In an era where traditional political mechanisms often seem inadequate to address pressing societal issues, consumer boycotts have emerged as a potent form of activism. By directly targeting the economic interests of corporations, individual consumers are implementing change without relying solely on the ballot box. Recent high-profile cases involving Tesla and Target illustrate this shift, highlighting how public sentiment can influence corporate behaviour and leadership decisions in dramatic and often unexpected ways.
This is not an isolated trend but part of an escalating trajectory in what some scholars call the ‘Age of Danger’ – a period of global elite crisis – where people are increasingly turning to direct economic action rather than waiting for political solutions. In such a climate, dysfunctional political systems create spaces for populist leaders who claim to be the voice of the people. For instance, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Javier Milei, and Giorgia Meloni – and the like – have all capitalised on public disillusionment, presenting themselves as anti-elite champions. Yet, despite the platforms they are afforded, there is mounting evidence that the masses are rejecting these narratives and responding in their own ways.
Tesla’s recent experience illustrates this disillusionment extending beyond traditional boycotts. When a brand is particularly loathed, the public’s resistance escalates from withholding economic support to actively – and in many cases violently – challenging those associated with it. Reports of vandalism targeting Tesla vehicles, including arson attacks and defacement, reflect how deeply the backlash against Elon Musk has resonated. Some Tesla owners have even resorted to placing anti-Musk stickers on their cars in an attempt to shield themselves from hostility. This suggests that in the Age of Danger, the public’s rejection of elite figures and their corporate empires is no longer confined to economic activism but is spilling over into symbolic and direct action in everyday life.
The origins of the term “boycott”
The term “boycott” originates from the actions taken against Charles Boycott, an English land agent in Ireland in the late 19th century. As the agent for Lord Erne, Boycott attempted to enforce high rents on Irish tenants during the Irish Land War. In response, the Irish Land League urged people to socially and economically isolate him; workers refused to harvest his crops, businesses denied him service, and he was ultimately forced out. The effectiveness of this non-violent strategy led to the term “boycott” entering the English language as a means of collective protest against economic and political injustices.
Since then, boycotts have been used as a powerful tool for political and social movements across the world. The Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956) in the US, led by Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., successfully pressured the city of Montgomery to desegregate its bus system.
A more recent growing trend: From Barclays to McDonald’s and Starbucks
The rise of economic activism can be seen across multiple industries, reflecting a broader pattern of corporate accountability driven by consumer action. Barclays’ divestment from Elbit Systems in response to activist pressure was part of a growing movement that has also targeted multinational brands like McDonald’s, Marks & Spencer, and Starbucks. These corporations have faced boycotts for their alleged ties to the Israel-Gaza (ICJ case for plausible genocide) war or regressive labour practices, leading to significant reputational damage and financial downturns. Whether it’s financial institutions, fast food chains, or global coffee giants, companies are finding themselves at the mercy of a politically conscious consumer base.
Tesla, Elon Musk, and the interconnectedness of politics and consumer activism
Tesla, once the darling of the sustainability movement, is now embroiled in a different kind of controversy – one tied directly to its CEO, Musk. Musk’s increasingly right-wing political stance, his engagement with far-right influencers, and his erratic behaviour on social media have alienated the very customer base that once championed Tesla as a force for progress.
A wave of protests and vandalism targeting Tesla has erupted nationwide in response to CEO Musk’s close alignment with the Trump administration. Organised by activist groups such as Tesla Takedown and Indivisible Tennessee, demonstrators have staged coordinated actions in cities including Bartlett, Franklin, Chattanooga, and Knoxville, condemning Musk’s political affiliations and recent federal layoffs under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
While many protests remain peaceful, some have escalated into violence – Molotov cocktails were thrown at Tesla facilities, and vehicles set ablaze. Protesters even confronted Tennessee Senator Brent Taylor outside a showroom, demanding accountability. The Trump administration has condemned these actions as “domestic terrorism,” whilst contrasting them with the January 6 Capitol Riots, and vowed harsh penalties. Meanwhile, Tesla’s stock has sharply declined, and consumer sentiment has soured, signalling a broader backlash against the company’s perceived entanglement in partisan politics.
The backlash has been severe. Since December 2024, Tesla’s stock has plummeted nearly 50%, wiping out an eye-watering $770 billion in market value. Musk, once the richest man in the world, has seen his personal fortune shrink by $130 billion.
Even Tesla’s investors are getting nervous. A recent survey revealed that 85% of Tesla shareholders believe Musk’s political antics have had a negative or extremely negative impact on the company’s reputation and performance. Some analysts have downgraded their forecasts for Tesla’s growth, citing Musk’s political controversies as a key risk factor.
The irony is glaring: Musk built Tesla on the promise of a green future, yet his public actions are now driving away the very customers and investors who believed in that vision. In the age of danger, Musk and Tesla demonstrate how the personal politics of corporate leaders can have massive financial repercussions, proving that no CEO is too powerful to be held accountable by the marketplace.
Target’s DEI retrenchment and consumer backlash
Target, a retail giant known for its progressive stances, recently faced similarly significant backlash after rolling back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This move, influenced by political pressures, led to widespread consumer outrage and organised boycotts.
The financial impact was swift and severe. Target’s stock plummeted by approximately $27.27 per share by the end of February, erasing about $12.4 billion in market value. Customer traffic declined notably, with an 11% drop in-store visits and a 9% decrease in sales during the economic blackout on February 28.
The backlash wasn’t limited to consumer behaviour. Prominent figures, including Anne and Lucy Dayton, whose family founded Target, publicly criticized the company’s actions. Activists like Rev. Jamal Bryant called for extended boycotts, particularly during Black History Month, further intensifying the pressure on Target to address its current course on DEI policies.
Target demonstrates that even if the trajectory is at the upper echelons of elite power is to move away from DEI, the risks corporations face are massive when they retreat from stated values, especially in a socio-political climate where consumers are keenly aware and willing to act. Target’s experience serves as a cautionary tale of how quickly public trust can erode, leading to tangible financial consequences.
Boycotts as the new ballot box in the age of danger
This wave of economic activism is not a fleeting trend; it is part of a deeper transformation in how people engage with power. Antonio Gramsci’s conception of the ‘Age of Danger’ – often referred to as a period of interregnum – describes an era in which the old order is dying, but the new has yet to fully emerge.
During such periods of crisis, when traditional institutions lose legitimacy and elite power structures are in flux, the public seeks alternative mechanisms of control and influence. This is precisely what we are witnessing today, as consumers increasingly turn to economic activism in the absence of meaningful political responsiveness.
The examples of Tesla and Target demonstrate that even the most powerful companies are vulnerable to organised consumer action. Boycotts are proving to be one of the most effective modern tools of dissent, directly impacting stock prices, executive decisions, and long-term corporate strategies. Even as some corporations attempt to roll back progressive initiatives, the appetite for a sustainable, representative, and enabling liberal society remains strong. If anything, the continued trajectory suggests that this form of activism will only intensify in the coming years.
In Gramscian terms, boycotts represent the struggle over cultural and economic hegemony. The corporate world has long acted as an extension of political power, shaping public discourse and reinforcing dominant ideologies. However, as traditional governance structures fail to address widespread inequalities, and international institutions continue in their decline and funding cuts, consumers are using their spending power to contest and reshape these hegemonic forces. The battle is no longer confined to the ballot box; it is playing out in boardrooms, supply chains, and financial markets.
If traditional power structures refuse to listen, people will speak through their purchases
As traditional political mechanisms – ballot box elections, traditional parties and new (populist) leaders – struggle to keep pace with the rapidly evolving global landscape, consumer activism is stepping in to fill the void. The cases of Tesla and Target are just the beginning as corporations and financial institutions can no longer ignore the demands of a politically conscious and economically empowered public.
The message is clear: if traditional power structures refuse to listen, the people will speak through their wallets. And in an age where financial survival hinges on public trust, no company can afford to turn a deaf ear. As Gramsci suggested, in moments of crisis, people create new pathways to challenge power – today, that pathway is the boycott.
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.
