IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iefi15/206246.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are animal welfare aspects of relevance in consumers’ purchase decision

Author

Listed:
  • Klink, Jeanette
  • Nina, Langen

Abstract

Recurring reports on animal husbandry conditions as well as the maltreatment of animals during transport to slaughterhouses in the last years increased public concerns about animal welfare conditions showing the need to act for all stakeholders throughout the meat supply chain (e.g. Bánáti, 2011). As a consequence animal wel-fare has become one of the priorities on the agenda of politicians (see the coalition agreement in 2013; CDU et al., 2013), consumer policy and protection agencies and is intensively discussed in the private sector as well as in academia. In Germany, in particular the ‘Initiative Tierwohl’ continuously gains in importance and in 2013 for the first time an EU animal welfare label was established. However, the increasing stated interest in animal welfare is not yet reflected by sales figures in the meat mar-ket. In literature different reasons addressing multiple levels of the topic are discussed for this discrepancy (e.g. Hartmann et al., 2014). One factor is the lack of a universally accepted definition and understanding of animal welfare due to its multidimensional character (Lagerkvist and Hess, 2014). Another reason is the potential so-cial desirability bias which occurs to different extent depending on the survey method used to elicit the prefer-ences of the actors. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to get deeper insights into first, consumers’ understanding of animal welfare by identifying the relevant aspects of animal welfare in consumers’ decision making process while pur-chasing meat. Second, we use two methods to assess the relevance of animal welfare issues for consumers when thinking about the purchase of meat to quantify the extent the different survey methods construct sur-vey results rather than elicit consumer preferences. For this purpose an online survey with N = 926 participants was conducted in July 2012. The investigated meat products were chicken and pork cutlet. Consumers’ preferences for different product attributes were meas-ured via a questionnaire as well as by an individualized Information Display Matrix (IDM). As to the first research question, the results indicate that with respect to animal welfare aspects the one of especially high relevance to consumers is animal husbandry conditions while e.g. slaughtering or feeding is of lower importance. The results also indicate that animal husbandry conditions are much more relevant for consumers when thinking about the purchase of chicken cutlet compared to pork cutlet. With regard to the second question survey results show that respondents’ preferences obtained via questionnaire and IDM deviate to a considerable extent regarding the attribute price. While participants stated in the questionnaire that price is of minor importance, the analysis based on the IDM displays clearly that price plays a paramount role in consum-ers’ meat information search process. Thus, we see evidence that the two survey methods are prone to suffer to a different degree from the social desirability bias. The results can help policy makers, manufacturers and retailers as well as NGOs in promoting and selling meat produced according to higher animal welfare standards. Successful promotion of such products is only possible if there is a good understanding of the animal welfare characteristics important to consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Klink, Jeanette & Nina, Langen, 2015. "Are animal welfare aspects of relevance in consumers’ purchase decision," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206246, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iefi15:206246
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.206246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/206246/files/28-Klink%20and%20Langen_Working%20paper_final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.206246?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. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2011. "Animal Welfare Economics," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 463-483.
    2. Giovannucci, Daniele & Byers, Alice & Liu, Pascal, 2008. "Adding Value: Certified Coffee Trade in North America," MPRA Paper 17174, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Lagerkvist, Carl Johan & Hess, Sebastian, 2014. "Consumer acceptance of an EU/non-EU label of origin of beef: an analysis of attribute attendance in a discrete choice experiment," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182744, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Christian Brzinsky-Fay & Ulrich Kohler & Magdalena Luniak, 2006. "Sequence analysis with Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(4), pages 435-460, December.
    5. Giovannucci, Daniele & Koekoek, Freek Jan, 2003. "The State of Sustainable Coffee: A Study of Twelve Major Markets," MPRA Paper 17172, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199551163.
    7. 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.
    8. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li, 2013. "Willingness to Pay for Multiple Quantities of Animal Welfare Dairy Products: Results from Random Nth-, Second-Price, and Incremental Second-Price Auctions," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(3), pages 417-438, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Hartmann, Monika & Simons, Johannes, 2015. "The Farm Animal Welfare - Dilemma: Can concerted Action of the Value Chain be a solution?," 148th Seminar, November 30-December 1, 2015, The Hague, The Netherlands 229280, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. 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.
    4. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    5. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Moderate vs. Radical NGOs," TSE Working Papers 20-1159, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Harvey, David & Hubbard, Carmen, 2013. "Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-114.
    7. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Ellison, Brenna, 2014. "Which Livestock Production Methods Matter Most to Consumers?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 173517, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    10. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    11. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    12. Hestermann, Nina & Le Yaouanq, Yves & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "An economic model of the meat paradox," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    14. Tomislav Vukina & Danijel Nestic, 2020. "Paying for animal welfare? A hedonic analysis of egg prices," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 613-630, October.
    15. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    16. Arne Henningsen & Tomasz Gerard Czekaj & Björn Forkman & Mogens Lund & Aske Schou Nielsen, 2018. "The Relationship between Animal Welfare and Economic Performance at Farm Level: A Quantitative Study of Danish Pig Producers," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 142-162, February.
    17. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    18. Christian Tarsney & Teruji Thomas, 2020. "Non-Additive Axiologies in Large Worlds," Papers 2010.06842, arXiv.org.
    19. Nicolas Treich, 2021. "Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(1), pages 33-61, May.
    20. Wen Lin, 2023. "The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta‐regression analysis of beef valuation studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 646-663, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:iefi15:206246. 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/ilbonde.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.