Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1053–1073 | Cite as

Closer to Nature? A Critical Discussion of the Marketing of “Ethical” Animal Products

  • Sune BorkfeltEmail author
  • Sara Kondrup
  • Helena Röcklinsberg
  • Kristian Bjørkdahl
  • Mickey Gjerris


As public awareness of environmental issues and animal welfare has risen, catering to public concerns and views on these issues has become a potentially profitable strategy for marketing a number of product types, of which animal products such as dairy and meat are obvious examples. Our analysis suggests that specific marketing instruments are used to sell animal products by blurring the difference between the paradigms of animal welfare used by producers, and the paradigms of animal welfare as perceived by the public. These instruments rely on ethical, political and sustainable consumption discourses in order to sell one image of animal welfare in intensive animal production while the actual production at the same time presupposes a quite different paradigm of animal welfare. Specifically, product advertising utilizes representations tied to concepts of naturalness in depictions of both animal lives and product processes as “natural”. Product marketing suggests a coherence between nature, production process (farm, animal), and end product, thereby creating associations that the lives of production animals are lived in nature and that their products bring a wholesome and sustainable naturalness to the consumer—thus attempting to display a green, eco-, climate-, and animal friendly production. By analyzing a number of cases from the Scandinavian food market, this paper thus illustrates the tensions between paradigms of animal welfare and concepts of naturalness as these are used in animal product marketing, discusses the ethical implications of this type of marketing communication, and stresses the need for transparency in the area of animal welfare.


Animal welfare Green marketing Animal ethics Naturalness Consumers 


  1. Algers, B. (1992). Natürliches verhalten—ein natürlicher begriff (natural behaviour—a natural concept). Berliner und Münchener Tierärzliche Wochenschrift, 105, 372–374.Google Scholar
  2. Algers, B., & Berg, C. (2001). Monitoring animal welfare on commercial broiler farms in Sweden. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A—Animal Science, 51(S30), 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (2011). Sådan lever grisen bag mærket. Tænk, July 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Antonius (n.d.). Koncept. Marketing material. Danish Crown. Accessed 18 May 2015.
  5. Arla Foods (2011). Tættere på Naturen - fra idé til virkelighed. Resource document.ærd/Eksempel+%5Bmarkedsadfærd%5D. Accessed 27 Feb 2013.
  6. Arla Foods (2013a). Closer to nature. Resource document. Accessed 27 Feb 2013.
  7. Arla Foods (2013b). Activities. Resource document. Accessed 27 Feb 2013.
  8. Arla Foods (2015). Arlagården quality assurance programme. Version 4.4. Resource document. Accessed 18 May 2015.
  9. Beck, K. I. (2013). Hvad mener Arla med Tættere på Naturen? Berlingske Tidende, 28 May 2013, 26.Google Scholar
  10. Bergstra, Tamara J., Gremmen, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015). Moral values and attitudes toward Dutch sow husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(2), 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boogaard, B. K., Boekhorst, L. J. S., Oosting, S. J., & Sørensen, J. T. (2011). Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science, 140(1–3), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Broom, D. (1991). Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69(10), 4167–4175.Google Scholar
  13. Coetzee, J. M. (1999). The lives of animals. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Coff, C. (2005). Smag for etik. På sporet af fødevareetikken. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag, Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar
  15. Corbett, J. B. (2006). Communicating nature: How we create and understand environmental messages. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  16. Council of the European Union. (2009). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Official Journal of the European Union, 18, 5–13.Google Scholar
  17. Danish Crown (2011). Antonius. Resource document Accessed 22 May 2015.
  18. Danish Crown (2012). Den go’e gris. Resource document. Accessed 22 May 2015.
  19. Danish Crown (2013). Bornholmergrisen. Resource document. Accessed 22 May 2015.
  20. Deemer, D. R., & Lobao, L. M. (2011). Public concern with farm-animal welfare: Religion, politics, and human disadvantage in the food sector. Rural Sociology, 76(2), 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, I. J. H. (1996). Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica. Section A. Animal Science Supplementum, 27, 29–35.Google Scholar
  22. Edman, F. (2014). Do the member states of the European Union comply with the legal requirements for pigs regarding manipulable material and tail docking? Student report 572. Skara, Sweden: SLU.Google Scholar
  23. EFSA. (2007). Scientific opinion of the panel on animal health and welfare on a request from the commission on animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. The EFSA Journal, 572, 1–13.Google Scholar
  24. EFSA. (2012). Statement on the use of animal-based measures to assess the welfare of animals. EFSA Journal, 10(6), 2767.Google Scholar
  25. Eurobarometer (2007). Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Retrieved August 2008, from
  26. Fågel, S. (2013). Årsrapport 2012. Stockholm: Svensk Fågel.Google Scholar
  27. Fågel, S. (2014). Svensk Färsk Kyckling Allt Mer Populär. Press release 14 August 2014. Svensk Fågel. Accessed 9 April 2015.
  28. Forbrukerombudet (2010). MR-sak 10/1176: Miljøpartiet De Grønne—Forbrukerombudet. Case acts. Accessed 9 April 2015.
  29. Gjerris, M. (2014). Willed blindness: A discussion of our moral shortcomings in relation to animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10806-014-9499-6.Google Scholar
  30. Gjerris, M., & Saxe, H. (2013). The choice that disappeared: On the complexity of being a political consumer. In H. Röcklinsberg & P. Sandin (Eds.), The ethics of consumption. The citizen, the market and the law (pp. 154–159). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen, J. H. (2011). Stol ikke på Danish Crowns slogans. Forbrugerrådet Tænk. Resource document. Accessed May 15 2015.
  32. Hansson, H., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2015). Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture. Food Policy, 50, 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ishøy, S. K. (2011). Antonius har det ikke bedre. Ekstra Bladet, 19 September 2011, 8.Google Scholar
  34. Knight, S., & Barnett, L. (2008). Justifying attitudes toward animal use: A qualitative study of people’s views and beliefs. Anthrozoos, 21(1), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krogshede, M. B. (2013). Hver femte ko har digitalis dermatitis. Maskinbladet, 22 February 2013, 25.Google Scholar
  36. Lagerkvist, C. J., & Hess, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lassen, J., Jensen, K. K., & Thorslund, C. (2012). Egenkontrol af dyrevelfærd. Bureaukrati og dobbelt arbejde eller nye veje til dyrevelfærd. Rapport 215. Copenhagen: Fødevareøkonomisk Institut.Google Scholar
  38. Lundmark, F., Berg, L., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2013). Unnecessary suffering’ as a concept in animal welfare legislation and standards. In H. Röcklinsberg & P. Sandin (Eds.), The ethics of consumption. The citizen, the market, and the law (pp. 114–119). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miele, M. (2010). Report concerning consumer perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare. Brussels: European Animal Welfare Platform.Google Scholar
  40. Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., & Botreau, R. (2011). Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare, 20, 103–117.Google Scholar
  41. Molloy, C. (2012). Remediating cows and the construction of ethical landscape. Antennae, 23, 23–27.Google Scholar
  42. Rollin, B. (1993). Animal welfare, science and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(Suppl 2), 44–50.Google Scholar
  43. Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43(2), 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salvador, P. (2011). The myth of the natural in advertising. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 3(1), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandin, P. (2013). Naturalness, artifacts and value. In M. J. de Vries, S. O. Hansson, & A. W. M. Meijers (Eds.), Norms in technology (pp. 207–221). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandøe, P., Christiansen, S. B., & Forkman, B. (2006). Animal welfare: What is the role of science? In J. Turner & J. D’Silva (Eds.), Animals, ethics and trade: The challenge of animal sentience (pp. 41–52). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. SFS 1988:534. (2009). The animal welfare act, the animal welfare ordinance. Consolidated text. Stockholm: Government Offices of Sweden.Google Scholar
  48. Soper, K. (1995). What is nature?. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review, 26(3), 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers´ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Pieniak, Z., Nijs, G., & Tuyttens, F. (2012). The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(1), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, citizen, and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 18, 325–333.Google Scholar
  53. Videncentret for Landbrug (2013). Hvor mange køer er på græs i Danmark? Accessed 18 May 2015.
  54. Lawrence, E. A. (1989). Neoteny in American Perceptions of Animals. In R. J. Hoage (Ed.), Perceptions of Animals in American Culture (pp. 57–76). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
  55. Yeates, J., Röcklinsberg, H., & Gjerris, M. (2011). Is welfare all that matters? A discussion of what should be included in policymaking regarding animals. Animal Welfare, 20(3), 423–432.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sune Borkfelt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sara Kondrup
    • 2
  • Helena Röcklinsberg
    • 3
  • Kristian Bjørkdahl
    • 4
  • Mickey Gjerris
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Communication and CultureAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Animal Environment and HealthSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Uni Research RokkansenteretBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations