animals
Review
The Social Construction of Narratives and Arguments in
Animal Welfare Discourse and Debate
Mukhtar Muhammad 1 , Jessica E. Stokes 1 , Lisa Morgans 2 and Louise Manning 3, *
1
2
3
*
Citation: Muhammad, M.; Stokes,
J.E.; Morgans, L.; Manning, L. The
Department of Agriculture Food and Environment, Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester GL7 6JS, UK
Innovation for Agriculture, Kenilworth, Warwickshire CV8 2LZ, UK
Lincoln Institute for Agri-Food Technology, University of Lincoln, Riseholme Park,
Lincoln LN2 2LG, UK
Correspondence: lmanning@lincoln.ac.uk
Simple Summary: Animal welfare is a public good that is extremely important to stakeholders, who
can hold conflicting values and viewpoints, on what animal welfare is, and how a good life is achieved.
Various stakeholder groups tend to signal different problems, or problematize specific aspects of
farm animal welfare, and propose different actions or interventions within food supply chains. In the
paper we explore the contribution of narrative and argumentative discourse to the social construction
and framing of animal welfare and its implications. Our findings demonstrate the contestation
within the stakeholder discourse around animal welfare and farm animals. We demonstrate how
performance-related perspectives are rooted in value-laden language within narratives that shape the
discourse regarding notions of good and bad welfare; or positive or negative welfare. We suggest
that future research should examine in more depth the socially constructed language, dialogues
and discourses expressed among and between stakeholders in order to embody the breadth, depth,
and understanding of the multiple meanings of farm animal welfare, and the emergent positioning
of positive welfare for farm animals as well as how to achieve a good life in practice. The novel
contribution of this review is the application of an explanatory word-language-discourse-personsituation-environment framework in this specific context to inform future research on animal welfare
discourse analysis.
Social Construction of Narratives and
Arguments in Animal Welfare
Discourse and Debate. Animals 2022,
12, 2582. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ani12192582
Academic Editor: Anna K. Johnson
Received: 9 August 2022
Accepted: 23 September 2022
Published: 27 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract: Stakeholders can hold conflicting values and viewpoints, on what animal welfare is and
how a good life is achieved and can signal different problems, or problematize specific aspects of
farm animal welfare, and propose different actions or interventions within food supply chains. The
aim of the study is to explore the contribution of narrative and argumentative discourse to the social
construction and framing of animal welfare and its implications. The methodological approach in
this research is composed of two phases with phase 1 being the foundational structured literature
search in both academic and grey literature. Phase 2 was the analysis of the secondary data from
the literature review to develop a synthesized iterative paper and in doing so develop a typology
of five narratives: the ‘farming as a business’ narrative, the ‘religion-based’ narrative, the ‘research,
legislative and political based narrative’, the ‘higher welfare’ narrative, and the “animal rights/powerbased” narrative. Our findings demonstrate the contestation within the stakeholder discourse of
the articulation of why farm animals should have a good life. Performance-related perspectives
are rooted in the value-laden language and narratives that shape the arguments regarding notions
of good and bad welfare; the emergent positioning of positive welfare for farm animals as well as
how to achieve a good life in practice. The novel contribution of this review is the application of
an explanatory word-language-discourse-person-situation-environment framework in this specific
context to inform future research on animal welfare discourse analysis.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Keywords: animal welfare; argument; dialogue; stakeholder; sheep; discourse; narrative
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Animals 2022, 12, 2582. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12192582
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
2 of 19
1. Introduction
A discourse is simply, communication in either the written or spoken word about
a specific topic, i.e., the word as a single unit lies at the heart of the discourse and how
the words are arranged or structured in a given sequence forms language. A discourse is
developed from a constructed arrangement of language, and can include a monologue,
i.e., a one-way, report, statement or commentary and dialogues which are multiple-way
communication or conversations. Discourse can be considered for its linguistic content, the
subject matter and its linguistic form, namely its cohesion and structuring, as well as the
socially framed meanings. These are often positioned in the discourse through rhetoric
devices in the argumentative organization of the text [1].
