Thoughts on a Consumer Boycott of Ganong

Submitted to the Times and Transcript as an Op/Ed Piece


I have read with interest commentary both in print and online regarding recent calls for a boycott of New Brunswick based confectioner Ganong Bros. Ltd. We are made to understand that the purpose of this call to consumer action (via the social networking site Facebook) is to punish the chair of the St. Stephen based company for his role on the advisory panel on the sale of the Province’s power utility.

The use of consumer boycotts is not new – in fact the term originated the late 1800’s as the result of actions taken by tenants against English land agent Charles C. Boycott who in 1880 refused to reduce rents on his Irish properties. Boycotts have been applied throughout recent history by various groups who have sought to achieve their objectives by encouraging consumers to refrain from purchasing the goods and services of target companies. Research has demonstrated that the use of boycotts as a coercive marketplace tactic is widespread, and that our cousins south of the border have particularly embraced the idea, with approximately 18% of Americans – predominantly with high incomes and college education – reporting participation. But the question must be asked – are boycotts truly effective in achieving the aims of their organizers?

At face value that’s a difficult question to answer, as boycotting groups often claim success while target businesses downplay the effects of boycotts on operations and profitability. What we do know is that while boycotts may temporarily reduce market efficiency, many are ultimately ineffective because of what researchers call “small-agent” and “free-rider” problems. The small-agent problem describes a consumer’s perception that boycott activity will have a personal cost and result in little overall impact (e.g. “I am just one person… will Ganong’s really miss the profits from one box of chocolates if I decide not to buy it?”). The free-rider problem describes a rational and egoistic consumer who prefers that other consumers engage in boycott activity while s/he does not, creating a situation in which the individual consumer will not suffer personal deprivation and yet may still benefit from any perceived positive boycott outcomes (e.g. “Sure I support the boycott in theory… but there are lots of other folks involved, and I sure do love chicken bones.”)

From a financial perspective it has been demonstrated that boycott results are counter-intuitive in that the value of targeted firms actually tends to increase when boycotts are announced. Research by P. Koku, A. Akhigbe, and T.M. Springer actually demonstrates that boycotts fail - on average - to instigate financial loss in targeted firms (although they do recognize that boycotts can be an effective negotiating tool, and that those enjoying significant public sympathy tend to result in speedy settlement, while those that do not tend to continue for years).

In light of these facts, a consumer boycott of Ganong would seem extraordinarily misplaced, especially when you consider that the boycott is really unrelated to the company’s business, and rather a seemingly knee-jerk reaction by some to a particular position articulated by Mr. Ganong. While it may be true that his firm (and others in New Brunswick) will stand to gain from the sale of NB Power, one questions how consumer action against one of the Province’s oldest and most-respected companies (which would appear unlikely to succeed anyway) will further the cause of those opposed to the sale of the utility. Opponents of the deal could better spend their time and energies elsewhere.


Robert A. MacDonald is the Stephen S. Steeves Professor in Business at Crandall University, Moncton, NB, where he serves as the Chair of the Faculty of Business Administration.

Chapel Presentation on Jesus' Parable "The Shrewd Manager"

Presented in Chapel at Crandall University January 28, 2010

As long as I can remember, I’ve always loved stories. Stories that ranged in topic from vagabond princes who through unlikely circumstances rose to become kings, to common, everyday young men building a backyard spaceship to travel to the moon. One of the earliest I recall was a book I received when I was six years old – Barney Beagle Plays Baseball… a text that challenged me at a tender young age to consider the subjective human experience in contrast to the objective truths of mathematics and science, and the extent to which said truths were too detached or observational to define the human experience. [Actually, the book was about a small dog that kept running away with the ball at a baseball game. I just made that part up because I thought it sounded impressive].

Speaking truthfully however, I feel that my love of stories helped shape for me what would ultimately become my current area of research – that being the development of case study narratives (or stories) in business (a fact which several of my students are all too well aware).

Over the past few weeks we have been presented with stories – in particular stories told by Jesus to eager listeners designed to communicate truth. These so called “parables” have been repeated and retold down through the ages, to the point that many of us who have grown up in the church shrug and yawn and say, “Yep… that’s the old prodigal son again.”

Yet when we take the time to really dig into what Jesus is saying, we find that the old stories we have heard again and again may have taken on a complexity that – like case narratives for business students – we did not know existed.

Today we are going to consider one such parable – the story of the Shrewd – or some would say Dishonest – Manager. It’s found in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 16, and verses 1-13.

Luke 16

The Parable of the Dishonest Manager

He also said to the disciples, "There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was wasting his possessions. And he called him and said to him, 'What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.'

And the manager said to himself, 'What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.'

So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he said to the first, 'How much do you owe my master?'

He said, 'A hundred measures of oil.'

He said to him, 'Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.'

Then he said to another, 'And how much do you owe?'

He said, 'A hundred measures of wheat.'

He said to him, 'Take your bill, and write eighty.'

The master commended the dishonest manager for his shrewdness. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light. And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.

"One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much. If then you have not been faithful in the unrighteous wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

I remember when I first read this parable – it frankly failed to make any sense to me:

§ A man is accused by his boss of wrongdoing and fired.

§ He goes out and cheats his boss out of more money.

§ His boss finds out and tells him what a great job he has done.

§ Then Jesus tells His disciples that they should be like the shrewd manager.

§ Huh?

[Not surprisingly the story of the Shrewd Manager is considered one of the most difficult parables – if not the most difficult to understand].

First, it might be helpful to understand the setting. Luke 15 tells us that Jesus was speaking to an audience comprised of common folk – sinners like you and me – who had come out to hear him. In the crowd, however, were a number of Pharisees and law professors – the religious and political elite of the day – who were complaining about Jesus and the fact that He welcomed sinners and spent time with them without judging them… as these society types were wont to do.

