Ever since Donald Trump threatened to impose a 25 per cent tariff on all imports from Canada, everyday citizens have retaliated by pledging to “Buy Canadian.” Even though the tariffs were later postponed, the damage was already done.
The Buy Canadian movement is broad: people are not only buying more Canadian goods, they are also altering their travels plans and attempting to watch more Canadian-made films and TV.
Local businesses have reported an increase in traffic, Air Canada has said it will decrease the number of flights to U.S. destinations and there are now apps and a website to help citizens find Canadian products.
This new movement offers us the opportunity to reflect on the ethics of our consumption practices more generally, especially when consumers co-ordinate their purchasing on a national scale. As consumers, we all have a responsibility to use our buying power in an ethically conscious way.
(Above: A CBC News report on how consumers are using apps to help them buy Canadian products)
Boycotts and buycotts
Most of us as consumers decide what to buy based on the price and quality of goods. But our values play a role in our decision-making: what we buy and where we buy it is influenced by our beliefs. Last year, for instance, many Canadians boycotted Loblaws on the grounds that it was price gouging amid inflation.
A boycott is just one way of altering our habits based on our values. Another way is a “buycott”; that is, intentionally buying products from companies we feel align with our values. The Buy Canadian movement itself is best described as a buycott, but for many, it’s also a boycott of American-made goods.
The reasons behind consumers choices are essential here. For example, we might avoid buying certain cosmetics because we are opposed to animal testing. Or we might vote with our forks and eat at farm-to-table restaurants to combat climate change.
Our choices are often complex and motivated by many concerns: I might buy eggs from my local farmers market not only because I want to support local businesses, but also to encourage the fair treatment of animals and express my frustration with high prices at chain stores.
Social change and co-ordinated consuming
One of the most important reasons behind many of our consuming practices is social change: we want to change the way others, and we as a society, behave. Consuming for social change is particularly effective when it is done by a co-ordinated group that shares certain values.
Consider the practice of buying fair trade coffee: by means of proper certification and product labelling, consumers give coffee companies an economic incentive to treat farmers more equitably.
This is a huge power that consumers have. But with great power comes great responsibility, so when we make co-ordinated consuming efforts, we need to think about how to do so responsibly.
Not all co-ordinated consuming efforts are ethically permissible. Consider a reprehensible but particularly relevant example: in the 1930s, initiatives developed to encourage consumers not to buy Jewish products in Germany, other European countries and the U.S. Such a practice was wrong not only because it was motivated by hatred, but also because it deprived a group of citizens of their freedom of religion.
Another more recent example concerns the Christian American Family Association which boycotted Walt Disney, Ford and other businesses because of their support of same-sex couples. This boycott was wrong not only because it was motivated by discriminatory beliefs, but also because it did not representative how many other people feel.
The moral here is that social change should not only be influenced by well-co-ordinated groups, because the loudest voices are not the only ones, nor are they necessarily the right ones.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew and caucus members hold up tote bags during a press conference encouraging consumers to buy Manitoba goods and services in Winnipeg on Feb. 5, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Steve Lambert
Ethical boycotting
How do we make sure that our co-ordinated consuming efforts are ethical? Philosophy professor Waheed Hussain argued that when we act as a co-ordinated group seeking to achieve social change, we should treat our consuming choices as “proto-legislative” — that is, as if they could become legislation.
This is because our efforts in this context are no longer aimed at merely satisfying our self-interest, but the common good, and so the standards should be higher. We should act in ways that are appropriately representative and that do not deprive our fellow citizens of their freedoms. Furthermore, Hussain argued that the reasons behind our consumption practices should be public and subject to scrutiny by our fellow citizens.
When we seek to effect social change across national boundaries, it has been argued that we should not impose our ideals of social change on foreign citizens. In this case our choices are subject to additional constraints. We should respect the values of the target country, for instance, and use our purchasing power in ways that help local workers and communities there.
What this all means for the Buy Canadian movement is a complex question. For instance, it might mean that a boycott of American products should not include some states like Kentucky, whose governor has openly opposed the tariffs. But at the very least, it’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the immense power we have as consumers, as well as the responsibilities that go along with it.
About the Author: Michael Walschots is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.
*This article originally appeared in The Conversation.
