Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T04:21:19.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A scenario analysis on the implementation of a farm animal welfare assessment system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

PTM Ingenbleek ,
HJ Blokhuis ,
A Butterworth  and
LJ Keeling
PTM Ingenbleek*
Affiliation:
Wageningen University, Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands
HJ Blokhuis
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7068, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden
A Butterworth
Affiliation:
Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Somerset BS40 5DU UK
LJ Keeling
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7068, 750 07, Uppsala, Sweden
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Paul.Ingenbleek@wur.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There have been important developments in the measurement of farm animal welfare in recent years. Measuring animal welfare is one thing, implementing a farm animal welfare assessment system another. The implementation of such a system occurs in an environment that is influenced by economic, political, technological and socio-cultural factors which interact with each other. This creates enormous complexity, generates a huge number of different potential ‘futures’, and makes the eventual impact that the system will have on the welfare of farm animals uncertain. This article draws upon strategic management literature to apply scenario analysis as a technique to help understand the variance of the uncertainty associated with the implementation of an animal welfare assessment scheme. Specifically, it develops two extreme scenarios based on a theoretical European-wide implementation: one scenario in which all uncertain factors influence the implementation of the assessment system in a negative way, and one scenario in which all these factors have positive impacts. These scenarios provide insight into the variance of possible futures in which the system may have to function. Although consumers are an important stakeholder group, their role in creating uncertainty for the system may be overestimated; it is apparent that the roles of companies, brands and certification organisations deserve significant attention, as well as any relevant institutional structure.

