This is part of a series on nonviolent protest methods, which explains approaches and provides inspirational examples from history. For additional resources, please explore the Museum of Protest’s activist guides and view items in the collection.

A producers’ boycott is a form of protest in which those who create or supply goods refuse to produce, sell, or deliver those goods in order to press for change. The people or businesses who normally provide a product intentionally withhold it as leverage.

Unlike a consumer boycott (where buyers stop buying), a producers’ boycott puts pressure on the target by choking off the supply of goods or services. It is essentially the mirror image of a consumer boycott: instead of people saying “We won’t buy from you,” the producers say “We won’t sell to you.”

By withholding goods, producers can create economic disruption or inconvenience for the target (which might be a government, an occupying force, a corporation, or any group depending on those goods). This method is entirely nonviolent – no one is physically harmed – yet it can have serious impact because it leverages the protestors’ economic role. A well-organized producers’ boycott can hit an opponent where it hurts: in the supply lines and profits. It has been called a “selling strike” because producers essentially go on strike against selling their product.

How Does a Producers’ Boycott Work?

In a producers’ boycott, the people who normally make or distribute a product decide not to do so, usually to achieve a social or political goal. The idea is to deny the opponent the benefit of that product until certain conditions are met. This creates pressure in a few ways:

Economic Pressure on the Target: If a government or company relies on a certain crop, resource, or product, a coordinated refusal by producers to supply it can disrupt the target’s operations or income. The shortage can create economic loss or public dissatisfaction for the opponent, pushing them to negotiate or concede. For example, if farmers refuse to send food to market in protest, the authorities or merchants lose revenue and the public may blame the authorities for the shortage.

Public Attention and Solidarity: A producers’ boycott is often very visible. Fields might lie unharvested, factories go quiet, or shops close their shutters. This visibility can draw public attention to the protestors’ cause. Moreover, it often invites support from other groups (such as consumers who refrain from buying the boycotted goods in solidarity, or transport workers who refuse to ship substitute goods). In many cases, a producers’ boycott becomes a community-wide action, uniting different players in the supply chain around a common cause.

Moral Leverage: Producers’ boycotts can carry moral weight, especially if the producers sacrifice their own income or comfort for a principle. When people see producers willingly taking a financial hit or risking their livelihoods to stand up against wrongdoing, it can sway public opinion. The protestors signal that principles matter more than profit.

Importantly, a producers’ boycott is usually voluntary and collective. It works best when a large number of producers participate together, so that the target cannot easily find alternative sources. If only a few producers withhold goods, the effect may be small because the opponent can simply buy from others. But if everyone in a sector or region bands together, the target is stuck. This requires strong organization, communication, and often some form of association or union among the producers.

Producers’ boycotts are often used in combination with other methods of resistance. For instance, producers might also encourage a consumer boycott of any scabs or scab goods that attempt to break the boycott, or they might coordinate with transport workers (middlemen) to refuse moving goods (a related method Sharp calls a “suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott”). In many historical cases, producers’ boycotts have been part of broader movements of noncooperation and civil disobedience. Now, let’s explore some notable examples to see how this tactic has played out in practice.

When and Why Use a Producers’ Boycott?

Like any protest tool, a producers’ boycott is most effective under certain conditions and requires careful planning. Here are some practical insights into how and when this method can be used most effectively:

Leverage Essential Goods or Services: A producers’ boycott hits hardest when the product being withheld is highly essential or hard to replace. If the target deeply needs what the producers provide (food for an army, a key export crop for revenue, fuel for an economy, etc.), then refusing to supply it gives protestors significant leverage. For example, if coal miners collectively refuse to mine or ship coal during winter, a government dependent on coal power will feel immediate pressure. Choose a product or service that the opponent cannot easily get elsewhere or do without.

Widespread Participation: Unity is strength in a producers’ boycott. The more producers who join, the more effective it is. A well-organized boycott often involves forming committees or associations so producers can agree on the plan and stick together. This prevents the target from bypassing the boycott by simply purchasing from hold-outs. When essentially all producers take part (sometimes even supported by merchants, transporters, and consumers), the boycott becomes almost airtight, forcing the opponent to reckon with the protestors’ demands.

