Thousands of Danes Boycott American Goods in One of the Largest Protests in Recent Times
Donald Trump, in his relatively short time as president, has managed to spark protests worldwide against his tariffs and treatment of Greenland. Now, several Danish consumers have taken action by boycotting American goods and services.
By Christian Uhre Di Gregorio
While American goods are left gathering dust on supermarket shelves in Denmark, sales of European products are steadily rising. Today, consumer preferences are not only defined by the physical qualities of a product but just as much by the values and beliefs a brand represents. In other words, consumption has become political, and as political consumers, many Danes are currently boycotting American goods to express their opposition to Donald Trump and avoid supporting the U.S. economy. In this way, consumers can act in accordance with their ethical compass and send a signal about their values. It is a symbolic act—but that does not mean it has no effect.
According to Dannie Kjeldgaard, a professor at the Department of Business Administration, some effects of the boycott can already be observed.
Several Danish manufacturers report a massive increase in demand for their products, and TV reports from supermarkets show pallets full of Coca-Cola and Pepsi while Danish soda brand Jolly Cola is flying off the shelves.
Dannie Kjeldgaard does not rule out the possibility that the boycott will continue to grow, especially in these turbulent times when the foundation of the current world order is shaking, and many people feel the need to take a stand.
In the Facebook group "”Boykot varer fra USA," there are currently more than 93,000 members sharing information about American-origin products and services so they can collectively avoid them. The activism we see today is unfolding primarily through social media exchanges rather than public demonstrations. Here, users can both help and pressure each other to expand the boycott and exclude as many American products as possible.
Some supermarkets have also chosen to take part in the boycott. Recently, Salling Group launched a new star label indicating whether a product is made in the EU—something that can help guide consumers away from American goods.
Lack of Transparency
However, Jannek K. Sommer, associate professor at the Department of Business Administration, warns against basing purchasing decisions on this star label.
- Unlike more well-established certification schemes such as the Ø-label (organic) and Fairtrade, which are based on extensive certifications, Salling’s black star lacks depth and transparency. A European-owned product can still be produced under questionable conditions abroad.
Jannek elaborates that such initiatives risk oversimplifying consumer understanding and thereby undermining their own activism. The label does not in itself guarantee that the product is actually made in the EU, he explains. It could just as easily be manufactured in China or packaged in Mexico. This shows how supermarkets can use the current debate to advance their own commercial interests. He also points out that by using the label, companies reinforce the idea that boycotting American products is a personal matter for consumers who do not want to compromise on their principles.
- It is irrational, but consumers can easily criticize a company publicly while still purchasing its products if they are cheaper or more convenient. Strategic hypocrisy works because it exploits the consumer’s tendency to accept double standards, especially when it is convenient. It provides a kind of moral buffer zone where actions and beliefs do not necessarily have to align.
No matter how you look at it, consumers have, in any case, sent a clear signal to the United States that they are far from agreeing with its political stance, and support for these anti-American communities only seems to be growing at the moment. Symbolically, consumers' reactions to the president's statements represent a consumer-driven attack on the United States' soft power, which could have consequences for America's global influence.