Abstract
The legitimacy of the dominant intensive meat production system with respect to the issue of animal welfare is increasingly being questioned by stakeholders across the meat supply chain. The current meat supply is highly undifferentiated, catering only for the extremes of morality concerns (i.e., conventional vs. organic meat products). However, a latent need for compromise products has been identified. That is, consumer differences exist regarding the trade-offs they make between different aspects associated with meat consumption. The heterogeneity in consumer demand could function as a starting point for market segmentation, targeting and positioning regarding animal welfare concepts that are differentiated in terms of animal welfare and price levels. Despite this, stakeholders in the meat supply chain seem to be trapped in the dominant business model focused on low cost prices. This paper aims to identify conflicting interests that stakeholders in the meat supply chain experience in order to increase understanding of why heterogeneous consumer preferences are not met by a more differentiated supply of meat products produced at different levels of animal welfare standards. In addition, characteristics of the supply chain that contribute to the existence of high exit barriers and difficulty to shift to more animal-friendly production systems are identified. Following the analysis of conflicting interests among stakeholders and factors that contribute to difficulty to transform the existing dominant regime, different routes are discussed that may help and motivate stakeholders to overcome these barriers and stimulate the creation of new markets
Keywords Animal welfare standards  Meat supply chain  Consumers  Ambivalence  System lock-in  Social dilemma theory  Europe
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10806-012-9426-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,316
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Mapping the Moral Domain.Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, Jonathan Haidt, Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva & Peter H. Ditto - 2011 - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101 (2):366-385.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?Patrick D. Hopkins & Austin Dacey - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6):579-596.
The Market for Animal Welfare.Jayson L. Lusk - 2011 - Agriculture and Human Values 28 (4):561-575.
Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming. [REVIEW]Evelyn B. Pluhar - 2010 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23 (5):455-468.
Ethological Farm Programs and the “Market” for Animal Welfare.Stefan Mann - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (4):369-382.
Willed Blindness: A Discussion of Our Moral Shortcomings in Relation to Animals.Mickey Gjerris - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (3):517-532.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-12-20

Total views
23 ( #495,324 of 2,519,499 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,153 of 2,519,499 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes