This article takes a future focus on the direction in which social forces develop the market for animal-friendly products in Europe. On the basis of qualitative data gathered in the context of the European EconWelfare project, the differences across eight European countries are studied. The findings suggest that, given international trade barriers that prevent an improvement of animal welfare through legislation, many stakeholders believe that the market is the most viable direction to improve farm animal welfare. Economic productivity of the chain remains, however, an issue that on a fundamental level conflicts with the objective to improve animal welfare. With the help of a deeper conceptual understanding of willingness to pay for animal welfare, the paper finds that the European market for animal-friendly products is still largely fragmented and that the differences between European countries are considerable. A more animal-friendly future that is achieved through the market will therefore need substantial policy attention from stakeholders in society.
References
[1]
Blokhuis, H.J. Integration of animal welfare in intensive animal production. In Production Diseases in Farm Animals; Wensing, T.H., Ed.; Wageningen Press: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1998; pp. 222–229.
[2]
Porcher, J. Le travail dans l’élevage industriel des porcs. Souffrance des animaux, souffrance deshommes. In Un Point Sur ... Les animauxd’élevageont-ilsdroit au bienêtre?. (in French); Burgat, F., Dantzer, R., Eds.; INRA Editions: Paris, France, 2001; pp. 23–64.
[3]
Verbeke, W.A.J.; Viaene, J. Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. J. Agr. Environ. Ethic. 2000, 12, 141–151.
[4]
Scholderer, J. Quality of Free Range Pork: What Consumers Want. In Proceedings of MAPP Conference, Middelfart, Denmark, 8 October 2003.
[5]
Rathenau Special, Burgeroordelen over dierenwelzijn in de veehouderij. (in Dutch); Rathenau Instituut: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2003.
[6]
Oeko-Institut e.V. Bewertung ausgesuchter Warengruppen nach oekologischen und sozialen Kriterien für den Landschaftsverband Rheinland (in German). Available online: http://www.qualitaetfuermenschen.de/derlvr/umwelt/agenda21/einkauf/bewertung_gütesiegel_für_lvr.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2013).
Bennet, R.M.; Anderson, J.; Blaney, R.J.P. Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. J. Agr. Environ. Ethic. 2002, 15, 187–202, doi:10.1023/A:1015036617385.
[9]
McEachern, M.G.; Schr？der, J.A. The role of lifestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat. J. Agr. Environ. Ethic. 2002, 15, 221–237, doi:10.1023/A:1015052816477.
[10]
European Commission Attitudes of EU Citizens towards Animal Welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270/Wave 66.1; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
[11]
FAWC. Opinion on Policy Instruments for Protecting and Improving Farm Animal Welfare; Farm Animal Welfare Council: London, UK, 2008.
[12]
McInerney, J. Report on a Study Undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy; 2004.
[13]
Blokhuis, H.J.; Keeling, L.J.; Gavinelli, A.; Serratosa, J. Animal welfare’s impact on the food chain. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 2008, 19, 75–83.
[14]
Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; Immink, V.M. Consumer decision-making for animal-friendly products: Synthesis and implications. Anim. Welfare 2011, 20, 11–19.
[15]
Webster, A.J.F. The Virtuous Bicycle: A delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare. Anim. Welfare 2009, 18, 141–147.
[16]
Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; Immink, V.M. Managing Conflicting Stakeholder Interests: An Exploratory Case Analysis of the Formulation of Corporate Social Responsibility Standards in The Netherlands. J. Public Policy Marketing 2010, 29, 52–65, doi:10.1509/jppm.29.1.52.
[17]
Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; Blokhuis, H.; Butterworth, A.; Keeling, L. Scenario Analysis on the Implementation of a Farm Animal Welfare Assessment System. Anim. Welfare 2011, 20, 613–621.
[18]
Hubbard, C.; Garrod, G.; Keeling, L. Short List of Potential Policy Instruments to Promote High(er) Animal Welfare. EconWelfare Project Deliverable 3.2; Newcastle University: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2011.
De Roest, K.; Ferrari, P.; Schiff, M. Report of the European Stakeholders Seminar of Retailers, Consumers’ Organizations and Animal Welfare Protection Organizations. EconWelfare Project Deliverable 2.2; Wageningen UR Livestock Researh: Lelystad, The Netherland, 2010.
[21]
De Roest, K.; Ferrari, P. Chain Actors Workshops. EconWelfare Project Deliverable 2.6; Econwelfare Project: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2011.
[22]
Immink, V.M.; Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; Keeling, L.J. Report on Development of Policy Instruments towards the Action Plan on Animal Welfare, SWOT-Analysis of Instruments Following Brainstorm Meetings and Literature. EconWelfare Project Deliverable 3.1; Econwelfare Project: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2010.
[23]
Kilchsperger, R.; Schmid, O.; Hecht, J. Animal Welfare Initiatives in Europe. Technical Report on Grouping Method for Animal Welfare Standards and Initiatives. EconWelfare Project Final Report D 1.1; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL): Frick, Switzerland, 2010.
