Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Meeting Heterogeneity in Consumer Demand for Animal Welfare: A Reflection on Existing Knowledge and Implications for the Meat Sector

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In most countries, organic livestock production systems provide the highest welfare levels for farm animals (Tuyttens et al. 2008; Veissier et al. 2008). The natural needs of animals are more central compared to other production systems, and animals’ integrity is better protected (Lund 2006). Organic production systems differ from other production systems regarding stricter requirements on housing, which includes outdoor access, indoor space, environmental enrichment, group housing (pigs), as well as requirements regarding GMO-free feed, slaughter age, breed, restricted use of medical drugs, slaughter method, and protection of animals’ integrity (no tail docking and teeth clipping (pigs), or beak trimming (laying hens)) (Lund 2006; Vaarst and Alrøe 2012).

  2. In a market model, hallmarks on products distinguish between products regarding the level of animal welfare, enabling consumers to choose. The market model differs from the welfare state model (e.g., Norway and Sweden), where standards are mostly developed for generic policy, for example stricter regulations regarding animal welfare. It differs from the “terroir” model (France and Italy), where animal welfare is part of a broader quality concept, often linked to region of origin.

References

  • Allen, M. W., & Ng, S. H. (2003). Human values, utilitarian benefits and identification: The case of meat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. W., Wilson, M., Ng, S. H., & Dunne, M. (2000). Values and beliefs of vegetarians and omnivores. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 405–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Arey, D. (2005). Attitudes to farm animal welfare: Factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agriculture students. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2007). Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61(2), 279–286.

    Article  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 

  • Bayram, A., & Ozkan, S. (2010). Effects of a 16-hour light, 8-hour dark lighting schedule on behavioral traits and performance in male broiler chickens. Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 19, 263–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berndsen, M., & Van der Pligt, J. (2004). Ambivalence towards meat. Appetite, 42, 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessei, W. (2006). Welfare of broilers: A review. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 62(3), 455–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biel, A., & Thogersen, J. (2007). Activation of social norms in social dilemmas: A review of the evidence and reflections on the implications for environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(1), 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blonk, H., & Goedkoop, M. (2009). Naar een gecombineerde meetlat voor dierenwelzijn. Gouda: Blonk Milieuadvies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, B. B., & van Huik, M. M. (2007). Animal welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal, 109, 931–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bokkers, E. A. M., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2009). Economic, ecological, and social performance of conventional and organic broiler production in the Netherlands. British Poultry Science, 50(5), 546–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, B., & Grin, J. (2008). “Doing” reflexive modernization in pig husbandry—The hard work of changing the course of a river. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 480–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, B., Koerkamp, P., & Groenestein, K. (2003). A novel design approach for livestock housing based on recursive control—With examples to reduce environmental pollution. Livestock Production Science, 84, 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracke, M. B. M., Greef, K. H. D., & Hopster, H. (2005). Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 27–56.

    Article  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 

  • Darnhofer, I., Schneeberger, W., & Freyer, B. (2005). Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values, 22, 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. S. (1987). Consumer demand theory and the assessment of animal-welfare: A reply. Animal Behaviour, 35, 295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bakker, E., & Dagevos, H. (2011). Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: Questioning the citizen-consumer gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10806-011-9345-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, J., Hoogland, C. T., & Boersema, J. J. (2007). Towards more sustainable food choices: Value priorities and motivational orientations. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 985–996.

    Article  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.

  • De Vries, M., & De Boer, I. J. M. (2010). Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science, 128(1–3), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deckers, J. (2010). Should the consumption of farmed animal products be restricted, and if so, by how much? Food Policy, 35(6), 497–503.

    Article  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.

  • Frewer, L. J., Kole, A., van de Kroon, S. M., & de Lauwere, C. (2005). Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 345–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulponi, L. (2006). Private voluntary standards in the food system: The perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy, 31, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., et al. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.

    Article  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 

  • Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, K. G. (2006). Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science, 74(1), 149–160.

    Article  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.

  • Halberg, N., Hermansen, J. E., Kristensen, I. S., Eriksen, J., Tvedegaard, N., & Petersen, B. M. (2010). Impact of organic pig production systems on CO 2 emission, C sequestration and nitrate pollution. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30(4), 721–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardaker, J. B., Huirne, R. B. M., & Anderson, J. R. (2004). Coping with risk in agriculture. Wallingford: CAB International.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the food sector. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38, 297–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & de Graaf, C. (2011). Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56, 662–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogeveen, H., Huijps, K., & Lam, T. (2011). Economic aspects of mastitis: New developments. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 59, 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. G., Miller, D. T., & Lerner, M. J. (2002). Committing altruism under the cloak of self-interest: The exchange fiction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 144–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, C. T., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2005). Transparency of the meat chain in the light of food culture and history. Appetite, 45, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, C. T., de Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2007). Food and sustainability: Do consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production standards? Appetite, 49, 47–57.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  • Hughes, D. (1995). Animal welfare: The consumer and the food industry. British Food Journal, 97, 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilea, R. C. (2009). Intensive livestock farming: Global trends, increased environmental concerns, and ethical solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingenbleek, P. T. M., & Frambach, R. T. (2010). Value creation from corporate social responsibility. Working paper.

  • Ingenbleek, P. T. M., & Immink, V. M. (2010). Managing conflicting stakeholder interests: An exploratory case analysis of the formulation of corporate social responsibility standards in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29, 52–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2010). Guidance on social responsibility (ISO 26000:2010). Berlin.

