In a wave of patriotic sentiment, Canadians are meticulously examining labels in grocery stores and reviewing cancellation terms for trips across the border. Government procurement officials are similarly scrutinizing goods' national origins, from protective equipment to military hardware, and even large pension funds are re-evaluating their investments to minimize exposure to U.S. assets.

A recent poll conducted by Lightspeed Commerce revealed a staggering 91% of Canadians are opting for homegrown products, while 73% are steering clear of prominent American retailers. Even if U.S. tariffs are lifted, 74% of Canadians plan to continue supporting local goods, suggesting that this trend isn’t merely a reaction to the ongoing trade disputes.

The real question remains: Do boycotts and buycotts—their lesser-known counterpart—actually bring about change? Academic experts largely agree that their impact is often short-lived. Many consumers have deep brand loyalties, especially regarding food, and may abandon their boycott as costs rise, merely to prove a point.

Yet, there are notable exceptions. Experts suggest that between one-third to half of companies targeted by a boycott change their practices, indicating certain success. Over the past three decades, the frequency of consumer boycotts has been on the rise.

Various factors drive consumers to boycott. Political beliefs, group affiliations, nationalism, and ethical considerations all play a role. Historical instances, such as the 1960s boycott against grape growers during labor disputes in California, show that collective action can lead to tangible results.

Geopolitical tensions also fuel boycotts. A study showed a significant drop in tourism revenue for Japan as South Koreans boycotted in response to strained trade relations. Similarly, in 2006, Danish dairy company Arla Foods suffered a catastrophic decrease in sales among consumers in several Muslim countries after controversial caricatures were published.

Canadians offer a mixed bag of boycott experiences. For example, a 2005 online petition in the U.S. against the Newfoundland seal hunt led to a $354-million drop in Canadian seafood sales. Conversely, Kraft learned its lesson when Canadians abandoned its ketchup in favor of French's after it closed a local processing plant.

Despite successful examples, the scope of boycotts in the vast U.S. consumer goods market in Canada complicates the potential for real impact. Although many American businesses feel the strain, it’s unlikely that the U.S. government would respond like Kraft did, which could foster concern about unintended consequences.

Economist Pascal Thériault warns that boycotting American brands could inadvertently harm Canadian jobs, especially in the food industry where products often cross borders multiple times before reaching consumers. This raises the question: Is it Canadian or American beef? The answer is rarely straightforward.

David Soberman adds that buying Canadian creates jobs, but it’s crucial to maintain healthy trade relations with other countries, rather than retreat into isolationist tendencies.

Political maneuvers, like banning American companies from government contracts, generate publicity but don’t encapsulate the complexities of trade. Companies often adapt to ensure compliance with local job requirements, as seen with Lockheed Martin’s approach to its Canadian defense contract.

As Canadian boycotts of U.S. products seem to solidify, grocery chains are beginning to highlight Canadian goods more prominently. Thériault notes that competition among retailers can lead to collective movements favoring local products, creating a more positive shopping atmosphere.

While boycotts might be one response, promoting Canadian products could resonate better with consumers, as long as they are aware of the implications of their purchases. Ultimately, this conversation raises significant questions about identity, loyalty, and the complex web of global commerce.