The term “dialogue” derives from two words in classical Greek, “dia” meaning
“through” and “logos” meaning “word” [2]. The direct interpretation of the term implies
that engaging in dialogue creates communication, harmony and understanding. Dialogues
are “key to our inspiration and to our capacities to sort out ethical dilemmas and the multiple meanings that confront us as we continue our inquiries into human experience” [3]
(p. 51). Dialogues between stakeholders in this context have been described alternatively
as intensified [4]; institutionalized [5]; collaborative, cogenerative, consensus driven [6–8];
mutually beneficial [9]; constructive [8]; pluralistic [10]; persuasive [11]; synchronous or
asynchronous [11]; internal or external [12]; and surface or deep [13]. These descriptions of
dialogue demonstrate the multifaceted aspects of engaging in dialogue (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of dialogues.
Characteristic
Collaborative, cogenerative, consensus driven
Constructive
Internal or external
Intensified
Institutionalised
Mutually beneficial
Persuasive
Pluralistic
Surface/deep
Synchronous/asynchronous
Source
[6–8]
[8]
[12]
[4]
[5]
[9]
[11]
[10]
[13]
[11]
Dialogue may take many forms, such as persuasion, deliberation, eristic, negotiation, inquiry (scientific), and inquiry (philosophical). Indeed, based on the extant literature, citizens’ and consumers’ dialogue can be classified from a philosophical and ethical
stance [14,15]; and driven by cognitive appraisal of what individuals believe is right or
wrong, which may, or may not be scientifically supported. Persuasion uses rhetoric strategies to influence others and is an element of overall communication with both analytical
approaches (focusing on logic), and dialectic (debating a point or issue) elements [16].
Dialogue may be primary or secondary dialogue. Primary (or direct) dialogue forms
the ‘visible’ argument and or communications of an organization and is embedded in
external corporate documents such as annual reports and websites [16,17]. Primary dialogue is the actual words or language that are used in a conversation between two or
more individuals. Secondary dialogue represents the “silent” or “shadow” internalized
discourses which may not be visible but are perceived to be embedded or inferred in
primary dialogues [16]. Simply put, primary dialogue is what we say (the words and
structured content of the language), while the secondary dialogue is not what is said ‘but
implied’ in the language which is used or not used. Considering this statement, ‘this sheep
flock has a very high level of lameness’ could through the secondary dialogue be taken to
have the inferred meaning that “you are a bad farmer”. This interaction between primary
and secondary dialogue through discourse can operate at the discussion level between
individual farmers, advisors, certification bodies, standard owners, and service providers
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
3 of 19
and in the written communication. However, investigations into this research area in terms
of the social construction of discourse and its meaning(s) are currently lacking.
Animal welfare is a public good that is extremely important to multiple stakeholders.
Stakeholders can concur or alternatively hold conflicting values and viewpoints, on what
animal welfare is, and how good welfare, in particular, is achieved. Various stakeholder
groups tend to signal different problems and/or problematize specific aspects of animal
welfare and propose alternative solutions [14,18]. Their conceptualizations of animal welfare are based on specific and various frames of reference [18,19]. These often reductionist
framings help to make sense of complex realities: providing a perspective to structure
knowledge, position experiences, and to judge and respond to issues [18,20].
Within the framing processes, and through social construction, different groups compete against each other to provide the primary discourse, as well as engender public
recognition and support [21], through articulating a range of argumentative positions
within the given discourse [22]. Peoples’ adoption of a specific animal welfare frame,
discourse or given perception, depends on the role an individual has, or the organization
they represent, and as a result, this framing may vary over time and place, i.e., the situation
and the environment [23] for example, where and to whom they are speaking to about
animal welfare [24]. An example of how this can be seen in practice is when a farmer is at
work with their livestock compared to their pets at home; their perceptions of acceptable
standards of welfare in these two situations may vary. For this reason, among others,
recurring aspects in the collective animal welfare discourse, such as what good welfare
practice is and what it entails, remain contested due to different stakeholders’ frames
and understanding.
There are many studies examining stakeholders’ framing and perceptions of animal
welfare [24–28]. Gender and extended society, it is suggested, has an impact on different perceptions of welfare issues and welfare indicators, as women and the public show
more concern for animal welfare and painful husbandry practices compared to others [26].
Furthermore, in their multi-stakeholder research, Ref. [18] found that pig farmers show
preference for a biological functioning approach to framing animal welfare, which emphasizes animals’ health, fertility, and productivity. In contrast, both animal scientists
and urban citizens see pigs as natural living beings, which emphasizes the need for good
mental welfare and the need for them to live in environments where they can behave
naturally. Similarly, surveys in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) found
that consumers view better living conditions for farm animals as very important for good
animal welfare [29]. All these findings are relevant, but they are primarily attitude-based
responses, and therefore do not explain the socio-constructive mechanisms through which
these attitudes and perceptions are formed, and reformed.