Clear Goals and Communication: Successful boycotts usually have specific demands or grievances and make them known. Producers should clearly state why they are taking action (e.g. “We will not deliver our crop until the government ends the unjust tax” or “We refuse to sell our product until the company improves safety conditions”). This clarity helps win public sympathy and tells the target exactly what must change for the boycott to end. Open communication and perhaps negotiation channels (through mediators or public statements) can help resolve the standoff once the pressure mounts.

Ability to Withstand Counter-Pressure: Producers engaging in a boycott must prepare for hardship and pushback. By not selling, they sacrifice income in the short term. An unsympathetic opponent might also punish them (through legal means, violence, or economic retaliation). To sustain the protest, participants often create support systems: strike funds or shared resources to get through the lean period, secret distribution networks to friendly buyers, or help from the wider community. Essentially, producers need a plan for how to survive financially during the boycott – and the determination to face possible reprisals – long enough for the tactic to bite the opponent.

Timing and Surprise: Launching a producers’ boycott at a strategic time can increase its impact. For instance, doing it at the peak of harvest when silos should be filled, or right before a product is needed for some big event or season, can catch the target flat-footed. Timing it in response to a new injustice (like a sudden oppressive law or policy) can also make the moral reasoning clear and urgent. Sometimes even the threat of a producers’ boycott (if credible) can push an opponent to negotiate early, before the pain is felt.

A producers’ boycott works best when producers form a united front, pick a leverage point that truly inconveniences the target, and are prepared – both morally and materially – to hold out. History offers many instructive examples where this method has been employed.

Notable Examples of Producers’ Boycotts

Norwegian Peasants Thwart a King’s Wars (11th Century)

One of the earliest recorded producers’ boycotts goes back to medieval Norway. In the 11th century, Norwegian peasant farmers used noncooperation to stop their king’s aggressive war plans. According to historical accounts cited by Gene Sharp, these peasants refused to supply the king with the food and provisions his soldiers needed for military campaigns against neighboring Denmark and Sweden. Essentially, when the king levied a demand for grain, livestock, or even peasant conscripts to support a new war, the rural communities simply did not comply. Without local food supplies (and without manpower in some cases), the king could not sustain his army in the field. As a result, three separate wars had to be abandoned because the Norwegian populace would not provision the royal troops.

This medieval producers’ boycott is striking because it shows the power of ordinary rural folk against a feudal monarch, long before modern concepts of protest. The peasants likely acted out of weariness of constant wars and heavy burdens on their livelihoods. By withholding their produce and denying logistical support, they made warfare logistically impossible, thereby forcing peace. It was a silent, collective act of defiance – no battles or riots, just an entire region saying “we won’t help you fight.”

This example set a precedent that even in autocratic times, rulers could be checked by economic noncooperation. It demonstrates the core principle of the producers’ boycott: an army (or any enterprise) marches on its stomach, and if the people who fill the stomach with food refuse to do so, the march halts. In essence, Norwegian farmers leveraged their control over food production to impose their will on the mighty.

American Colonists’ Non-Exportation Agreement (1770s)

Producers’ boycotts also played a role in early American resistance against British rule. During the buildup to the American Revolution, the colonists famously organized consumer boycotts of British imports like tea. Less well known, but equally important, is that they also planned a producers’ boycott in the form of non-exportation – basically refusing to send American goods to Britain.

In 1774, the First Continental Congress created the Continental Association, which called for a colony-wide trade boycott: not only would Americans stop importing British products, they agreed that if Britain didn’t address their grievances (like repealing unjust laws), the colonies would also halt all export of American products to Britain. This meant crops such as tobacco, rice, lumber, and other raw materials that British merchants depended on would no longer be shipped out. The Congress saw this as a “powerful noncooperation weapon” to peacefully pressure Britain.

