Animal welfare and ‘the market’

Animal welfare is an important ethical issue in relation to modern food production and consumption and awareness of the negative consequence of current production practices is growing. Public outrage is instant and vociferous when pictures of maltreated animals are shown on TV. Inevitably, this results in calls for malpractices to stop and for changes to be made.

Politicians and authorities, who used to be in charge, increasingly look to ‘the market’ to drive improvements in animal welfare, as there seems to be a consensus that regulation alone cannot secure the desirable level of animal welfare. This market is usually taken for granted and assumed to work via anonymous market mechanisms such as Adam Smith’s famous invisible hand. However, in recent years there has been a realisation that markets do not simply exist, but are enacted on an ongoing basis through the concrete everyday activities of different actors.

Together with my colleagues Kathrine Nørgaard Hansen and Maja Pedersen, I have explored how the conditions for animal welfare are shaped by the practices of various actors in the pork industry and how these practices can reshape the market with a view to improving marketing activities and increasing sales of pork produced to better welfare standards than mandated by regulators. As viewers of Borgen will know, animal welfare can be a highly contentious issue in Denmark. The overall purpose of our project was to analyse if we can expect markets to play a role in promoting animal welfare in the Danish pork sector.

The Danish pork sector is interesting in this regard because it is very export-oriented (more than 90% of production is exported). Furthermore, the Danish pork sector is under pressure to keep costs down, as labour costs are higher in Denmark compared to competitors in order countries. There are therefore widespread concerns about the ability to recoup extra costs if animal welfare standards are improved unilaterally in Denmark. 

Data was collected with actors along the entire value chain in Denmark and customers on five export markets (Australia, China/Hong Kong, Great Britain, Sweden and the US) and relevant export managers from Danish firms.

The study uncovered particularly interesting market practices:

  • Practices differ significantly between countries, both in terms of the importance assigned to animal welfare and how animal welfare issues are enacted in day-do-day operations of various actors in the food chains. However, in all six countries, actors are trying to improve animal welfare. They sometimes have different ideals and goals and to some extent actors can therefore see each other as obstructing the good they are trying to accomplish.
  • Although most actors agree that animal welfare can be improved, animal welfare improvements are highly contested. Different and to some extent conflicting considerations have to be reconciled in order to successfully improve animal welfare. How should pigs and sows be treated? This can be contentious in itself, but what is ideal from an animal welfare perspective is also up against economic considerations as primary producers, slaughterhouses, etc. are concerned about whether they will be able to recoup extra costs they will incur if they improve animal welfare or if they will we loose competitiveness on international markets.
  • Marketing considerations need to be taken into account, can animal welfare be used to position and differentiate  from competitors?
  • Animal welfare is systemic – one actor cannot improve animal welfare in its own. It requires coordination and collaboration of numerous actors: farmers, slaughterhouses, meat processors, retailers, consumers, authorities, animal welfare organisations, third party auditors and more

By Lars Esbjerg

Lars speaking speaking at MaRVL
Lars speaking speaking at MaRVL

 

Lars is a MaRVL visiting scholar  from the MAPP Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus University, Denmark

Further readings on the animal welfare project can be found here, in Danish.

 

 

The Caring City: Sustainable Communities of Care in Glasgow

Drawing on new approaches to thinking about care as complex, other and self-regarding behaviours, which is partially socially constructed, this research project explores the interrelationships between sustainability, health and quality of life. Care about and for ourselves as individuals, and for our wider communities embodies issues of sustainability, health and quality of life. The research investigates these issues by actively engaging with groups involved in promoting local food production and consumption in Glasgow. The project is funded by the University of Glasgow’s Knowledge Exchange Fund and is concerned with developing new resources about local food projects in partnership with existing local groups.

The term ‘urban agriculture’ (UA) is one we might not associate with an old industrial city like Glasgow but like other old industrial cities in the UK, a discourse of UA is finding its way into local government policy initiatives. For example, during the first week of our research we attended a conference organised by Glasgow City Council (GCC) in partnership with the Soil Association Scotland entitled ‘Glasgow, Sustainable Food City’. This involved a series of talks and discussions geared towards implementing a sustainable food strategy for Glasgow. The event elicited a range of ideas: “more school gardens”, “a much better map of available and potential growing land”, “a vibrant street food culture” and much more.

While the event noted above marks an important juncture in the City Council’s approach to UA, of crucial concern to our research is an already existing network of grassroots community food initiatives in the city. In the same week as the GCC event, we attended a meeting held by the Glasgow Local Food Network (GLFN). The GLFN is an informal network of community organisations and individuals from across the city “that are passionate about local food and strive to produce more of what we eat and eat more of what we produce” (http://glasgowlocalfood.blogspot.co.uk/). The passion and commitment of local growers across much of Europe, like the GLFN, has helped push UA up the policy agenda. Similarly, for a sustainable food strategy policy to be effective, it must value and utilize the wealth of knowledge being cultivated at the ground level.

Community gardens: an alternative to global food production and consumption
Community gardens: an alternative to global food production and consumption

The value of grassroots community food initiatives and UA more generally is quantifiable. For example, we can measure: a decrease in food miles that comes with local food production and consumption; the acreage of unproductive urban space revitalized through a variety urban agricultural practices, and the volume of materials recycled in such practices (e.g. timber for raised beds; food waste for compost; water capture and storage). Other potential values of UA are less easily quantified but no less important for people committed to creating sustainable communities of care in our city. These relate to, amongst other things, awareness of environmental and human health, community cohesion and resilience and the co-production and sharing of knowledge and skills. It should also be noted that modern urban agricultural practices are, for some, deeply embedded in issues of political struggle. Many UA practitioners understand their work as part of an ongoing struggle to de-commodify urban spaces and secure an urban commons for future generations.

Our project began in earnest three weeks ago and in that short time we have encountered all of the issues raised above and more. With a clear methodology beginning to develop, the next five months should be an exciting time for all involved.

John Crossan

John is a researcher at the University of Glasgow in the Adam Smith Business School working with Professors Deirdre Shaw, Andy Cumbers and Robert McMaster on the Caring City project.

To find more about local food communities in Glasgow, visit: