Meeting Heterogeneity in Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare: A Reflection on Existing Knowledge and Implications for the Meat Sector
The legitimacy of the dominant intensive meat production system with respect to the issue of animal welfare is increasingly being questioned by stakeholders across the meat supply chain. The current meat supply is highly undifferentiated, catering only for the extremes of morality concerns (i.e., conventional vs. organic meat products). However, a latent need for compromise products has been identified. That is, consumer differences exist regarding the trade-offs they make between different aspects associated with meat consumption. The heterogeneity in consumer demand could function as a starting point for market segmentation, targeting and positioning regarding animal welfare concepts that are differentiated in terms of animal welfare and price levels. Despite this, stakeholders in the meat supply chain seem to be trapped in the dominant business model focused on low cost prices. This paper aims to identify conflicting interests that stakeholders in the meat supply chain experience in order to increase understanding of why heterogeneous consumer preferences are not met by a more differentiated supply of meat products produced at different levels of animal welfare standards. In addition, characteristics of the supply chain that contribute to the existence of high exit barriers and difficulty to shift to more animal-friendly production systems are identified. Following the analysis of conflicting interests among stakeholders and factors that contribute to difficulty to transform the existing dominant regime, different routes are discussed that may help and motivate stakeholders to overcome these barriers and stimulate the creation of new markets.
KeywordsAnimal welfare standards Meat supply chain Consumers Ambivalence System lock-in Social dilemma theory Europe
- Backus, G. B. C., Baltussen, W. H. M., Bens, P. A. M., & Reinders, M. J. (2012). De Nederlandse varkensvleesketen richting 2020. Van speelbal tot speler. The Hague: Agricultural Economics Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Bartels, J., Reinders, M., De Winter, M., & Grievink, J.-W. (2011). Voedselbalans Deel III. The Hague: Wageningen University and Research Center.Google Scholar
- Blonk, H., & Goedkoop, M. (2009). Naar een gecombineerde meetlat voor dierenwelzijn. Gouda: Blonk Milieuadvies.Google Scholar
- Bracke, M. B. M., & Spoolder, H. A. M. (2011). Review of wallowing in pigs: Implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 20, 347–363.Google Scholar
- Busch, L. (2011). How animal welfare standards create and justify realities. Animal Welfare, 20, 21–27.Google Scholar
- De Boer, I., & Udo, H. (2010). De kracht van het verschil: Diversiteit in duurzaamheid van dierhouderijsystemen Over zorgvuldige veehouderij (pp. 154–163). Wageningen UR.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2007a). Attitudes of EU citizens towards Animal Welfare (Special Eurobarometer 270). http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_barometer_aw_en.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2012.
- European Commission. (2007b). Factsheet. Animal welfare. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/factsheet_farmed03-2007_en.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2012.
- European Commission. (2009). The role of European agriculture in climate change mitigation. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/climate-change/pdf/sec2009_1093_en.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2012.
- European Commission. (2011). Agriculture in the EU. Statistical and economic information report 2010. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/agrista/rurdev2010/RD_Report_2010.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2012.
- Foxon, T. J. (2007). Technological lock-in and the role of innovation. In G. Atkinson, S. Dietz, & E. Neumayer (Eds.), Handbook of sustainable development (pp. 140–152). Cheltenham [etc.]: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Grossman, W. I., & Simon, B. (1969). Anthropomorphism. Motive, meaning, and causality in psychoanalytic theory. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 24, 78–111.Google Scholar
- Haaijer, R., & Wedel, M. (2007). Conjoint choice experiments: General characteristics and alternative model specifications. In A. Gustafsson, Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (pp. 199–229). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hörtenhuber, S., Lindenthal, T., Amon, B., Markut, T., Kirner, L., & Zollitsch, W. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions from selected Austrian dairy production systems—Model calculations considering the effects of land use change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(4), 316–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Huffman, C., Ratneshwar, S., & Mick, D. G. (2000). Consumer goal structure and goal-determination processes. In S. Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick, & C. Huffman (Eds.), The why of consumption. Contemporary perspectives on consumer motives, goals and desires (pp. 9–35). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ingenbleek, P. T. M., & Frambach, R. T. (2010). Value creation from corporate social responsibility. Working paper.Google Scholar
- ISO. (2010). Guidance on social responsibility (ISO 26000:2010). Berlin.Google Scholar
- Kauppinen, T., Vainio, A., Valros, A., Rita, H., & Vesala, K. M. (2010). Improving animal welfare: Qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers’ attitudes. Animal Welfare, 19, 523–536.Google Scholar
- Kotler, P. (1999). Principles of marketing. London [etc.]: Prentice Hall Europe.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. (2011). Monitor Duurzaam Voedsel 2010. The Hague.Google Scholar
- Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard business review (September 2009). http://www.businessandsociety.be/assets/ee902e549915b8586e8a8daa338e073e.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2012.
- Olynk, N. J., Tonsor, G. T., & Wolf, C. A. (2010). Consumer willingness to pay for livestock credence attribute claim verification. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35(2), 261–280.Google Scholar
- Oosterkamp, E. B., Bremmer, B., Hoste, R., & De Greef, K. H. (2011). Verkenning van dierlijke tussensegmenten in onze buurlanden. Duurzaam varkensvlees, pluimvee en eieren. The Hague, Netherlands: Agricultural Economics Research Institute.Google Scholar
- Reijnders, L., & Soret, S. (2003). Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3 SUPPL.), 664S–668S.Google Scholar
- Rensen, E. (2011). Beeter® ‘beste uit de test’ Consumentenbond. Vleesmagazine. http://www.vleesmagazine.nl/nieuws/beeter%C2%AE-%E2%80%98beste-uit-de-test%E2%80%99-consumentenbond-13888.html. Accessed April 26, 2012.
- Statistics Netherlands. (2009). Landbouwtelling. The Netherlands: Voorburg.Google Scholar
- Stichting Varkens in Nood and Milieudefensie. (2009). Supermarktmonitor Vlees en Vleesvervangers. http://www.milieudefensie.nl/publicaties/rapporten/de-supermarktmonitor-vlees-en-vleesvervangers/view. Accessed October 1, 2012.
- Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Van Lange, P. A. M., Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Social Dilemmas: The state of the art. In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2007). Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of food and Agriculture, 15, 84–100.Google Scholar
- Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 18, 325–333.Google Scholar
- Wilkie, R. M. (2010). Livestock/deadstock: Working with farm animals from birth to slaughter. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press.Google Scholar