Frontlash at the Checkout: Commercial Performances of Migrant Inclusion and the Civil Sphere
Drawing on civil sphere theory and an analysis of twenty-five global episodes from 2014 to 2025, this article examines how corporate attempts to include migrants in advertisements often trigger civil backlash framed through apocalyptic or danger narratives, revealing asymmetric institutional responses that distinguish between state-enforced exclusion and autonomous civil defense of inclusion.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the modern world, the marketplace is often seen as a place of simple transactions: a customer picks up a product, pays, and leaves. But for a growing number of sociologists, the checkout counter has become a stage where the most fundamental questions of society are played out. This field of study, known as civil sphere theory, suggests that every society has a shared set of values about who belongs and who does not. These values act like a moral code, distinguishing between people who are seen as honest, independent, and open, and those who are viewed with suspicion, as dependent or deceitful. Usually, this code is tested in schools, courts, or parliaments. However, a new line of inquiry asks what happens when a company, an entity driven by profit rather than public service, steps onto this stage. When a business decides to show a diverse group of people in its advertisements or hire workers from abroad, it is not just selling a product; it is making a statement about who is welcome in the nation. The question researchers are now asking is how the public reacts when a company, without being asked, tries to define the boundaries of their community.
A researcher at Babeș-Bolyai University in Romania has taken a close look at this phenomenon by examining twenty-five specific moments between 2014 and 2025 where a company's attempt to include migrants sparked a public fight. The study covers events in eight different countries, ranging from a German chocolate brand featuring soccer players with migrant backgrounds to a Romanian political figure calling for a boycott of food delivery workers from Asia. The researcher did not just count how many people complained; instead, they analyzed the stories people told themselves about why they were angry. They looked at whether the anger was about the immediate safety of the nation, or about a deeper fear that the future of the country was being stolen. They also tracked whether these angry reactions stayed in the realm of social media posts and boycotts, or if they grew strong enough to force government officials to take legal action.
The investigation revealed that the size of a migrant population does not determine whether a company will face a backlash. A country with a very large number of foreign workers might see no controversy at all, while a country with very few might erupt in anger. The trigger is not the number of people, but the story already being told about them in the news and by politicians. If a group is already labeled as a threat in public discourse, a company showing them in a positive light will likely be attacked. If the group is not yet seen as a threat, the same advertisement might pass without incident. For example, in Poland, a supermarket chain that began speaking Ukrainian to its customers faced only mild complaints about language, because Ukrainians were not yet framed as a danger. In contrast, in Romania, a similar situation with workers from South Asia and Africa led to violent attacks and political calls for boycotts, because the public narrative had shifted to view them as invaders.
The most significant finding concerns where the company places the stranger in its story. The researcher found that anger takes two very different forms depending on whether the advertisement focuses on the present or the future. When a company shows a migrant participating in current national life, such as playing on a national sports team or working in a familiar office, the public debate is usually about representation. People argue about whether the image is accurate or if the company is trying to force a new version of the nation onto them. However, when an advertisement places a migrant in a scene of family life, reproduction, or the next generation—such as a child in a classroom, a baby shower, or a family holiday—the reaction changes dramatically. In these cases, the public does not just argue about representation; they fear for the survival of the nation itself. The story becomes apocalyptic, with opponents claiming that the presence of these people will replace the native population or destroy the country's culture. This fear is so powerful that it can turn a simple commercial into a battle over the nation's future.
The study also uncovered a surprising imbalance in how these conflicts are resolved by the law. When a company is accused of being too inclusive, it is very difficult for the government to punish them unless a politician is leading the charge and has a specific law to use. In one instance in Hungary, a government official pushed for a fine against a company for an inclusive ad, and the law was applied. But when the opposite happens—when a company is attacked by angry citizens for hiring migrants or for not taking a stand—the government rarely steps in to stop the harassment. Instead, it is often independent civil institutions, like equality bodies or police forces, that act on their own to protect the company or the workers from the backlash. This suggests that while it is hard for the state to stop a company from being too inclusive, it is also hard for the state to stop a mob from attacking a company for being inclusive.
Ultimately, the research shows that companies are walking a tightrope. When they try to include migrants in their ads, they are judged by a moral code they did not write and do not control. They face a double danger: if they are seen as too progressive, they are attacked by those who feel the nation is being threatened; if they are seen as too aligned with strict security measures, they are attacked by those who value human rights. The study concludes that the question of who belongs to a nation is no longer decided only in parliament or in courtrooms. It is being argued every day at the checkout counter, on the doorstep of a home, and in the images we see on our screens, where a simple picture of a family or a worker can ignite a firestorm over the future of the country.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.