Starbucks, McDonald’s Tumultuous Year of Boycotts

The aroma of roasted coffee and sizzling fries, usually synonymous with comfort and convenience, took on a different, more acrid flavor in 2023.

For Starbucks and McDonald’s, the year was marked by the two companies weathering a storm of boycotts ignited by the flames of the Israel-Hamas conflict, which began with the Palestinian militant group’s surprise attack on October 7. The familiar logos became battlegrounds, plastered on protest signs and whispered in boycotts, their iconic branding becoming symbols of a deeply divided world.

The origins of the firestorm lay in actions, perceived or misinterpreted, that resonated with the individuals attuned to the conflict. In McDonald’s case, it was an October social media campaign by its Israeli franchise offering free meals to soldiers during a period of heightened tensions. For Starbucks, a pro-Palestinian tweet by its U.S. labor union, later deleted, became the spark that ignited the boycott movement.

The boycotts quickly spread, fueled by social media and passionate convictions. Boycott Starbucks and Boycott McDonald’s hashtags trended, protest groups organized rallies outside stores, and online petitions demanding corporate action garnered thousands of signatures.

The boycotts weren’t confined to social media as local stores reported a noticeable drop in foot traffic, some Starbucks employees faced harassment, and both companies felt the sting of a potentially tarnished brand image.

However, the success of the boycotts depends on the brands themselves, according to critics like Yakov Bart, an associate professor of marketing at Northeastern University. He said to Northeastern Global News that multibillion-dollar brands like Starbucks and McDonald’s are essential to daily lives, adding that when the “brands are more easily replaceable, then they’re more vulnerable to a consumer boycott.”

But for those on the other side, the boycotts were a necessary tool for holding corporations accountable. Boycotters argued that companies, by virtue of their global reach and economic influence, wield a significant voice on political issues and cannot remain neutral when human rights are at stake. They saw the boycotts as a way to pressure the corporations to use their platforms and resources to advocate for peace and justice.

And as the boycotts continued, personal stories emerged, bringing forward the human aspect behind the corporate facades. Fareeha Ahmad, a Bay Area start-up worker who spoke with Times Square Investment Journal, may symbolize the shift. A regular Starbucks customer, Ahmad stopped visiting the fast-casual coffee chain because of the company’s legal action against its union for a pro-Palestinian post.

That sentiment is echoed globally, with actions against Starbucks and McDonald’s not limited to the U.S. Videos of confrontations in Turkey’s Starbucks outlets and a noticeable decline in customers at a McDonald’s in Indonesia shows the international reach of the boycotts.

Newsweek has reached out to Starbucks and McDonald’s via email for comment.

The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, advocating for global pressure on Israel since 2005, has been involved. It urges consumers and countries to disengage from companies operating in or with Israel, including McDonald’s, Burger King and Starbucks. The boycotts, coupled with labor strikes and underperforming holiday promotions, started affecting stock values, with Starbucks seeing a 8.96 percent loss, losing $11 billion in market value in just a few weeks.

Despite corporate attempts to navigate troubled waters, individual consumers like Ahmad remain unmoved. Their boycotts extend beyond immediate geopolitical stances to broader issues of corporate ethics and social responsibility.

As the conflict between Israel and Hamas intensified, so did the protests. In Utah and Sydney, Australia, demonstrators targeted McDonald’s and Burger King, linking the brands to the conflict, according to an early December NBC News report. Their actions reflect a growing global consciousness where consumers increasingly hold corporations accountable for their perceived political stances and affiliations.

The nuances of the franchise model, particularly for McDonald’s, add complexity. While franchises operate independently, public perception often conflates local actions with corporate policies, which heightens the challenge for global brands in crisis management.

In response to the growing unrest, McDonald’s and Starbucks have issued statements clarifying their positions and disavowing any support for governments involved in the conflict. McDonald’s UAE, for instance, pointed to its local ownership and its donations toward humanitarian efforts in Gaza. Starbucks, too, has been vocal in condemning violence and distancing itself from the union’s statements.

However, corporate clarifications have not dampened the spirit of the boycotts. The movement, driven by social media and grassroots activism, continues to gain traction. TikTok data shows persistent use of boycott-related hashtags, indicating sustained interest and engagement.

As the boycotts evolve, the broader trend suggests that consumers are using their purchasing power to influence corporate behavior and make political statements.