Consuming for the Sake of Others: Whose Interests Count on a Market for Animal-Friendly Products?

  • Frauke Pirscher


Many Europeans are concerned about the living conditions of farm animals because they view animals as beings that possess interests of their own. Against this background the introduction of an animal welfare label is being intensively discussed in Europe. In choosing a market-based instrument to take these concerns into account, normative judgments are made about the formation of preferences, the value system that is implicitly assumed, and the distribution of property rights. From the perspective of classical institutional economics it can be shown that the introduction of a label as an institutional change does not redefine institutions in a way that allows them to consider the interests of animals for their own sake. Rather, the label only redefines the property rights that humans have over animals. The market segregation into privileged and normal animals conflicts with the idea of equality between sentient animals. Within the group of humans only the interests of those who act on markets count. The commodification of their moral concerns assumes that people always decide based on their own interests, which can be traded off. The lexicographical ordering of preferences, which occurs when humans view animals as entities with rights, is not compatible with the normative assumptions of markets. Furthermore, interpreting animal suffering as market failure that can be corrected by labeling impedes a reasoned dialog within the society about the values and beliefs that serve as a basis for preference formation. Thus, an animal welfare label cannot replace a fundamental societal debate about legal standards on animal well-being.


Animal ethics Commodification of moral concerns Preference formation Deliberative decision making 



The author would like to thank an anonymous reviewer as well as Daniel W. Bromley for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.


