scholarly journals Improving accountability for farm animal welfare: the performative role of a benchmark device

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-58
Author(s):  
Josie McLaren ◽  
Tony Appleyard

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate accountability for farm animal welfare (FAW) in food companies. FAW is an important social issue, yet it is difficult to define and measure, meaning that it is difficult for companies to demonstrate accountability. The authors investigate a proposed solution, the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW), and how it has disrupted the informal rules or culture of the market. The research questions centre on the process of response to BBFAW and the necessary characteristics for BBFAW to play a performative role in the market. Design/methodology/approach This paper employs an analysis of published BBFAW reports (2012–2017) and case study interviews in five BBFAW firms, in order to address the research questions. Findings The authors present evidence of a dynamic, repetitive process, starting with recognition of the importance of FAW and BBFAW, followed by internal discussions and the commitment of resources, and changes in communication to external stakeholders. Three necessary characteristics for performativity are proposed: common language, building networks and expanding markets. Originality/value This paper reflects a socially important issue that is under-represented in the accounting literature. The results provide an insight into the use of external accounts to drive collaboratively the social change agenda. The performativity process and identified characteristics contribute to expanding this literature in the accounting domain.

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 345-362
Author(s):  
Özlem Turan ◽  
Serkan Gurluk ◽  
Abdulhakim Madiyoh

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine producer preferences for changing Farm Animal Welfare (FAW) levels in regards to sheep and goat husbandry in Bursa-Turkey. Design/methodology/approach The paper tests “panel estimators” in a stated preference data by using the payment card question format. Probit panels are employed to measure individual effects on FAW levels by considering producers’ willingness to accept. Three different FAW levels were identified for valuation as “base” level, “better” level, and the “best” level. The current study suggests a protocol with WTA(P) nomenclature to resolve complexity issues in FAW studies by investigating producers rather than consumers because the scenarios regarding FAW levels include quite technical and difficult topics which are vague to consumers. Findings If half of the total number of the sheep and goats in Turkey are assumed to be in bad animal welfare conditions, which are worse than base level, the non-use benefits of bringing them to at least the base level would be about US$130.3m. Figures would be 166.2m US$/year and 175m US$/year for “better” and “best” FAW conditions, respectively. Originality/value This paper provides a contribution to the existing literature by examining the producers’ responses to new FAW schemes. Also it helps policy makers to understand producers’ environmental behavior as well as their sensitivity to FAW schemes.


1991 ◽  
Vol 129 (16) ◽  
pp. 367-367
Author(s):  
C. Spedding

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document