Keywords

animal welfarecertificationfarm animal welfare assessmentimplementationpolicyscenario analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 613 - 621
Copyright
© 2011 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, RJ 2008 Fast food and animal rights: an examination and assessment of the industry's response to social pressure. Business Society Review 113(3): 301–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM 1997 Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 22: 281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM, Anderson, J and Blaney, RJP 2002 Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15: 187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ 1998 Integration of animal welfare in intensive animal production. In: Wensing, T (ed) Production Diseases in Farm Animals pp 222–229. Wageningen Press: Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Jones, RB, Geers, R, Miele, M and Veissier, I 2003 Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Animal Welfare 12: 445–455Google Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Keeling, LJ, Gavinelli, A and Serratosa, J 2008 Animal welfare's impact on the food chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology 19: 75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blokhuis, HJ, Veissier, I, Miele, M and Jones, RB 2010 The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica A, Animal Science 60: 129–140Google Scholar
Bock, BB and van Huik, MM 2007 Animal welfare: the attitude and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109: 931–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornett, HLI, Guy, JH and Cain, PJ 2003 Impact of animal welfare on costs and viability of pig production in the UK. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bracke, MBM, Metz, JHM, Dijkhuizen, AA and Spruijt, BM 2001 Development of a decision support system for assessing farm animal welfare in relation to husbandry systems: Strategy and prototype. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14: 321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterworth, A, Veissier, I, Manteca, X and Blokhuis, HJ 2008 Welfare trade. Public Service Review: European Union 15: 456–459Google Scholar
Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 2010 Paulsen M (rapporteur). Report on evaluation and assessment of the Animal Welfare Action Plan 2006-2010 (2009/2202[INI]). European parliament session document A7-0053/2010. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2010-0053+0+DOC+PDF+V0//ENGoogle Scholar
De Geus, AP 1988 Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review 66: 70–74Google Scholar
Den Ouden, M, Huirne, RBM and Dijkhuizen, AA 1997 The impact of changing pig welfare preferences on the economics of pork production-marketing chains. In: Wierenga, B, van Tilburg, A, Grunert, K, Steenkamp, JBEM and Wedel, M (eds) Agricultural Marketing and Consumer Behavior in a Changing World pp 75–91. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, D, Bourgeois, J and Achterbosch, T 2006 Product differentiation under the WTO: an analysis of labelling and tariff or tax measures concerning farm animal welfare. Paper presented at the IATRC Summer Symposium. Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Enting, H, Kooij, D, Dijkhuizen, AA and Huirne, RBM 1997 Economic losses due to clinical lameness in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science 49: 259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2009 Options for Farm Animal Welfare Labelling and the Establishment of a European Network of Reference Centres for the Protection and Welfare of Animals. Summary of the Impact Assessment Report. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2006 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on a Community Action Plan on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010, COM13 Final. EC: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Evans, A and Miele, M 2007 Consumers’ Views about Farm Animal Welfare. Part I, Welfare Quality 4. Cardiff University Press: Cardiff, UKGoogle Scholar
Fahey, L and Randell, RM 1998 Learning from the Future; Competitive Foresight Scenarios. John Wiley & Sons: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Frewer, LJ, Kole, A, Van de Kroon, SMA and de Lauwere, C 2005 Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 345–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godet, M 2000 The art of scenarios and strategic planning: tools and pitfalls. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 65: 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatanaka, M, Bain, C and Busch, L 2005 Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy 30: 354–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, S 1997 Estimating the incidence of food-borne Salmonella and the effectiveness of alternative control measures using the Delphi method. International Journal of Food Microbiology 35: 195–204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hobbs, AL, Hobbs, JE, Isaac, GE and Kerr, WA 2002 Ethics, domestic food policy and trade law: assessing the EU animal welfare proposal to the WTO. Food Policy 27: 437–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingenbleek, PTM and Meulenberg, MTG 2006 The battle between ‘Good’ and ‘Better’. A strategic marketing perspective on codes of conduct for sustainable agriculture. Agribusiness: An International Journal 22: 451–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingenbleek, PTM, Binnekamp, M and Goddijn, S 2007 Setting standards for CSR: a comparative case study on criteria-formulating organizations. Journal of Business Research 60: 539–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeling, LJ 2009 An overview of the development of Welfare Quality project assessment systems. Welfare Quality Reports No.12 pp 97Google Scholar
Linneman, RE and Klein, HE 1983 The use of multiple scenarios by US industrial companies: a comparison study 1977-82. Long Range Planning (December): 94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundvall, BA, Johnson, B, Andersen, ES and Dalum, B 2002 National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy 31: 213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S and Roberts, D 1998 The economy-wide effects of the BSE-crisis: a CGE analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics 49: 458–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelps, R, Chan, C and Kapsalis, SC 2001 Does scenario planning affect performance? Two exploratory studies. Journal of Business Research 51: 223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porcher, J 2001 Le travail dans l’élevage industriel des porcs. Souffrance des animaux, souffrance deshommes. In: Burgat, F and Dantzer, R (eds) Un Point Sur… Les animaux d’élevageont-ils droit au bienêtre? pp 23–64. INRA Editions: Paris, France. [Title translation: Labour in industrial pig farming: animal suffering, human suffering. In: Are Farm Animals Entitled to their Well-being?]Google Scholar
Rikkonen, P 2005 Scenarios for future agriculture in Finland: a Delphi study among agri-food sector stakeholders. Agricultural & Food Science 14: 205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, EM 2003 Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Schoemaker, PJH 1993 Multiple scenario development: its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strategic Management Journal 14: 193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technology Futures Analysis Working Group 2004 Technology futures analysis: toward integration of the field and new methods. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71: 287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traill, B 1997 Globalisation in the food industries? European Review of Agricultural Economics 24: 390–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Herpen, E and Liu, J 2004 Demand-driven assortment management. In: Verhallen, T, Gaakeer, C and Wiegerinck, VJJ (eds) Demand Driven Chains and Networks. Reed Business Information: The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Veissier, I, Forkman, B and Jones, B 2007 Assuring animal welfare: from societal concerns to implementation. Welfare Quality, Proceedings of the Second Welfare Quality Stakeholder Conference. 3-4 May 2007, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009a Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Poultry (Broilers, Laying Hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009b Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Welfare Quality® 2009c Welfare Quality® Assessment Protocol for Pigs (Sows and Piglets, Growing and Finishing Pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium: Lelystad, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Willer, H and Yussefi, M 2006 The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2006. IFOAM: Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar