IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/271027.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving market success of animal welfare programs through key stakeholder involvement: heading towards responsible innovation?

Author

Listed:
  • Purwins, Nina
  • Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit

Abstract

Despite frequent public criticism of modern husbandry practices, many animal welfare programs lack acceptance among both farmers and consumers. We contend that this lock-in originates from a lack of market orientation and consequential neglect of key stakeholders’ preferences in program design. Considering the case of a retailer-owned meat brand, we demonstrate the relevance of stakeholders’ inclusion when establishing animal welfare programs for pigs. Surveys among 62 farming members of a pig trading cooperative and 692 supermarket customers reveal the heterogeneity of beliefs and acceptance within both groups. While a Responsible Innovation approach, including key actors from the initial criteria selection, could be effective for raising acceptance, it would likely lead to lengthy time-to-market, prohibiting first-mover advantages. We suggest instead that beliefs and acceptance among farmers may be influenced through a communication strategy based on survey results and experimental research, as well as facilitating positive word-of-mouth.

Suggested Citation

  • Purwins, Nina & Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit, 2018. "Improving market success of animal welfare programs through key stakeholder involvement: heading towards responsible innovation?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:271027
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.271027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/271027/files/ifamr2017.0047.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/271027/files/ifamr2017.0047.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.271027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heise, Heinke & Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2014. "Improved Process Quality through Certification Systems: An Assessment of Selected Animal Welfare Labels," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Deimel, Ingke & Franz, Annabell & Spiller, Achim, 2012. "Animal Welfare: eine empirische Analyse landwirtschaftlicher Frames," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 61(2).
    3. Boehm, Justus & Kayser, Maike & Spiller, Achim, 2010. "Two Sides of the Same Coin? Analysis of the Web-Based Social Media with Regard to the Image of the Agri-Food Sector in Germany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(3), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit & Purwins, Nina, 2016. "Does having a Choice make a Difference? Market Potential of the Animal Welfare Label in Germany," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244531, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Hansson, Helena & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2015. "Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 35-42.
    7. Schulze, Birgit & Deimel, Ingke, 2012. "Conflicts between agriculture and society: the role of lobby groups in the animal welfare discussion and their impact on meat consumption," 22nd International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA) World Forum, 2012, Shanghai, China 269543, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA).
    8. Andrei Cechin & Jos Bijman & Stefano Pascucci & Onno Omta, 2013. "Decomposing the Member Relationship in Agricultural Cooperatives: Implications for Commitment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 39-61, January.
    9. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    10. Tepic, M. & Trienekens, Jacques H. & Hoste, R. & Omta, S.W.F. (Onno), 2012. "The Influence of Networking and Absorptive Capacity on the Innovativeness of Farmers in the Dutch Pork Sector," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(3), pages 1-34, September.
    11. Heise, Heinke & Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2014. "Improved Process Quality through Certification Systems: An Assessment of Selected Animal Welfare Labels," 2014 International European Forum, February 17-21, 2014, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 199057, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    12. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. More, S.J. & Marchewka, J. & Hanlon, A. & Balzani, A. & Boyle, L., 2021. "An evaluation of four private animal health and welfare standards and associated quality assurance programmes for dairy cow production," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Purwins, Nina & Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit, 2016. "Determinants of pig farmers’ participation in an animal welfare program," 26th International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA) World Forum, 2016, Aarhus, Denmark 274784, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA).
    2. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    3. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Tiéfigué Pierrette Coulibaly & Jianguo Du & Daniel Diakité & Olivier Joseph Abban & Elvis Kouakou, 2021. "A Proposed Conceptual Framework on the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: The Role of Network Contact Frequency and Institutional Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-12, February.
    5. Hakelius, Karin & Hansson, Helena, 2016. "Members’ attitudes towards cooperatives and their perception of agency problems," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(4), October.
    6. Chen, Junhong & Ortega, David L. & Wang, Hong Holly, 2018. "Does Animal Welfare Matter to Consumers in Emerging Countries? Evidence from China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274069, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    8. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    9. Heise, Heinke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(3), November.
    10. Giovanni Pino & Pierluigi Toma & Cristian Rizzo & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Alessandro M. Peluso & Gianluigi Guido, 2017. "Determinants of Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Water Saving Measures: Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, January.
    11. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    12. Yang, Yu-Chen, 2018. "Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    13. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    14. Christoph, Inken B. & Buergelt, Doreen & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela & Zander, Katrin, 2012. "A Holistic Approach to Consumer Research on Expectations Regarding Animal Husbandry," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144963, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    15. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2019. "Distinguishing protest responses in contingent valuation: A conceptualization of motivations and attitudes behind them," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, January.
    16. Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit & Purwins, Nina, 2016. "Does having a Choice make a Difference? Market Potential of the Animal Welfare Label in Germany," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244531, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    17. Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Sonntag, Winnie, 2016. "Gibt es eine Zukunft für die moderne konventionelle Tierhaltung in Nordwesteuropa?," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260780, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    18. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Schulte, Hinrich D. & Armbrecht, Linda & Bürger, Rasmus & Gauly, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver & Hüttel, Silke, 2018. "Let the cows graze: An empirical investigation on the trade-off between efficiency and farm animal welfare in milk production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 375-385.
    20. Karin Hakelius & Helena Hansson, 2016. "Measuring Changes in Farmers’ Attitudes to Agricultural Cooperatives: Evidence from Swedish Agriculture 1993–2013," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 531-546, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:271027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifamaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.