Identity-based Boycotts in Politically Sensitive Markets: A Comparative Case Study of McDonald’s and Zara

Brand boycotts in politically sensitive markets increasingly arise from symbolic and geopolitical interpretations rather than operational failures, challenging dominant explanations of brand rejection. While the self-congruity theory (SCT) explains how consumers withdraw from brands perceived as identity-incongruent, it offers limited insight into how such incongruence becomes moralized, publicly contested and collectively mobilized under conditions of political salience. This study examines how identity-based boycotts are constructed and mobilized in politically sensitive contexts and how brands attempt to realign value congruence in response. Adopting a qualitative, interpretive and comparative case study design, the research analyses two high-profile boycotts of McDonald’s and Zara during the Gaza conflict. Drawing on triangulated secondary data, including news coverage, corporate communications, news-reported social media content and market reporting, the analysis traces how controversies unfolded, escalated and stabilized over time. SCT serves as the primary interpretive lens for understanding identity-based meaning-making, while the Brand Controversy Response Framework is used as an organizing scaffold for cross-case comparison. The findings show that identity-based boycotts evolve through a patterned interpretive sequence involving perceived identity violation, moral outrage, symbolic amplification, collective mobilization and partial value realignment. Recovery efforts centred on procedural clarification proved insufficient; symbolic and value-oriented responses were central to restoring legitimacy. The study offers contextual insights into how political identity and mediated meaning-making shape brand crises in conflict-affected markets.