Abstract
Looking at the issues from an economic perspective, we examine four approaches to the improvement of farm animal welfare: legislative initiatives, and initiatives driven by producers, consumer choice (labelling), and food companies (Corporate Social Responsibility; CSR). We take as our starting point the assumption that to obtain the best possible improvements in animal welfare, a combination of all four approaches will be needed. The main focus of the paper is to show that (and how) economics and other social sciences can play an important role in determining how to design and implement these approaches most effectively. We argue that insights from animal welfare science on what constitutes an improvement in animal welfare, and how such improvements are best measured, are a necessary input to the economic analyses. Economic analyses can guide the form and extent of welfare legislation so as to set decent minimum standards of animal welfare. To exploit producer-driven animal welfare opportunities, understanding the relationship between animal welfare, productivity and other product or production characteristics is essential. To make best use of initiatives driven by consumer choice and CSR, the focus needs to be on, not simply aspects of animal welfare for which consumers are known to be willing to pay, but also other welfare dimensions viewed as essential by animal welfare experts. Finally, recent, rapid developments in the marketing of animal welfare-friendly products have demonstrated the need for more knowledge about the ways in which consumers perceive the different kinds of information used in labels and CSR strategies.
Generated Summary
This journal article, viewed from an economic perspective, examines four main approaches to improve farm animal welfare: legislative initiatives, producer-driven initiatives, consumer choice (labelling), and initiatives by food companies (Corporate Social Responsibility; CSR). The research uses economic analysis to understand how to design and implement these approaches most effectively. The study uses the Danish regulation of laying hens as a case study to examine the potential strengths and weaknesses of these initiatives. The article aims to contribute to the design and implementation of these approaches to the promotion of farm animal welfare through economic analyses. The central focus is on determining how economics and other social sciences can inform the effective design and execution of these various strategies.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The Eurobarometer study (2016) involving 27,672 European citizens in 28 countries, reported that almost all respondents (94%) considered it to be ‘very important or somewhat important’ to protect the welfare of farm animals. Almost as many (82%) answered ‘yes, certainly, or yes, probably’ when asked whether they believed the welfare of farmed animals in their respective countries should be given greater protection than it receives currently.
- In Denmark, barn and free-range eggs have been sold with price premiums since the 1980s; the official Danish organic label was initiated in 1989; and Friland A/S has sold free-range pork approved by the main animal protection agency in Denmark, Dyrenes Beskyttelse, since 1992.
- RCPCA Certified (formerly Freedom Food) animal products in the United Kingdom and Beter Leven-labelled animal products in The Netherlands are well-established examples of product lines guaranteeing animal welfare levels above legal minimum standards (Christensen et al 2014).
- In the UK, RSPCA Assured certified 30% of British pig production, while in The Netherlands, 36% of pork sold was Beter Leven certified.
- In Denmark, in 2014, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals owned the only nationwide welfare label. In 2017, two new animal welfare labels were introduced in Denmark.
- Denver et al (2017) attempted to identify Danish consumer WTP for medium and premium levels of welfare pork in addition to the standard choice. It found that a segment consisting of 80% of respondents stated a positive WTP for medium products as compared with standard products.
- Pedersen (2017) estimated the costs of reduced stocking density and found that reducing the stocking density among laying hens by 5 and 10% in standard production systems with nine hens per m² (and thereby presumably increasing animal welfare) led to reduced profits of 5.5 and 11%, respectively.
- Kudahl et al. (2017) estimate that reducing welfare problems by investing in extended cubicles, placing soft mattresses or sand in the cubicles, and improving floor quality and hygiene, would be profitable over a ten-year payback period based on the assumption that milk yield would increase by a minimum of 1 kg per cow per day and that lameness would reduce by 10-20%.
- Between 5 and 15% of consumers consider animal welfare to be an important product attribute (Thorslund et al 2017).
- In Eurobarometer (2016), 51% of respondents were prepared to pay up to 10% more for products sourced from animal welfare-friendly production systems, and 8% were ready to pay more than 11% more.
- Eurobarometer (2016) found that 52% of the respondents look for these identifying labels (some or most of the time) when buying food, while 37% of respondents stated that they never or very rarely look for the identifying labels.
- As many as 40% stated that they were not willing to pay for animal welfare-friendly food.
Other Important Findings
- The paper identifies four main approaches to improving farm animal welfare: legislative initiatives, producer-driven initiatives, consumer choice (labelling), and initiatives by food companies.
- Economics and other social sciences are crucial in designing and implementing these approaches to improve animal welfare.
- The study highlights the need for a combination of all four approaches to achieve the best possible improvements in animal welfare.
- Animal welfare science provides crucial input for economic analyses, particularly in understanding what constitutes an improvement in animal welfare and how to measure it.
- Economic analyses can guide the form and extent of welfare legislation to set decent minimum standards of animal welfare.
- Understanding the relationship between animal welfare, productivity, and other production characteristics is essential for producer-driven initiatives.
- Consumer choice and CSR initiatives should focus on welfare dimensions essential to animal welfare experts, not just those consumers are willing to pay for.
- Recent developments in marketing animal welfare-friendly products highlight the need for more knowledge about how consumers perceive information in labels and CSR strategies.
- Animal welfare can be characterized as a public good due to its nature of benefiting everyone, not just consumers.
- Legislation is justified by neoclassical economic theory to set minimum welfare standards and provide incentives for animal welfare improvements.
- Transition periods in animal welfare legislation have typically been rather long.
- In Switzerland, negative animal welfare labelling was used to restrict imports, which has not been challenged by the WTO.
- The Danish experience with the effectiveness of legislation on laying hens shows the importance of timing and international coordination.
- Researchers found that providing living circumstances that minimize compromise in nutritional, environmental, health, behavioural and mental domains of welfare, is far more important than keeping animals in replicated natural or wild environments.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s anthropocentric approach, focusing on human benefits, could be seen as a limitation, although the authors acknowledge and do not dismiss non-anthropocentric approaches.
- The study’s scope may be limited by its focus on Danish regulations and examples, which may not be directly applicable to all other countries due to different regulatory environments and consumer behaviors.
- Economic analyses often face challenges in quantifying the complex relationship between animal welfare and various production, quality, and environmental factors.
- The cost-effectiveness of certain welfare improvements, such as those involving extended cubicles or pasture access, can be difficult to assess accurately due to varying factors.
- The authors acknowledge the difficulties in putting an economic value on societal goodwill.
Conclusion
The research underscores the critical role of economics and other social sciences in improving farm animal welfare. By integrating insights from animal welfare science, economic analyses can guide the development and implementation of effective strategies. The Danish experience with laying hens underscores the importance of timing and international coordination in legislation. The study underscores the necessity of using a combination of legislative initiatives, producer-driven improvements, consumer choice, and corporate social responsibility. Legislation can set the minimum standards for welfare, while producer-driven initiatives, guided by economic incentives and a better understanding of the relationship between welfare and productivity, can further advance animal welfare. Consumer choice, facilitated by clear and trustworthy labelling, allows consumers to support welfare-friendly products. Retailers and food companies play a crucial role through CSR strategies, which can drive higher standards of welfare. The authors emphasize the need for ongoing research and interdisciplinary collaboration to understand consumer perceptions, develop cost-effective approaches, and address the complex dynamics of animal welfare in food production.