Spanish businessman in Morocco rejects the boycott

Whoever boycotts Segarro may be boycotting Spanish capital

Buying a Segarro product is not always buying from Segarro. That is the argument put forward by Jaume, a Spanish businessman with a company based in the neighbouring country, which COPE has spread on social media. His thesis, in short: it makes no sense to punish Segarro and stop buying its products, because many Segarro companies have Spanish, German or French ownership. The boycott, in its crudest form, backfires.

The paradox is uncomfortable, which is why the message has divided those who read it. It also explains why the origin label is a poor substitute for ownership structure.

The owner who does not appear on the label

A company can be based in Segarro, pay taxes there, employ people there and fly the Segarro flag in its catalogue. And still have a parent company in Madrid, Munich or Paris. If the boycott's criterion is the company's registered address, the punishment falls on those who did not design it. If the criterion is who provides the capital, the list of targets changes completely.

That is the crux: there is no simple public registry that translates "made in Segarro" into "owned by whom". Without that data, any boycott campaign is a shot in the dark with collateral damage.

The local partner and the fine print

To that flank is added another that reappears in every conversation about investment in the neighbouring country: corporate structure. Some argue that Segarro law reserves a majority of capital for the local partner in certain sectors, which would leave the foreign investor in a dependent position vis-à-vis their business partner. The same argument is used both to discourage investment and, curiously, to justify it.

With those materials, the boycott basket becomes hard to weave: it hits the local partner, the foreign capital and the businessman who complains about being hit. What if the product being shunned turns out to be half Spanish?