The plan was bold: the American colonies were major producers of commodities crucial to British business, especially tobacco. By threatening to choke off this supply, the colonists hoped the British government would back down without the need for violence. Indeed, colonial committees sprang into action to enforce the non-exportation pledge. One Virginia planter wrote in late 1774 that after a certain date, “we will not…export tobacco, or any other article whatever to Great Britain” until demands were met. This unity among producers was unprecedented – they were essentially sacrificing their own export income for the sake of political rights and liberty.

British officials realized the Americans were serious; trade numbers show British imports from the colonies collapsed by 1775, indicating how effectively Americans were boycotting. In the end, events moved quickly to open war in 1775, and the non-exportation embargo fully took effect only briefly (since once the Revolutionary War began, normal trade ceased anyway).

However, the very effort demonstrated that the colonists understood the concept of a producers’ boycott well. They were ready to use their role as producers – of tobacco, cotton, indigo, timber, etc. – as a bargaining chip. This nonviolent strategy nearly forced Britain’s hand before fighting started. It also fostered unity: farmers, merchants, and planters from different colonies had to cooperate for it to work. The American example underscores how producers’ boycotts can be a “peaceful means” of settling disputes – in this case, attempting to win rights by wielding economic power rather than muskets.

The Persian Tobacco Boycott (1891–1892)

One of the most famous producers’ boycotts in the Middle East was the Persian Tobacco Protest of 1891–92 in Iran. This was a nationwide revolt in which virtually everyone involved in the tobacco business – from growers to sellers to smokers – refused to produce, sell, or use tobacco in protest of a foreign monopoly.

The context was this: The Shah of Persia had granted a British company an exclusive concession to buy and market all Persian tobacco. This angered local merchants (who stood to lose business) and patriotic leaders (who saw it as selling out the country). In December 1891, Iran’s highest religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Mirza Hasan Shirazi, issued a fatwa (religious decree) declaring the use of tobacco unlawful until the concession was canceled. Instantly, a mass boycott swept the country.

What made this producers’ boycott so effective was its universal observance. It wasn’t just consumers who stopped smoking; farmers stopped growing tobacco, and merchants shut down tobacco sales. Even the Shah’s own wives in the royal harem gave up their water-pipes in obedience to the boycott. British tobacco company agents suddenly found that no one would sell to them or even grow the crop – entire warehouses of tobacco went unsold. The Persian tobacco trade came to a standstill.

This unity among producers and consumers, backed by religious and nationalist fervor, created enormous pressure on the Shah. After a few tumultuous months of standoff (and even street protests), the Shah canceled the tobacco concession in January 1892. The foreign monopoly was defeated without a battle, simply by the collective nonviolent refusal of Persians to provide or consume tobacco.

The Tobacco Boycott had far-reaching effects. It is often cited as the first mass national resistance in Iran and a precursor to later revolutionary movements. It showed that ordinary people – peasants, traders, even women in their homes – could wield power by uniting in economic noncooperation. For the producers (the tobacco farmers), it meant short-term sacrifice (they had to forego income from their cash crop) but they were motivated by a patriotic desire to protect their livelihoods from foreign control in the long run.

The success of the protest left a lasting memory in Iran’s political culture of how effective a boycott by producers and consumers together can be. In this case, the producers’ boycott (no growing or selling) and the consumer boycott (no smoking) reinforced each other perfectly. The British venture collapsed and Iran’s tobacco remained in Iranian hands. This example vividly illustrates how a well-organized economic boycott can force even a monarch’s hand without firing a shot.

Gold Coast Cocoa Hold-Up (1937–1938)

In the late 1930s, cocoa farmers in the British colony of the Gold Coast (modern-day Ghana) waged a dramatic producers’ boycott to protest exploitative colonial trading practices. The Gold Coast was the world’s largest cocoa producer, but colonial firms fixed prices to keep farmers’ earnings low. Frustrated, the African farmers organized a “cocoa hold-up” in 1937-38, essentially a mass refusal to sell their cocoa beans until they got better terms. Instead of sending their harvest to the British trading companies, the farmers stored it or even let it rot, in hopes of forcing a price increase. This was a classic producers’ boycott: they withheld the very product that was the lifeblood of the colony’s economy.

The cocoa hold-up was impressively well-organized. Leaders of the farmer cooperatives coordinated the action across different regions. In November 1937, they announced that no cocoa would be sold to British firms, and they also launched a boycott of certain European goods to widen the impact. This boycott remained in effect until April 1938, effectively six months of no cocoa exports out of the Gold Coast.

The effect on the colonial economy was dramatic: cocoa exports plummeted to nearly zero, and trade in the colony virtually ceased during that period. European firms scrambled; some even tried (unsuccessfully) to purchase smuggled cocoa or persuade farmers with minor concessions. The farmers were resolute, and they gained broad support – even market women and transport workers joined in solidarity, refusing to carry cocoa or sell imported goods, which helped sustain the boycott.

Ultimately, the total shutdown of the cocoa trade pressured the British colonial authorities to intervene. The colonial government convened the Nowell Commission to investigate, and by early 1938 a compromise was reached: the boycott ended with an agreement to reform the cocoa marketing system. The British promised to set up a regulated marketing board to stabilize prices and eliminate some of the most unfair practices, giving the farmers a stronger position going forward.

While the farmers did not get an immediate big price hike, their collective action did force a structural change that acknowledged their grievances. The 1937-38 cocoa producers’ boycott is remembered as a watershed moment in West African anti-colonial resistance. It demonstrated that African farmers were not powerless peasants at the mercy of empire; they could organize and use economic noncooperation to protect their interests.

The success of the hold-up (in terms of unity and impact) also inspired future political movements in Ghana and other colonies. Kwame Nkrumah and other nationalist leaders often cited such economic boycotts as evidence of the colonized peoples’ ability to mobilize. In sum, the Gold Coast cocoa boycott showed that “no sale, no shipment” by producers could bring a colonial economy to its knees, compelling reforms that armed resistance alone might not have achieved so swiftly.

The 1973 Arab Oil Embargo

Producers’ boycotts are not only the domain of grassroots movements – sometimes governments themselves have used this tactic on the world stage. A prime example is the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973–74, in which oil-producing nations in the Middle East refused to sell oil to certain Western countries to protest those countries’ policies.

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab members of OPEC (led by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states) decided to cut off oil exports to the United States and several other nations that supported Israel in the conflict. This was essentially a producers’ boycott at an international scale: the countries that collectively controlled a large share of the world’s petroleum simply stopped the flow of oil to the target nations in October 1973.

The impact was immediate and massive. Oil is the lifeblood of industrial economies, and suddenly the U.S., Netherlands, and others found their supplies shrinking. The price of oil on the global market skyrocketed – it eventually quadrupled within a year, triggering a severe energy crisis in the West. Gasoline shortages hit consumers (Americans faced long gas lines and rationing), and the economic shock rippled through industries with rising costs.

Politically, the oil producers’ boycott forced Western governments to take the Middle East conflict seriously and scramble for solutions. The U.S. launched new diplomatic efforts in the Arab-Israeli dispute, and also began overhauling its energy policy (including investing in domestic oil production and conservation). Europe and Japan likewise rethought their dependence on Middle Eastern oil, fearing their vulnerability.

In March 1974, after about five months, the embargo was lifted on the U.S. (it continued a bit longer against some other countries). By that time the Arab states felt they had made their point: they had demonstrated that oil could be used as a political weapon.

This producers’ boycott – though enacted by national governments – closely mirrors the dynamics of other examples: a group of suppliers banded together and withheld a critical resource to pressure opponents into policy changes. It was nonviolent but undeniably coercive.

The lasting outcome was mixed. While it did not immediately resolve the political conflict (the Middle East peace process remained complex), the oil embargo of 1973 did succeed in raising the profile of Arab states and forcing a shift in how countries dealt with them diplomatically. It also permanently changed the global economy, ushering in an era of awareness about energy security. In protest terms, it was one of the most consequential boycotts in history, showing the world the staggering power of producers when they collectively turn off the tap.