Corporate Reporting on Farm Animal Welfare: An Evaluation of Global Food Companies' Discourse and Disclosures on Farm Animal Welfare.

Rory Sullivan, Nicky Amos, Heleen A van de Weerd
Author Information
  1. Rory Sullivan: Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. rory@rorysullivan.org.
  2. Nicky Amos: Nicky Amos CSR Services Ltd., Old Broyle Road, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 3PR, UK. nicky@nicky-amos.co.uk.
  3. Heleen A van de Weerd: Cerebrus Associates Ltd., The White House, 2 Meadrow, Godalming, Surrey GU7 3HN, UK. heleen@cerebrus.org.

Abstract

The views that food companies hold about their responsibilities for animal welfare can strongly influence the lives and welfare of farm animals. If a company's commitment is translated into action, it can be a major driver of animal welfare. The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is an annual evaluation of farm animal welfare-related practices, reporting and performance of food companies. The framework evaluates how close, based on their disclosures, companies are to best practice in three areas: Management Commitment, Governance & Performance and Leadership & Innovation. The BBFAW analysed information published by 68 (2012) and 70 (2013) of the world's largest food companies. Around 70% of companies acknowledged animal welfare as a business issue. Between 2012 and 2013, the mean BBFAW score increased significantly by 5% ( < 0.001, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test). However, only 34% (2012) and 44% (2013) of companies published comprehensive animal welfare policies. This increase suggests that global food companies are increasingly aware that farm animal welfare is of interest to their stakeholders, but also that many companies have yet to acknowledge farm animal welfare as a business issue or to demonstrate their approach to farm animal welfare to stakeholders and society.

Keywords

References

  1. Poult Sci. 2015 Jul;94(7):1454-69 [PMID: 26009752]
  2. J Vet Med Educ. 2010 Spring;37(1):83-8 [PMID: 20378884]
  3. EFSA J. 2008 Jul 24;6(7):767 [PMID: 37213844]
  4. Meat Sci. 2017 Mar;125:106-113 [PMID: 27940228]
  5. Vet Rec. 2012 Feb 11;170(6):152 [PMID: 22331783]
  6. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2011 Jun;14(3):244-50 [PMID: 21621451]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0companiesanimalwelfarefarmfoodFarmAnimalBBFAW20122013cananimalsWelfare&publishedbusinessissueglobalstakeholdersviewsholdresponsibilitiesstronglyinfluencelivescompany'scommitmenttranslatedactionmajordriverBusinessBenchmarkannualevaluationwelfare-relatedpracticesreportingperformanceframeworkevaluatesclosebaseddisclosuresbestpracticethreeareas:ManagementCommitmentGovernancePerformanceLeadershipInnovationanalysedinformation6870world'slargestAround70%acknowledgedmeanscoreincreasedsignificantly5%<0001WilcoxonSigned-RanktestHowever34%44%comprehensivepoliciesincreasesuggestsincreasinglyawareinterestalsomanyyetacknowledgedemonstrateapproachsocietyCorporateReportingWelfare:EvaluationGlobalFoodCompanies'DiscourseDisclosuresCSRriskmanagement

Similar Articles

Cited By