Search results

The primary purpose of this study is to investigate whether welfare issues are important to consumers also relating to fish. Second, it aims to identify segments based on animal and fish welfare issues, environmental concerns and ambivalence about farmed fish.

A questionnaire was designed to investigate consumers' concern for environmental and animal and fish welfare issues together with variables used in profiling segments in the study. The measurement scales used here are adapted from validated scales in previous studies. The survey was conducted in Valencia, Spain, among 450 randomly‐chosen respondents.

Animal welfare issues related to farmed fish do not seem to be important for the consumers in Valencia. There are, however, differences among the consumers relating to general environmental and animal welfare concern, and ambivalence. Three segments were identified: the unconcerned (27 per cent), the wild fish concerned (34.5 per cent) and the ambivalent (38.5 per cent). Attitudes toward farmed fish, the importance of natural food and social class were most important in profiling differences between clusters.

The findings indicate that the animal welfare issue has not yet become a barrier for farmed fish in Valencia. The results may help fish‐farming companies to find their target group among the consumers, based on environmental and animal welfare issues. The results also indicate that there are consumers who are somewhat ambivalent about farmed fish. For this group, more information and knowledge can change their attitudes so they become more positive toward farmed fish in the future.

The paper provides useful information for fish‐farming companies or the authorities planning healthy‐eating campaigns targeting fish.

This paper is derived from a larger scale project investigating consumer attitudes towards organic food in the UK. Presents focus group results on consumer perceptions, attitudes and behaviour in relation to two key interrelated food trends: organic food and animal welfare. The results indicate that consumers often confuse organic and free‐range products because they believe that “organic” is equivalent to “free‐range” food. Focus group discussions were conducted to identify the main beliefs and attitudes towards organic food of both organic and non‐organic food buyers. Results indicate that, although health and food safety concerns are the main motives for organic food purchases, ethical concerns, specifically in relation to standards of animal welfare, play a significant influencing role in the decision to purchase organic food. The results are consistent with parallel research into consumer concerns about animal welfare, which showed that consumers are primarily concerned about food safety issues. Furthermore, the research illustrates the central outcome that animal welfare is used by consumers as an indicator of other, more important product attributes, such as safety and the impact on health. Indeed, ethical considerations seem to motivate the purchase of organic food and free‐range products and, therefore, may be viewed as interrelated. However, such ethical frameworks are closely related, if not contingent upon, the quality of the product, which includes perceptions of higher standards of safety and healthiness. Based on the qualitative data, suggests that the organic market could take advantage of research on consumer motivation to buy free‐range products, by embodying ethical concerns as an indicator of product quality.

Explores the suggestion that the UK is at the forefront of Europe with respect to animal welfare issues and looks at farm animal welfare legislation and consumer concern in the UK and Europe. Results of a survey conducted in 1992 and a follow‐up in 1994, which looked at the importance with which meat manufacturers in the UK, Germany and Switzerland, view consumer concerns for animal welfare. Concludes that the meat industry needs to develop ways in which real concerns for animal welfare can be satisfied in a manner which both reassures the consumer and brings about improvement where it is necessary.

The rise of fast fashion has changed the face of global fashion. Despite sector growth, critics have questioned the level of obsolescence, encouragement of over-consumption and fast fashion's unsustainable business practices. Specifically, mounting concerns surround the impact on environmental, worker and animal welfare. Accordingly, the aim of this current work is to understand the influence of consumer's values on ethical consumption in a fast-fashion context.

An online survey was designed to collect responses relating to personal values and ethical concerns towards animal and worker welfare issues, as well as environmental concerns. A total of 350 US-based fast-fashion consumers completed the survey via Amazon MTurk. Factor analyses and structural equation modelling were used to analyse and test a theoretically hypothesised model.

This study found that self-transcendence values and openness to change values have a positive impact on consumers' levels of ethical concern towards animal welfare, the environment and worker welfare concerns within the fashion industry. Furthermore, a consumer's level of concern towards animal welfare and the environment positively influences a consumer's likeliness to purchase ethically marketed fast fashion.

This is the first study to investigate the role of consumer values and their influence on ethical concerns within the fashion industry and the impact of these concerns on intentions to purchase ethically marketed fast fashion. Responding to calls for further research into ethical consumption of apparel, this study includes all elements of ethical consumption identified, including animal welfare. This study identifies ethical areas of concern salient amongst fast-fashion consumers and provides a deeper understanding of the values impacting the level of ethical concerns surrounding animal welfare, the environment and worker welfare.

This research aims to determine the relationship between the consumption of animal products and attitudes towards animals among university students in Eurasia.

A survey was conducted with collaborators in each country who supervised volunteers to personally invite 16,777 students to take part. The sample was composed of 3,433 students from 103 universities in 11 Eurasian countries. ANOVA was used to compare the responses. All analyses were conducted using the statistical packages Minitab 15 and SPSS 15.

A total of 47 per cent of university students avoided some meat products, 4 per cent were vegetarians and 0.4 per cent vegans. Students avoiding some meat did so principally for environmental and health reasons, and beef and lamb were the meats most likely to be avoided. Vegetarians avoided meat mainly for health reasons. Vegans had greater concern about humans using animals than vegetarians, who in turn had greater concerns than those avoiding some meat.

Avoidance of animal products was related to an increased level of concern for animal rights, animal experimentation and wildlife, with vegans demonstrating the greatest concern. This implied that students' attitudes to animal welfare and rights can affect animal product‐eating behaviours.

This study conflicts with previous studies by demonstrating that health rather than environment was a major reason for vegetarianism. The study highlights the importance of environmental, health and welfare concerns but not religion in avoidance of animal products.

Animal welfare is increasingly favoured by consumers in their choice of food and cosmetic products, proposed by manufacturers and retailers. This study aims to investigate the impact of the “not tested on animals” claim on consumers' attitude and behavioural intention towards a cosmetic product through an enriched version of Ajzen's theory of planned behaviour.

A between-subjects design has been used. 450 participants were recruited through the social network of a cosmetics and personal hygiene brand in Quebec, Canada, and answered a questionnaire. They were randomly assigned to either a manipulation group (n = 226) or a control group (n = 224). Data were analysed with partial least squares structural equation modelling.

This study shows that external (credibility and attitude towards marketing claims) and internal psychological variables (subjective norms and altruistic concerns with animal welfare) influence attitude towards and purchase intention of “not tested on animals” personal care products. More egotistic concerns, such as personal appearance, also explain the formation of attitude towards cruelty-free cosmetics.

This research supplements Ajzen's original model with internal psychological (individuals' concerns with animal welfare and personal appearance) and external (general credibility of cosmetic products claims, credibility of the “not tested on animals” claim and attitude towards this claim) variables. These variables, as suggested by previous research on cosmetics and their claims, improve the understanding of consumer attitude and purchase behaviour patterns.

The study's findings point out the role of companies to increase consumers' knowledge on the significance and transparency of their messages, notably the “not tested on animals” claim. They also stress that policymakers in regions where regulation is unclear should at least punish untruthful communication pertaining to animal testing in cosmetic and personal care products.

Prior studies on cosmetic products did not investigate the difference of consumer attitude formation towards cruelty-free products compared to conventional cosmetic products. Consequently, this research shows that the construction of attitude towards cruelty-free products highly differs from conventional personal care.

Food products developed using genetically modified (GM) animals may soon be introduced in Europe and beyond. Their successful commercialisation depends on consumer acceptance, and so it is timely to review the existing literature in this respect. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A systematic review identified 42 English language peer reviewed papers assessing public opinion of GM animals associated with food production. Thematic analysis was applied to the results to identify and explain consumer attitudes.

Publication peaked in 2004, and declined thereafter. European consumers were less accepting of GM animal technology than the US and Asian consumers, although the latter reported more ethical concern. Risk and benefit perceptions, ethical concerns (e.g. related to animal welfare) may explain negative consumer attitudes towards animals in food production.

There is a lack of data on consumer attitudes to GM animals applied to food production, in particular in relation to consumers in emerging economies and developing countries. This is problematic as applications of GM animal products are about to enter the market.

There is a need to track changes in public opinion as GM food production animals are further developed. The introduction and commercialisation of applications with specific characteristics may further shape consumer attitudes.

Methods need to be developed to involve consumers and other stakeholders in shaping future applications of agri-food applications of GM animals.

The review collates existing quantitative and qualitative knowledge regarding the drivers of consumer attitudes towards GM animals used in food production using systematic review methodology.

The purpose of this study is to investigate consumers' attitudes towards alternative slaughter methods (ASMs). ASMs present more animal-friendly and stress-free slaughter practices. However, these practices are not yet widespread due to strict regulations, high labor efforts and costs. Therefore, the market for meat products from ASMs is still small, and less is known about consumers' awareness, assessment and willingness to pay (WTP) for these products.

This study aims to close the research gap using a standardized and representative online survey among 1,604 German participants. To identify target groups for these kinds of meat products, a factor and cluster analysis was conducted.

The results show that ASMs are not widely known among consumers. Overall, participants evaluated ASMs positively, but about 1/3 of the participants stated to also have concerns related more to hygiene than to animal welfare issues. The cluster analysis reveals two out of four clusters found that are interested in ASMs. These clusters are characterized by high trust in small butcheries and organic meat consumption.

The slaughtering sector has hardly been examined from an economic point of view in the animal welfare debate so far. This study identifies potential target groups for products originating from ASMs based on possible consumption drivers and barriers. Therewith, products from particular animal welfare friendly slaughter methods can be promoted purposefully to suitable target groups.

This paper aims to explore ethical purchasing behaviours and attitudes, relating to the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and their brand‐extension “Freedom Food”.

A mixed methodology was adopted. This involved both in‐depth interviews with 30 consumers and a postal survey of 1,000 consumers. Beliefs, attitudes, normative and control issues were measured within the context of the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Structural equation modelling was used to explore a series of dependence relationships simultaneously.

Overall, consumers' moral obligations towards food‐animals as well as consumer location are confirmed as influencing ethical brand choice. Both variables provide additional predictive capability improvements, raising the percentage of explained variance by 28 per cent to 80 per cent. The RSPCA's brand extension is clearly successful in terms of the positive, association value between the parent brand and the extended brand. However, market opportunities to increase market potential exist. These opportunities are discussed.

Despite the plethora of brand extensions amongst conventional fast‐moving consumer goods, the success of the brand extension concept remains unexplored amongst ethical products. Similarly, within the ethical consumption literature the majority of ethical research focuses either on environmental issues or Fair Trade purchasing behaviour, with much less attention given to societal concern for animal welfare. Additional originality is gained by exploring consumer purchase activities of “Freedom Food” branded meat by adopting the TPB as a theoretical framework.

The wide divergence of the people’s expectations and agricultural reality results in conflicts between the agricultural sector and the general public. Contemporary animal husbandry systems are being increasingly critically addressed by media; however, there is no information about peoples’ perceptions and attitudes concentrating precisely on specific animal husbandry systems. The purpose of this paper is to explore citizens’ perceptions, expectations and main points of criticism in regard to intensive pig production in Germany, and to identify and describe distinct population groups reflecting different attitudes.

A mixed method approach combining qualitative focus groups with a quantitative online survey has been employed. Focus groups capture a wide variety of opinions and concerns in an exploratory manner. Based on these findings, the quantitative survey (n=1,500 citizens) allowed the identification and characterisation of population groups with identical attitudes regarding pig husbandry.

Qualitative research uncovered a huge range of criticism on pig husbandry, e.g. lack of space, frequency and prophylactic use of medications as well as a lack of care. A relationship was seen between the lack of space, widespread use of medications and behavioural disorders. Consumer preferences for buying cheap meat were believed to be part of the problem since this behaviour fosters the development of larger farms. Quantitative research confirmed the generally critical perception and identified three population groups. Only one third of the population was really concerned about animal husbandry. Younger people and people with better knowledge of agriculture were stronger opponents of intensive pig husbandry.

Results indicate that increasing people’s knowledge may have an adverse effect on their acceptance of modern farming systems. More communication and better information strategies will probably not improve societal acceptance by itself. Instead, agricultural production systems need to be improved to meet better consumers’ expectations whereas communicating these improvements to consumers and the general public in a well-targeted manner will be required as well.

When considering options for enhancing public acceptance of modern animal husbandry, a combination of different strategies by different stakeholders is needed. The agricultural sector should improve its communication with the general public and rethink its production practices against the background of public expectations. The government and its agencies urgently need to improve monitoring of the compliance of actual production practices with existing laws and to enforce them. Additionally, adjustments of current regulations of animal husbandry in light of public expectations should be considered.