The aim of the study is not to review societal understandings of good animal welfare
per se (see [30]), but rather to explore the varied contribution from different stakeholders
to the socially constructed narratives and argumentative discourse about animal welfare
and its implications to add to our wider understanding of communication around animal
welfare across the food production related discourse. This conceptual approach is informed
by the work of [23,31,32] who examined the social construction of arguments more generally
and also within the animal “rights” discourse. This critical review herein, considers how
different stakeholders construct their perceptions of animal welfare based upon these
contested narratives and arguments and how this informs the defining of good animal
welfare, and a good life in the wider discourse. This review will identify the types of
narrative that have emerged in this discourse around food production and in particular,
notions of good animal welfare, and how this may relate to good husbandry and good
agricultural practice. In this context, the ‘narrative’ is considered to be the stories told by
humans which reflect their way of looking at the world [33]. The ‘argument’ is the set of
statements or reasoning in support of a given viewpoint within the dialogue.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 1 is the introduction and Section 2 explores
the narratives and arguments in support of good animal welfare. Section 3 considers the
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
4 of 19
role of disclosure, strategic ambiguity and transparency within stakeholders’ dialogue and
then how dialogue can be used as a means to resolve contested positioning on animal
welfare. Section 4 concludes the paper.
2. Arguments and Narratives in Support of Good Animal Welfare
Most consumers appear satisfied with the quality and safety of food at point of sale
but some remain skeptical about the management practices and associated standards used
in food production [26,34]. Consumers are interested in knowing that producers care
about and provide for the welfare of animals during the production process [28]. This is
more evident if stakeholders are responsible for sourcing meat from high welfare farms.
However, it is widely understood that consumers’ concerns are not equally distributed
across the different farm species, nor is there consistency in consumers’ willingness to
pay to enhance animal welfare [28]. Therefore, it becomes imperative to understand how
public perceptions of farm animals’ welfare are formed, are changing, as well as how
stakeholders, including consumers, have adopted non-market strategies such as arguments
and dialogues to drive improvement in farm animal welfare collectively [35].
There are various forms of argumentation including an argument-to-learn mindset
and an argument-to-win mindset [36,37]. In the argument-to-learn mindset, each person
genuinely attempts to discover more about the issue under discussion and to arrive at
a more accurate answer. Dutilh [37] describes argumentation from this viewpoint as an
epistemic practice, in increasing knowledge, or in fostering understanding. In contrast, the
argument-to-win narrative is “simply to score points”, with each participant attempting
to emerge victorious over the other and having no interest in learning new information
or modifying their views [37]. In the debate over good animal welfare practices, there is
much interplay between these arguments used by and among stakeholders. As an example,
consumers/citizens can consider welfare improvement as a collective stakeholder responsibility. Collective responsibility associates both causal responsibility and blameworthiness
on groups and locates the source of moral responsibility in the collective actions taken by
these groups [38]. Therefore, consumers/citizens can use “prescriptive statements” (e.g.,
we want responsibly sourced meat) or ‘culpability language” (e.g., statements such as intensive farming is bad for welfare, or shearing is terrible for the animal) to hold stakeholders
to accountability-based standards. With such arguments, consumers/citizens can hold
farmers accountable for what they perceive is right and wrong in animal production, and
what practices are adopted and implemented on their behalf.
Historically, the animal welfare debate has been driven by the value-driven concept [25,39],
where contestation can then occur. Value-driven conflict primarily arises not because one
specific value is perceived as correct or incorrect, but instead the order of priority given to a
set of values, e.g., for a good life for farm animals varies between stakeholders [18,40]. In this
regard, the notion of a good life for farm animals moves beyond notions of what good welfare is,
because defining a good life also encompasses the aspect of sentience [41]. Citizens and animal
rights organizations can perceive animal welfare from a differentiated philosophical, ethical
and/or scientific stance [14]. Animal welfare organizations’ campaigns can use the media to
illustrate specific aspects of farm animal management to build opposition to a particular farming
practice, or system, lobbying and putting pressure on retailers to influence animal husbandry
and animal welfare [15]. Animal sentience considers that animals experience both positive
and negative emotions such as joy, pleasure, pain, and discomfort [42]. To achieve their aim,
animal welfare organizations voice their concern using words related to animal sentience like
“pleasure”, “pain”, “suffering”, and “happiness”. Scientists and veterinarians themselves use
these words, for example “comfort” and “pleasure” forming the basis of scientific assessments
of positive welfare [39]. Thus, it is the value placed on animal care and treatment that shapes
discourses and narratives of what good welfare is and ultimately a good life.
Value-laden approaches can be condensed and classified from either ethical (moral)
or utility perspectives [14,43]. The ethical (moral) premise firmly holds that humans
have a responsibility or duty to care for animals especially in prevent suffering [44]. In
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
5 of 19
this moral premise, it is argued that animal welfare should be considered as intrinsically
important [45]. Consequently, animals suffering, fear, pain, or stress may be defined as
experiencing negative or poor welfare, and such experiences should be minimized or
eradicated for the animals. Clearly, ethic arguments establish binary classifications of good
and bad welfare, positive and negative language, although the impacts of this choice of
language on farmers’ decision-making and actions with regard to animal welfare have
rarely been explored.
On the other hand, the utility notion, denoted by anthropocentric conservation, holds
that ‘ill-treating an animal does not infringe any morally important interests the animals
themselves possess, but infringes the interests of other humans in the process’ [44] (p. 52).
This postulation excludes notions of sentience and implies that as the intrinsic, innate value
of animals is hard to observe, so their care and protection rest entirely on the vested interests
of humans [44]. A major argument in favor of anthropocentric theory is that it is difficult to
capture in economic terms the value of pleasure, happiness or comfort in animals. Therefore,
anthropocentric welfarism posits that only the welfare of humans counts intrinsically as
opposed to moral disposition [44]. Some principles within utility arguments are useful
when describing discourses and narratives of key industry stakeholders.
To illustrate how these values are reflected in stakeholders’ argumentative discourses
regarding animal welfare, and to provide insight into the interplay by, and between, animal
welfare argumentative discourses, we position five narratives in this context namely the
‘farming as a business’ narrative, the ‘religion-based’ narrative, the ‘research, legislative
and political based narrative’, the ‘higher welfare’ narrative, and the “animal rights/powerbased” narrative. Examples are provided to give context to some of the narratives described.
2.1. The Farming as a Business Narrative
The utilitarian approach implies that animals’ intrinsic, innate value is hard to observe; thus, their care and protection rest entirely on the vested interests of humans [45].
Considering this assumption, farmers often engage in discourse related to agro-industrial
production to achieve economic gains or mitigate potential losses. Farmers have been found
to link “good welfare” with productivity and profitability in their arguments [22]. Therefore, statements such as “producing more with fewer resources” is common language at
the farm level, derived from discussions centered around farm efficiency and sustainability
(economic, environmental and social aspects). Such established narratives and arguments
may focus on intensifying animal and food production, with animals perceived in terms of
utility as a production unit to deliver broader socio-economic outcomes.
To meet global food demand for a rising human population, animal production and its
intensification are positioned in narratives as being essential, contributing significantly to
ensuring food security [46]. Management strategies such as genetics and selective breeding
to produce the most optimal, efficient animals can be seen within this intensification
narrative. These strategies provide an opportunity to reduce economic costs per production
unit, which can be passed through the supply chain and to the consumer. The farming
as a business narrative also focuses on how such management practices improve animal
performance and the economic efficiencies of farming operations. However, the “producing
more with fewer resources” argument in livestock farming may not consider the health,
welfare, or sentience of farm animals. Moreover, increased livestock production may result
in more greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs), e.g., carbon dioxide or ammonia, that could
promote climate change and harm farm animals’ welfare in the future. In this situation,
efforts to estimate the level of GHGEs of a variety of economic activities associated with
farm animals, as well as investigating sustainable mitigation strategies including promoting
farm animal welfare is important [47,48].
For animals to perform productively and profitably for the farmer, they need to stay
fit and healthy. In this regard, farmers tend to give priority to the prevention of disease
and injury, as well as ensuring access to food, water, shelter, and other necessities of life,
concerns that could be summed up as being focused on the essential health and functioning
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
6 of 19
of the animals [24,40,49]. Specifically, however, the narrative herein is one of cost-utility
and cost-effectiveness, especially around the management of zoonoses, which impact on
both animal and public health [50].
