Who are farm animal welfare conscious consumers?

2020 ◽  
Vol 122 (12) ◽  
pp. 3779-3796
Author(s):  
Albert Boaitey ◽  
Kota Minegishi

PurposeThis paper aims to synthesize the literature on consumer preferences for farm animal welfare (FAW), with an emphasis on characterizing consumers based on their FAW preferences. The objective is to provide insights into the salient characteristics associated with animal welfare conscious consumers.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conduct a systematic review of the results of published research on consumer preferences for FAW. Approximately 350 papers were reviewed, and 52 were included in the analysis.FindingsThe authors’ review suggests that consumers are not homogenous in their preferences for FAW. The authors identify seven themes that enabled them to characterize consumers with higher FAW preferences. These themes (i.e. age, education and income, gender, country and cross-cultural differences, attitudes and consumer and citizen functions) are grouped under four main headings (socio-demographics, ethics and attitudes, product characteristics and public roles).Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ synthesis reflects the findings reported in the literature to this date; the identified characteristics may change with time as new evidence becomes available.Practical implicationsThe information collected in this article would be useful to farmers and food and non-food retailers interested in effective product differentiation and marketing strategies regarding FAW standards. It can also inform policymakers about the state of consumer concerns for FAW.Originality/valueTo the best of authors' knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to develop a systematic profile of consumers based on their FAW preferences.

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.


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.


2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth J. Austin ◽  
Ian J. Deary ◽  
Gareth Edwards-Jones ◽  
Dale Arey

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 1081-1093 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Jones ◽  
Joop Lensink ◽  
Maria Cecilia Mancini ◽  
Richard Tranter

Agriculture ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 104
Author(s):  
Jill N. Fernandes ◽  
Paul H. Hemsworth ◽  
Grahame J. Coleman ◽  
Alan J. Tilbrook

It costs money to improve the welfare of farm animals. For people with animals under their care, there are many factors to consider regarding changes in practice to improve welfare, and the optimal course of action is not always obvious. Decision support systems for animal welfare, such as economic cost–benefit analyses, are lacking. This review attempts to provide clarity around the costs and benefits of improving farm animal welfare, thereby enabling the people with animals under their care to make informed decisions. Many of the costs are obvious. For example, training of stockpeople, reconfiguration of pens, and administration of pain relief can improve welfare, and all incur costs. Other costs are less obvious. For instance, there may be substantial risks to market protection, consumer acceptance, and social licence to farm associated with not ensuring good animal welfare. The benefits of improving farm animal welfare are also difficult to evaluate from a purely economic perspective. Although it is widely recognised that animals with poor welfare are unlikely to produce at optimal levels, there may be benefits of improving animal welfare that extend beyond production gains. These include benefits to the animal, positive effects on the workforce, competitive advantage for businesses, mitigation of risk, and positive social consequences. We summarise these considerations into a decision tool that can assist people with farm animals under their care, and we highlight the need for further empirical evidence to improve decision-making in animal welfare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document