So Jesus tells them three stories about being lost and found – the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost – or prodigal – sons. Then Jesus turned to His disciples and told them the parable of the Shrewd Manager, after which we’re told that the Pharisees – who loved money – ridiculed Him.

Money. Nothing gets people going like money. Like the old O’Jay’s song “For the Love of Money” says:

Some people got to have it

Some people really need it

Listen to me y’all, do things, do bad things with it

You wanna do things, do things, good things with it

For the love of money

People will steal from their mother

People will rob their own brother

People can’t even walk the street

Because they never know who in the world they’re gonna beat

For that lean, mean, mean green

Almighty dollar, money

Give me a nickel, brother can you spare a dime

Money can drive some people out of their minds

So Jesus talked about money here – but more specifically he sought to get at a deeper, related topic: greed. Greed was a sin that plagued His audience then, and one that we continue to wrestle with some 2000 years later.

[Watch Video Clip]

An Angry Boss

Jesus begins his story with a wealthy landowner who is upset with his manager – the character of Jasper in the video. The manager is called on the carpet – he’s been caught misusing his employer’s money. He doesn’t say a word when confronted by his boss – he knows he’s guilty and has no defense.

Fired

Yet even though his boss has every right to throw him in jail, he chooses instead to show mercy and terminate Jasper’s employment.

A Shrewd Plan

And so Jasper is presented with a dilemma – he’s in a serious situation; he needs his job. He can’t go back to manual labour. He can’t beg for bread. But then an idea forms – the hammer hasn’t fell on him yet. Jasper knows he’s been fired; his boss knows he’s been fired; but no one else knows. He still has his employer’s resources – all of the resources afforded a manager - at his disposal.

A Plan In Action

So Jasper acts. He knows that his boss has many tenants who owe him money. He also knows that if he can secure a discount for them that they are going to give him the credit – these guys are going to owe him big time in the future. As the video unfolds, Jasper makes all kinds of new friends in the persons of these tenants as they find their rents reduced.

A Commendation

When Jasper next meets his boss we’re blown away. Instead of ripping into him for shrinking his revenue stream, the boss commends him for acting so shrewdly.

Why is that? First, you need to recognize that the employer really only has two options – he can cancel the discounts Jasper has given out, but then his reputation in the community will suffer… the business will be seen as reneging on an established deal. On the other hand, if the boss allows the deal to stand, there’s going to be plenty of good PR coming his way as his generosity becomes known – not surprisingly, he chooses the role of the hero over the villain, and has to admit that, like it or not, Jasper has been one shrewd operator. Think about it:

§ He understood his situation: he was fired and he had to have a job

§ He understood his goal: he needed the cooperation of others to solve his dilemma

§ He thought about what he had under his control: the accounts, his influence, and his boss’s tenants

§ He acted quickly to pull together and execute a plan

Divine Praise

Looked at from this perspective we too are forced to admit that this manager – in spite of questionable actions – acted shrewdly. But how do we explain Jesus’ subsequent commentary on the story? Instead of condemning the manager’s actions – which were clearly dishonest – Jesus seems to be holding them up as behaviours His disciples should emulate.

The key to understanding this story is to get at the point of comparison Jesus is making. Let’s revisit what Jesus says in verse 8 of the passage:

For the sons of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than the sons of light.

Jesus is splitting up the world into two parts: the Kingdom of God (the light) and the kingdom of Satan (this world). He compares these two kingdoms in terms of the service of their inhabitants to their respective kings, essentially saying that the people of the world apply the principles they are supposed to live by with much more wisdom that do the people of God.

Jesus’ story is the case in point. The manager – a man of the world – is dishonest… he’s not even sorry when he gets caught. Instead, in the midst of his personal dilemma he continues to be dishonest and cleverly uses that dishonesty to win allies within his world. And frankly, his boss – also a man of the world – has to commend him for acting shrewdly according to worldly principles. By manipulating the fellow inhabitants of his kingdom, he benefits from it according to the rules of his kingdom.

Remember, Jesus addressed this parable specifically to His followers – and His point is this: you who are children of God’s Kingdom sure don’t act like it. Instead of being shrewd according to the principles of your King and dealing with your fellow residents as God commands – for example with generosity, kindness, and love – you are not clever at all. When challenges come, you ultimately fail – and in this sense the people of the world are better at playing their game than are the people of light.

Jesus also goes on to say:

And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings.

“Unrighteous wealth” is Jesus’ way of addressing the way that money reigns supreme in the kingdom of the world. He is not saying that wealth in itself is a bad thing, but rather recognizing that it has often been corrupted by greed and made into an idol. Further, these “friends” to whom Jesus is referring - keeping our comparisons constant – would be those highly valued inhabitants of the Kingdom of God. This would imply, then, that wealth that operates according to the principles of this world should be co-opted by Christ’s followers to be used according to the principles of God’s Kingdom.

How should a Christian go about using wealth according to the God’s principles? I’d submit to you that there are many ways; not the least of which has been suggested by Jesus Himself in the Gospel of Matthew (25:34-40):

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

Food, water, hospitality, clothing – all of these things cost money. And money – and the life in which we earn it – is fleeting… Jesus presses us to take care of those inhabitants of the kingdom who are in need.

Let me leave you today with a final thought on the Parable of the Shrewd Manager as offered by author Dennis Ireland:

Here Jesus tells His disciples how and why they can practice in their own sphere of existence the wise preparation for the future which the [manager] exercised in his. Jesus says in effect that true wisdom is to use money with eternity in view, ‘to use wealth in the service of love.’ Unlike the unjust [manager] who at best provided only for his earthly future, acts of charity by disciples will bear interest in eternity.