  • Ivanova-Peneva, S. G., Aarnink, A. J. A., & Verstegen, M. W. A. (2006). Ammonia and mineral losses on Dutch organic farms with pregnant sows. Biosystems Engineering, 93, 221–235.

    Article  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 

  • Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2008). Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy, 33(3), 260–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P. (1999). Principles of marketing. London [etc.]: Prentice Hall Europe.

  • Krystallis, A., de Barcellos, M. D., Kuegler, J. O., Verbeke, W., & Grunert, K. G. (2009). Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livestock Science, 126, 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinonen, I., Williams, A. G., Wiseman, J., Guy, J., & Kyriazakis, I. (2012). Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Broiler production systems. Poultry Science, 91(1), 8–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesschen, J. P., van den Berg, M., Westhoek, H. J., Witzke, H. P., & Oenema, O. (2011). Greenhouse gas emission profiles of European livestock sectors. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 166–167, 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liljenstolpe, C. (2011). Demand for value-added pork in Sweden: A latent class model approach. Agribusiness, 27(2), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, V. (2006). Natural living-a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Livestock Science, 100(2–3), 71–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäkiniemi, J. P., Pirttilä-Backman, A. M., & Pieri, M. (2011). Ethical and unethical food. Social representations among Finnish, Danish and Italian students. Appetite, 56, 495–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloni, M. J., & Brown, M. E. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: An application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEachern, M. G., & Schröder, M. J. A. (2002). The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 221–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meerburg, B. G., Korevaar, H., Haubenhofer, D. K., Blom-Zandstra, M., & Van Keulen, H. (2009). The changing role of agriculture in Dutch society (Review). Journal of Agricultural Science, 147, 511–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meuwissen, M. P. M., Van Der Lans, I. A., & Huirne, R. B. M. (2007). Consumer preferences for pork supply chain attributes. NJAS—Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54, 293–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation. (2011). Monitor Duurzaam Voedsel 2010. The Hague.

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54, 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, R., Steinfeid, H., Falcon, W., Galloways, J., Smil, V., Bradford, E., et al. (2005). Losing the links between livestock and land. Science, 310(5754), 1621–1622.

    Article  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.

  • Ohl, F., & Van der Staay, F. J. (2012). Animal welfare: At the interface between science and society. Veterinary Journal, 192(1), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Philippe, F. X., Cabaraux, J. F., & Nicks, B. (2011). Ammonia emissions from pig houses: Influencing factors and mitigation techniques. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 141, 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philippe, D., & Durand, R. (2011). The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 969–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouta, E., Heikkila, J., Forsman-Hugg, S., Isoniemi, M., & Makela, J. (2010). Consumer choice of broiler meat: The effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 539–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Povey, R., Wellens, B., & Conner, M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian and vegan diets: An examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, 37, 15–26.

    Article  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.

  • Rothschild, M. L. (1999). Carrots, sticks, and promises: A conceptual framework for the management of public health and social issue behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 24–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Markwith, M., & Stoess, C. (1997). Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: The transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychological Science, 8, 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sejian, V., Lakritz, J., Ezeji, T., & Lal, R. (2010). Assessment methods and indicators of animal welfare. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 6, 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shields, S. J., Garner, J. P., & Mench, J. A. (2004). Dustbathing by broiler chickens: A comparison of preference for four different substrates. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 87, 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegford, J. M., Powers, W., & Grimes-Casey, H. G. (2008). Environmental aspects of ethical animal production. Poultry Science, 87(2), 380–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1998). Customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse the two. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1001–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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, 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temple, D., Dalmau, A., Ruiz de la Torre, J. L., Manteca, X., & Velarde, A. (2011). Application of the Welfare Quality® protocol to assess growing pigs kept under intensive conditions in Spain. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 6, 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuyttens, F., Heyndrickx, M., De Boeck, M., Moreels, A., Van Nuffel, A., Van Poucke, E., et al. (2008). Broiler chicken health, welfare and fluctuating asymmetry in organic versus conventional production systems. Livestock Science, 113(2–3), 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaarst, M., & Alrøe, H. F. (2012). Concepts of animal health and welfare in organic livestock systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(3), 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Ittersum, K., Pennings, J. M. E., Wansink, B., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2007). The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review. Journal of Business Research, 60(11), 1177–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lange, P. A. M., & Joireman, J. A. (2008). How we can promote behavior that serves all of us in the future. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 127–157.

    Article  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 

  • Van Vugt, M. (2009). Averting the tragedy of the commons: Using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 169–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2009). Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling Flemish consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science, 88, 2702–2711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2009). Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science, 123, 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 79–101.

    Article  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 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116(1–3), 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bock, B., & Roe, E. (2008). European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113, 279–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 18, 325–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W. A. J., & Viaene, J. (2000). Ethical challenges for livestock production: Meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, R. M. (2010). Livestock/deadstock: Working with farm animals from birth to slaughter. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wischner, D., Kemper, N., & Krieter, J. (2009). Nest-building behaviour in sows and consequences for pig husbandry. Livestock Science, 124, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation as funders of the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Wageningen University and Research Center, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Janneke de Jonge & Hans C. M. van Trijp

Authors
  1. Janneke de Jonge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans C. M. van Trijp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janneke de Jonge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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 26, 629–661 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9426-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9426-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation