities of operating in illegal settlement areas, pushing the company to reconsider its policies and sparking widespread international dialogue.
Several other companies have taken steps to address the concerns raised by boycott campaigns. French insurer AXA faced calls to divest from Israeli banks implicated in settlement activities, and in 2020, it sold its holdings in two Israeli banks, documented as a partial yet significant success for activists.
HP also came under scrutiny for supplying technology used at Israeli checkpoints; though the company did not fully divest, the campaign led some universities and local councils to stop using HP products. In a prominent case, Ben & Jerry’s, owned by Unilever, announced in 2021 that it would cease sales in Israeli settlements, citing ethical concerns despite backlash and legal challenges.
Collectively, these examples elucidate the power of sustained global pressure in prompting companies to reconsider their operations linked to entities associated with any form of injustice. Responses have varied, but many of these campaigns have led to divestments, policy changes and increased awareness about the complexities of corporate involvement in rogue states and illegally occupied territories.
Marks & Spencer and Coca-Cola have also been focal points in the broader boycott movement. Marks & Spencer’s longstanding historical ties with Israel have drawn criticism and protest, with activists organising pickets and urging consumers to avoid the British retailer. Similarly, Coca-Cola’s association with Israel has sparked boycott calls, particularly in Arab nations.
Nonetheless, the pressure has underscored the growing demand for corporate accountability, as multinational brands increasingly face scrutiny over the ethical implications of their business relationships with powers who are seen or perceived to be acting unethically.
Global boycott movements have long been a powerful tool for social change, with campaigns targeting corporations and policies that clash with public ethical standards. From the anti-Apartheid movement’s economic isolation of South Africa to the United Farm Workers’ grape boycott, which brought attention to labour abuses, such actions have proven effective.
More recently, the “Stop Hate for Profit” campaign saw major companies pull ads from Facebook to protest hate speech and misinformation, signalling the growing accountability expected of social media giants.
An elite in crisis
From farm fields to digital platforms, these campaigns showcase the power of collective pressure to reshape corporate policies and promote social justice. The crisis facing the global elite establishment, reflected in the intensity and frequency of boycott movements, appears to be steering society toward an epoch of intensified demand for accountability and structural reform.
With traditional power structures showing cracks under public scrutiny, this crisis may lead to a further intensification of the already happening recalibration of corporate and governmental relationships with society at large. Consumers and citizens, empowered by social media and activist networks, are increasingly unwilling to passively accept decisions made by elites that appear misaligned with ethical standards or the broader public interest.
This shift suggests that companies and governments alike will be forced to prioritise transparency, corporate responsibility and stakeholder engagement to retain trust and credibility.
In the short term, we may continue to see corporations continuing to adopt policies around social justice, environmental sustainability and labour rights as they attempt to pre-empt backlash and mitigate risks to reputation and financial stability. However, if these responses are perceived as insufficient or performative, we could witness a deeper shift: increased regulatory scrutiny, more rigorous ethical standards enforced by law and even structural changes within organisations to include greater input from employees, customers and communities.
In the political realm, the predicament may fuel support for populist or reformist leaders who promise to hold corporations accountable and align economic policies with the public good.
In the longer term, the trajectory of this crisis could lead to a transformative era where corporations and governments are not only expected to comply with public demand for ethical practices but are held to account through regulatory frameworks and a vigilant global populace.
The power dynamic is shifting, and as transparency becomes an expectation rather than an option, companies and governments that resist change risk isolation and obsolescence in a new, accountability-driven world order.
Bamo Nouri is an award-winning senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of West London, an Honorary Research Fellow at City St George’s, University of London, and a One Young World Ambassador. He is also an independent investigative journalist and writer with interests in American foreign policy and the international and domestic politics of the Middle East. He is the author of Elite Theory and the 2003 Iraq Occupation by the United States.