  1. Agrar-Europe. (2015). Tierschutzbund sieht reichlich Handlungsbedarf. No. 4/15. In: Länderberichte 16.Google Scholar
  2. Agrarheute. (2013). Neues Tierschutzlabel: Viel Kritik und wenig Zustimmung.
  3. Aizerman, M. A., & Alerskerov, F. T. (1995). Theory of choice. Amsterdam: Northern Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, E. (1993). Values in ethics and economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arrow, K. J. (1951). The social choice and the individual value. New York: Wisley.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. (1976). The economics approach to human behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beekman, V., & Brom, F. W. A. (2007). Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberation about the ethical aspect of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10806-006-9024-7.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, R. (1995). The value of farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural Economics,. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1995.tb00751.x.Google Scholar
  9. Bergstra, T. J., Gremmen, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015). Moral values and attitudes toward dutch sow husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10806-015-9539-x.Google Scholar
  10. Bock, B. B., & van Huik, M. M. (2007). Animal Welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal,. doi: 10.1108/00070700710835732.Google Scholar
  11. Bowles, S. (1998). Endogenous preferences: The cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 75–111.Google Scholar
  12. Bromley, D. W. (1989a). Entitlements missing markets and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,. doi: 10.1016/0095-0696(89)90031-4.Google Scholar
  13. Bromley, D. W. (1989b). Institutional change and economic efficiency. Journal of Economic Issues, 23(3), 735–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bromley, D. W. (2004). Reconsidering environmental policy: Prescriptive consequentialism and volitional pragmatism. Environmental & Resource Economics, 28(1), 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bromley, D. W. (2006). Sufficient reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Buller, H., & Roe, E. (2012). Commodifying animal welfare. Animal Welfare,. doi: 10.7120/096272812X13345905674042.Google Scholar
  17. Buller, H., & Roe, E. (2014). Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: The economisation of layer chickens. Journal of Rural Studies,. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.005.Google Scholar
  18. Burgess, D., Hutchinson, G., McCallion, I., & Scarpa, R. (2003). Investigating choice rationality in stated preference methods for enhanced animal welfare. CSERGE Working Paper ECM 03-02. Norwich: University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  19. De Lauwere, C., & Luttik, J. (2004). Wageningen UR Projectteam Houden van Hennen. Laying hen husbandry: Towards a happy life, proud farmers and satisfied society. Wageningen: Wageningen UR.Google Scholar
  20. Eckhardt, G., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour,. doi: 10.1002/cb.332.Google Scholar
  21. Eurobarometer. (2007a). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals: Wave 2. In Special Eurobaromenter Report 229(2). Brussels: Eurobaromenter.Google Scholar
  22. Eurobarometer. (2007b). Attitude of EU Citizens towards animal welfare. In Special Eurobarometer Report 270. Brussels: Eurobarometer.Google Scholar
  23. European Commission. (1998). Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. Brussels.Google Scholar
  24. Evans, A., & Miele, M. (2007) (Eds). Consumers’ views about farm animal welfare, part I: National reports based on focus group research. In Welfare Quality ® Reports no. 4. Cardiff: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  25. Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Franz, A., Deimel, I., & Spiller, A. (2012). Concerns about animal welfare: A cluster analysis of German pig farmers. British Food Journal,. doi: 10.1108/00070701211263019.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1988). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Vol. 1). Surkamp: Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  28. Harvey, D., & Hubbard, C. (2013). Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare. An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy,. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.006.Google Scholar
  29. Heerwagen, L. R., Christensen, T., & Sandøe, P. (2013). The prospect of market-driven improvements in animal welfare: Lessons from the case of grass milk in Denmark. Animals,. doi: 10.3390/ani3020499.Google Scholar
  30. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Holland, A. (2002). Are choices tradeoffs? In D. W. Bromley & J. Paavola (Eds.), Economics, ethics and environmental policy. Contested choices (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobsen, E., & Dulsrud, A. (2007). Will consumers save the world? Framing of political consumerism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10806-007-9043-z.Google Scholar
  33. Jakobs, M. (1997). Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. In J. Foster (Ed.), Valuing nature: Economics, ethics and environment (pp. 211–231). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Kehlbacher, A., Bennett, R., & Balcombe, K. (2012). Measuring the consumer benefit of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling. Food Policy,. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.002.Google Scholar
  35. Kjaernes, U., Roe U., & Bock B. (2007). Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. In: I. Veissier, B. Forkman, & B. Jones (Eds.), Assuring animal welfare: From societal concerns to implementation, Proceedings of the second welfare quality stakeholder conference (pp. 13–18), 3–4 May 2007, Berlin.Google Scholar
  36. Kupper, F., & De Cock Buning, T. (2011). Deliberating animal values: A pragmatic—pluralistic approach to animal ethics. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10806-010-9260-8.Google Scholar
  37. Lagerkvist, C. J., & Hess, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics,. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbq043.Google Scholar
  38. Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty!–conflicting perspective on animal welfare. Livestock Science,. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008.Google Scholar
  40. Liljenstolpe, C. (2008). Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: An application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness,. doi: 10.1002/agr.20147.Google Scholar
  41. Lusk, J. L. (2011). The market for animal welfare. Agricultural and Human Values,. doi: 10.1007/s10460-011-9318-x.Google Scholar
  42. Miele, M., & Evans, A. (2012). When food becomes animals: Ruminations on ethics and responsibilities in care-full practiced consumption. Ethics, Place and Environment, 13(2), 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miele, M., & Lever, J. (2013). Civilizing the market for welfare friendly products in Europe? The techno-ethics of the welfare quality® assessment. Geoforum,. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.04.003.Google Scholar
  44. O’Neill, J. (2007). Markets, deliberation and environment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Pirscher, F. (2013). Animal welfare labelling: Is the market the right governance structure to meet people’s moral concerns? In H. Röcklinsberg & P. Sandin (Eds.), The ethics of consumption: The citizen, the market and the law (pp. 120–125). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raz, J. (1997). Incommensurability and agency. In R. Chang (Ed.), Incommensurablity, incomparability and practical reason (pp. 110–128). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenberger, R. S., Peterson, G. L., Clarke, A., & Brown, T. C. (2003). Measuring dispositions for lexicographic preferences of environmental goods: Integrating economics, psychology and ethics. Ecological Economics,. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00221-5.Google Scholar
  49. Sagoff, M. (1994). Should preferences count? Land Economics, 70(2), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Samuelson, P. A. (1953). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schmid, A. A. (1972). Analytical institutional economics: Challenging problems in the economics of resources for a new environment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,. doi: 10.2307/1239236.Google Scholar
  52. Schmid, A. A. (2002). All environmental policy instruments require a moral choice as to whose interests count. In D. W. Bromley & J. Paavola (Eds.), Economics, ethics and environmental policy. Contested choices (pp. 133–147). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schulze, B., Lemke, P., & Spiller, A. (2008). Glückschwein oder arme Sau? Die Einstellung der Verbraucher zur modernen Nutztierhaltung. In A. Spiller & B. Schulze (Eds.), Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft: Verbraucher, Märkte, Geschäftsbeziehungen. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.Google Scholar
  54. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: New York Review; Distributed by Random House.Google Scholar
  55. Spash, C. L. (2008). How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-diverse trail. Environmental Values, 17(2), 259–284. doi: 10.3197/096327108X303882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vatn, A. (2000). The environment as a commodity. Environmental Values 9(4), 493–509.
  57. Vatn, A. (2005). Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecological Economics,. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.001.Google Scholar
  58. Veissier, I., Jensen, K. K., Botreu, R., & Sandøe, P. (2011). Highlighting ethical decisions underlying the scoring of animal welfare in the Welfare Quality® scheme. Animal Welfare, 20, 89–101.Google Scholar
  59. Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioural intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,. doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3.Google Scholar
  60. Wolf, U. (1990). Das Tier in der Moral. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  61. Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Quality and Preferences,. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.01.006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional SciencesMartin Luther University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale)Germany

Personalised recommendations