Skip to main content

Animal Business, a Blind Spot of Companies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Business Ethics
  • 166 Accesses

Abstract

Companies have a strong moral responsibility towards animals. Consumers, investors and NGOs are becoming more critical of the treatment of animals by companies. Nevertheless, the topic of animal ethics seems to be a blind spot in the corporate social responsibility policies of most companies. As moral actors, companies should take the interests of animals into account in their decisions. More specifically this means that companies should take the current and future welfare of animals into account, including continuation of their lives. Based on this corporate responsibility, critical reflection is offered on various categories of corporate impact on animals. The chapter concludes with managerial implications for different industries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout this chapter, we will refer to “animals” to connotate non-human animals.

References

  • Bentham, J. (1780/2007). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovenkerk, B., & Meijboom, F. L. B. (2012). The moral status of fish. The importance and limitations of a fundamental discussion for practical ethical questions in fish farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(6), 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9365-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovenkerk, B., & Meijboom, F. L. B. (2013). Fish welfare in aquaculture: Explicating the chain of interactions between science and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9395-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brambell, F. W. R. (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive husbandry systems (Command Paper 2836). Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brando, S., & Buchanan-Smith, H. M. (2018). The 24/7 approach to promoting optimal welfare for captive wild animals. Behavioural Processes, 156, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2017.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (2007). Cognitive ability and sentience: Which aquatic animals should be protected? Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 75, 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crook, R. J., & Walters, E. T. (2011). Nociceptive behavior and physiology of Molluscs: Animal welfare implications. ILAR Journal, 52(2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.52.2.185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Goede, D., Gremmen, B., Rodenburg, T. B., Bolhuis, J. E., Bijma, P., Scholten, M., & Kemp, B. (2013). Reducing damaging behaviour in robust livestock farming. Journal of life sciences, 66, 49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGrazia, D. (2011). The ethics of confining animals: From farms to zoos to human homes. In T. L. Beauchamp & R. G. Frey (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of animal ethics (pp. 738–768). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (2006). The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood, R. W., Barr, S., & Patterson, L. (2009). Pain and stress in crustaceans? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 118(4), 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorito, G., Affuso, A., Anderson, D. B., Basil, J., Bonnaud, L., Botta, G., Cole, A., D’Angelo, L., De Girolamo, P., Dennison, N., Dickel, L., Di Cosmo, A., Di Cristo, C., Gestal, C., Fonseca, R., Grasso, F., Kristiansen, T., Kuba, M., Maffucci, F., et al. (2014). Cephalopods in neuroscience: Regulations, research and the 3Rs. Invertebrate Neuroscience, 14(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10158-013-0165-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francione, G. (2010). The abolition of animal exploitation. In G. Francione & R. Garner (Eds.), The animal rights debate: Abolition or regulation? (pp. 1–102). Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibert, M., & Desaulniers, E. (2014). Carnism. In P. B. Thompson & D. M. Kaplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of food and agricultural ethics (pp. 292–298). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0929-4_83

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hearne, V. (1991). What’s wrong with animal rights: Of hounds, horses and Jeffersonian happiness. Harper’s magazine, 9, 59–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssens, M. R. E., & Kaptein, M. (2016). The ethical responsibility of companies towards animals: A study of the expressed commitment of the fortune global 200. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 63(3), 42–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz, J. (2016). Towards an animal ethics for the Anthropocene. In B. Bovenkerk & J. Keulartz (Eds.), Animal ethics in the age of humans: Blurring boundaries in human-animal relationships (The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics 23) (pp. 243–264). Springer International Publishing AG.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, C. M. (2018). Fellow creatures: Our obligations to the other animals. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2007). Frontiers of justice; disability, nationality, species membership. Belknap Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1983/2004). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. (2006). Animal rights & human morality. Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1975/2009). Animal liberation. Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spruijt, B. M., Van den Bos, R., & Pijlman, F. T. A. (2001). A concept of welfare based on reward evaluating mechanisms in the brain: Anticipatory behaviour as an indicator for the state of reward systems. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 72(2), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00204-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varner, G. E. (2012). Personhood, ethics, and animal cognition: Situating animals in Hare’s two-level utilitarianism. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Visseren-Hamakers, I. J. (2020). The 18th sustainable development goal. Earth System Governance, 3, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. A. (1997). Moral status; obligations to persons and other living things. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J. (2013). Animal husbandry regained: The place of farm animals in sustainable agriculture. Routledge/Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monique Janssens .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Janssens, M. (2023). Animal Business, a Blind Spot of Companies. In: Dubbink, W., Deijl, W.v.d. (eds) Business Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37932-1_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics