Food Retailers as Mediating Gatekeepers between Farmers and Consumers in the Supply Chain of Animal Welfare Meat - Studying Retailers’ Motives in Marketing Pasture-Based Beef
- 13 Downloads
Although there is increasing public criticism of intensive livestock production, the market share of meat with an animal welfare standard exceeding legal requirements remains small. Food retailers, in their role as gatekeepers, can influence changes in production and consumption patterns. Their strategic role between farmers and consumers allows them to control commodity, information and value flow and therefore places them into a key position when it comes to the distribution of meat with a higher animal welfare standard. The aim of this explorative study is to identify factors which motivate food retailers to take on the marketing of products of increased animal welfare standards, in this case, pasture-based beef. Nine in depth-interviews were conducted with representatives of the food retail industry. The interviews took place in June 2018, followed a structured guideline and were transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were categorized and evaluated using qualitative content analysis. Results showed that food retailers are driven by both extrinsic and intrinsic motives. The main extrinsic motive is the perceived customer demand. Consciousness for animal welfare and the regional production cycles, including close connection between farmers and retailers are inherently intrinsic motives. Interestingly, the interviewed retailers show a high personal interest and moral obligation with regard to sourcing and marketing pasture-based beef. As such, this research finds innovative retailers, who take on a new role in sustainable food systems which exceed classical distribution functions and may have a considerable effect in transforming the food system.
KeywordsFood retailing Gatekeeper Animal welfare Motives Pasture-based beef
The authors greatfully ackowledge funding from the “Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL)” and the “Ministry of Science and Arts” in Lower Saxony, Germany.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- Caroll, Archie B., and Kareem M. Shabana. 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews 12 (1): 58–105.Google Scholar
- Cordano, Mark, and Irene H. Frieze. 2000. Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 637–641.Google Scholar
- Franz, Anabell Marie von Meyer, and Achim Spiller. 2010. Prospects for a european animal welfare label from the German perspective: supply chain barriers. International Journal on Food System Dynamics 4: 318–329.Google Scholar
- Friedman, Milton. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Time Magazine 13 September 1970.Google Scholar
- Genier, Claudia Mike Stamp and Mark Pfitzer. 2009. Corporate social responsibility for agro-industries development. In: Agro-industries for development, ed. Carlos A. da Silva, Doyle Baker, Andrew W. Shepherd, Chakib Jenane, and Sergio Miranda-da-Cruz, 223–252. Bodmin: MPG Books Group.Google Scholar
- Hansen, Ursula. 1993. Ökologisches Marketing im Handel. In Eberhard Seidel, Heinz Strebel, ed. Betriebliche Umweltökonomie, 448–479. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
- Herrmann, Wiebke 2019. Einheitliche Haltungskennzeichnung für Fleisch jetzt im Handel. Agrarheute. https://www.agrarheute.com/tier/einheitliche-haltungskennzeichnung-fuer-fleisch-handel-552820. Accessed 02 April 2019.
- Kohlmüller, Matthias, and Tim Koch. 2018. Markt Bilanz – Vieh und Fleisch, ed. In AMI (Argrarmarkt Informationsgesellschaft). Bonn: Medienhaus Plump GmbH.Google Scholar
- Lee, Ming - Dong P. 2008. A review of theories of corporate social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews 10 (1): 53–73.Google Scholar
- Mayring, Philipp. 2010 Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim and Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
- Miles, Morgan .P., and Jeffrey G. Covin. 2000. Environmental marketing: A source of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics 23: 299–311.Google Scholar
- Moewius, Joyce Peter Röhring, Diana Schaack, Christine Ramphold, Hans-Josef Brzukalle, Frank Gottwald, Karin Stein-Bachinger, Markus Wolter, and Jürn Sanders. 2018. Zahlen, Daten, Fakten – Bio-Branche 2018, ed. In BÖLW (Bund Ökologischer Lebensmittelwirtschaft e.V.). Berlin: Spree Print.Google Scholar
- Pirsich, Wiebke Louisa V. Hardenberg, and Ludwig Theuvsen. 2017. Eine empirische Analyse zum Angebot von Tierwohl-Fleisch in Fleischerfachgeschäften. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 95 (2).Google Scholar
- Pullman, Madeleine.E., and Jesse Dillard. 2010. Value based supply chain management and emergent organizational structures. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 30 (7): 744–771.Google Scholar
- Risius, Antje, and Ulrich Hamm. 2016. The effect of information on beef husbandry on consumers’ preference and willingness to pay. Meat Science 124 (2017): 9–14.Google Scholar
- Rombach, Meike, and Vera Bitsch. 2015. Food movements in Germany: slow food, food sharing, and dumpster diving. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 18 (3): 1–24.Google Scholar
- Stockebrand, Nina, Nina S. Berner, and Achim Spiller. 2008. Regionalmarketing im Naturkostfachhandel. Göttingen: Cuvillier.Google Scholar
- Van Loo Ellen J. Vincenzina Caputo Rodolfo M. Nayga and Wim Verbeke. 2014. Consumer’s evaluation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy 49(Part 1):137–150.Google Scholar