[24]
Schmid, O.; Kilchsperger, R. Overview of Animal Welfare Standards and Initiatives in Selected EU and Third Countries. EconWelfare Project Deliverable 1.2; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL): Frick, Switzerland, 2010.
Harvey, D.; Hubbard, C. The Supply Chain’s Role in Improving Animal Welfare. Animals 2013, 3, 767–785.
[27]
Majewski, E.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; G？bska, M.; Gieldowska, M.; Spaltabaka, E.; Was, A. Quantification of Farm Level Impacts of Introducing Upgraded Animal Welfare Standards for Selected Types of Farms. EconWelfare Project Deliverable 4.1; Szko？a G？ówna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego (SSGW): Warsaw, Poland, 2011.
[28]
Broom, D.M. Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment. Acta Agr. Scand. 1996, 27, 22–28.
[29]
Duncan, I.J.H. Welfare is to do with what animals feel. J. Agr. Environ. Ethic. 1993, 6, 8–14.
[30]
Averós, X.; Aparicio, M.A.; Ferrari, P.; Guy, J.H.; Hubbard, C.; Schmid, O.; Ilieski, V.; Spoolder, H.A.M. The Effect of Steps to Promote Higher Levels of Farm Animal Welfare across the EU. Societal versus Animal Scientists’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare. Animals 2013, 3, 786–807.
[31]
Van Tulder, R.; van der Zwart, A. International Business-Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalisation; Routledge: London, UK, 2006.
[32]
McInerney, J.P. Economic Aspects of the Animal Welfare Issue. In Proceedings of the Meeting of Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, London, UK, 17–19 April 1991; pp. 83–91.
[33]
Harvey, D.; Hubbard, C. Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy 2013, 38, 105–114, doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.006.
[34]
Roex, J.; Miele, M. Farm Animal Welfare Concerns. Consumers, Retailers and Producers. Welfare Quality Report No 1; Welfare Quality？: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009.
[35]
Schmid, O.; Kilchsperger, R. EconWelfare Project—Analysis of Animal Welfare Initiatives in Europe. In Proceedings of the 9th European IFSA Symposium, Vienna, Austria, 4–7 July 2010; pp. 1963–1971. Available online: http://ifsa.boku.ac.at/cms/fileadmin/Proceeding2010/ 2010_WS4.5_Schmid.pdf (accessed on 7 August 2013).
[36]
Freedom Food Facts and Figures. Available online: http://www.freedomfood.co.uk/aboutus/facts-and-figures (accessed on 18 July 2013).
[37]
Edlund, J. Trust in Government and Welfare Regimes: Attitudes to Redistribution and Financial Cheating in the USA and Norway. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 2003, 35, 341–370.
[38]
Miele, M.; Parisi, V. Consumer Concerns about Animal Welfare and the Impact on Food Choice. Literature Review and Policy Aspects Italy. EU FAIR-CT 98-3678; Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of Pisa: Pisa, Italy, 2001.
[39]
De Roest, K.; Ferrari, P.; Montanari, C.; Bokma, M.; Heutinck, L.; van Reenen, K.; Kilchsperger, R.; Hecht, J.; Schmid, O.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Gebska, M.; Majewski, E.; Lundmark, F.; Keeling, L.J.; Berg, L.; Scott, K.; Guy, J.H.; Edwards, S.A.; Aparicio, M.A.; Vargas, J.D.; Cava, R.; Robledo, J.; Gonzalez, F.; Prieto, L.; Illieski, V. Report on Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Standards Based on the Main Findings of EU and National Research Projects. EconWelfare Project Deliverable 2.1; Wageningen UR: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2010.
[40]
Keeling, L.J.; Berg, L. National Report on Attitudes of Consumer Organizations, NGO’s, Multiple Retailers towards Animal Welfare Standards and Issues, Sweden. EconWelfare Project draft Report of D2.1; Econwelfare Project: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2010.
[41]
De Jonge, J.; Van Trijp, H.C.M. Meeting heterogeneity in consumer demand for animal welfare: A reflection on existing knowledge and implications for the meat sector. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 629–661, doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9426-7.
[42]
EUREP GAP. Integrated Farm Assurance: Pig. Control Points and Compliance Criteria. English Version 4.0.; FoodPLUS GmbH: Cologne, Germany, 2012.
[43]
Aramyan, L.; Ingenbleek, P.T.M.; de Roest, K.; Backus, G.; Tranter, R. Evaluating the likelihood of the adoption of an animal welfare assessment system in European agri-food supply chains. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 2013, 30, 59–79, doi:10.1108/02656711311288423.
[44]
Blokhuis, H.J.; Veissier, I.; Miele, M.; Jones, R.B. The Welfare Quality？ project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agric. Scand. AAnim. Sci. 2010, 60, 129–140.