2.2. The Religion-Based Narrative
In philosophy, the major world views believed to have influenced animal welfare,
especially in texts and writings, are the classical Greek thoughts and Judeo-Christian
perspectives. These views are believed to have contributed to inequalities regarding
human and animal rights, paving the way for a long history of human privilege over
animals [51,52]. Judeo-Christian perspectives incline towards the notion that humans have
dominion over animals, and this view remains one of the most populous beliefs among
many [53,54]. According to biblical sources, man’s superiority over animals comes with
a moral obligation to the animal [53,54]. These moral obligations interface with the Five
Freedoms’ principle (for example, freedom from hunger and thirst (see [55]) as well as
underpinning an ethics focused argument.
In Islam, there is a strong emphasis placed on the importance of balancing the narratives of utility, ethics, and power. From the Islamic perspective, animals were created for
humankind’s benefit and use. Humans are prohibited from using farm animals in ways
that are not prescribed. In the Quran, it states, “And the grazing livestock He has created
for you; in them is warmth and [numerous] benefits, and from them you eat. And for you
in them is [the enjoyment of] beauty when you bring them in [for the evening] and when
you send them out [to pasture]. And they carry your loads to a land you could not have
reached except with difficulty to yourselves. Indeed, your Lord is Kind and Merciful. And
[He created] the horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride and [as] adornment. And He
creates that which you do not know.” (Quran 16: verse 5–8). It can be drawn from this
textual evidence that naturalness plays a key part in the perception of farm animals’ lives
in the Quran. This aligns with the naturalness definition of animal welfare, which plays an
essential role in facilitating the behavior of farmed animals, such as sheep, as they graze in
open environments, i.e., the freedom to express normal behavior, as well as the importance
of protection and shelter at night. Existing research in the literature links the Quran to
animal welfare [56,57]. These narratives frame notions of compassion, naturalness, and
freedom from pain and cruelty within Islamic teaching which demonstrate the arguments
of reaching good welfare states through minimizing negative welfare. However, practice
may not always reflect the religious narrative, and research advocates for the sensitization
of religious followers to the teachings of animal welfare in the Quran and the Hadiths [58].
Religion-based narratives can therefore influence how animals are socially, culturally, and
politically viewed and ideally treated in human society. These religion-based narratives
can be formalized into industry standards and codes for example the halal certification
standards implemented by the Malaysian organization Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia
(JAKIM) [59].
2.3. The Research, Legislative and Political Narrative
Political narratives on animal welfare can be traced back to the 1960s where the perspective was to consider welfare predominantly from the angle of animal cruelty and
suffering [60]. The then UK Government assembled an expert committee to investigate
cruelty concerns raised about animals in intensive confinement systems. The Committee,
compiled the Brambell Report, which criticized the state and health of farm animals confined in intensive systems [61]. The report maintained that farm animals produced in such
systems demonstrated signs of frustration, distress, and pain, as well as being capable of
emotional states such as fear, pleasure, and happiness [50,61,62]. The Brambell Committee
therefore recognized farm animals as sentient beings, the concept of which was enshrined
in animal welfare as a key consideration for husbandry management systems [61].
The Brambell Committee report was also instrumental in developing the Five Freedoms model, which emphasizes the importance of eradicating negatives through good
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
7 of 19
husbandry practices. Historically, the Five Freedoms has been used to assess animal welfare; however, it has been positioned as having some significant limitations. For example,
the importance of physical and functional aspects of animal welfare (malnutrition, disease,
and injury) are not distinguished from the affective aspects (thirst, hunger, discomfort,
pain, fear, and distress) [63]. Moreover, Ref. [64] highlighted that the Five Freedoms were
primarily concerned with eradicating negative welfare aspects of behavior, while only
freedom to expressing natural behavior promoted positive states of being. As a result, there
has been a shift in animal welfare science thinking, and it became increasingly important to
consider positive experiences when providing a holistic understanding of animal welfare.
In 2015, the Five Domains based on physiological aspects to account for the positive states
of the animal were introduced [65]. Adding the ‘mental experience’ element of animal
welfare emphasized the importance of providing animals with positive experiences in
the Five Domains, such as comfort, pleasure, confidence, and enjoyment [65]. As part of
further revision of the Five Domains, stockmanship skills and qualities have been included,
emphasizing the importance of human intervention in ensuring positive outcomes [66].
The work of [67] also unifies aspects of subjective feelings, health and diseases, and
natural behavior in outdoor environments (naturalness) as being complementary, not
antagonistic, concepts. Affective states and biological functioning are now incorporated into
animal science assessments since they both take a physiological approach and complement
one another in welfare assessments [68]. For instance, a highly managed animal may suffer
poor welfare if environmental challenges overwhelm its evolved coping strategies for
example, in high temperatures if behavioral and physiological adaptations fail to dissipate
heat sufficiently [69]. The concept of naturalness captures common behaviors that are either
reflecting approval or disapproval, but naturalness is not easily compatible with concern
for animals’ affective elements, suggesting that they remain antagonistic to some extent [70].
So far, naturalness has only been used as a baseline for positive welfare assessment [65].
The Brambell Report drove the legislative narrative for the protection and enhancement of animal welfare. Legislation such as the UK Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act in 1968 was one of the first regulatory Acts which banned livestock managers from
subjecting farm animals to a traumatic experience [61,62]. Under this Act, the Codes of
Recommendation for Animal Welfare, produced for the major livestock species, including
cattle, pigs, sheep, and poultry birds were formed [61,71]. These welfare codes explicitly
contain policies recommended from the Brambell Report on safeguarding the welfare
of farm animals under various management practices. The ‘Codes’ are developed as
guidelines for how farmers apply the law but have no legal authority on their own, but
noncompliance is seen as evidence of poor welfare standards [71] and can be used as
evidence for prosecution. The ‘Codes’ are also embedded in major UK farm assurance
schemes, such as Red Tractor [72], Royal Society for the Protection of Animals (RSPCA)
Assured [73] and Soil Association (organic) standards [74]. These standards within farm
assurance schemes are often set at a higher level than regulatory standards, especially if
scheme membership is used as a market access tool for entry to specific retail or foodservice
markets. Key UK legislation enacting the rules and regulations of safeguarding animal
welfare includes the Animal Welfare Act (2006). Other examples include the Australian
Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines [75], and the World Organization for Animal
Health Codes and Manuals formerly the Office International des Epizooties or OIE [76]. In
summary, the regulatory and policy driven narrative positions that legislation is designed
to safeguard the health and welfare of farm animals and to minimize negative welfare
aspects, but in recent years, policy is moving in the direction of incentivizing positive
welfare towards providing a good life [77].
2.4. Higher Welfare Narrative
The utility concept considers that animal production systems are unproductive, uneconomic, or unviable if the consumer is not willing to pay more for non-utility aspects of
animal welfare. The literature suggests that this utility narrative has driven commodifica-
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
8 of 19
tion of animals [78,79]. Market segmentation means many retailers work with suppliers
and set farm animal welfare standards within their contracts and conduct regular audits
or inspections of suppliers’ premises and practices based on these standards [80]. Nevertheless, most of these standards and measures are understood to be primarily aimed
at delivering good welfare through minimizing negative welfare rather than promoting
positive welfare towards achieving a ‘good’ life.
For example, the utility attributes of standard and higher welfare eggs have been
examined, and how they relate to the willingness to pay for them. Additional information
was found to significantly increase intention to purchase higher welfare rather than conventional welfare products [42]. Examples of higher welfare standards include the New
Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) certified standards [81]
derived from the Five Domains of Animal Welfare and from France, the Label Rouge
standards [82]. Providing information and not just promoting heuristic processing enables
consumers to better align their values or concerns with their purchasing intentions [83].
Public concerns about farm animal production methods do not always correspond to purchasing and consumption patterns, with sales of higher welfare products reported to be far
lower than levels of reported concern [26]. This has widely been associated with cognitive
dissonance, where an individual’s actions contradict their beliefs or values, and as a result
discrepancies occur between an individual’s perceived role as a citizen and their actions as
a consumer [28,34,84].
According to the Food Ethics Council [85], citizens can positively influence how food
is produced, distributed, and consumed. Citizens are vocal in their opinions on animal
welfare and look to legislation, government and other stakeholders to improve and raise
standards [49]. People can cause a significant shift when they act as citizens rather than consumers but acting as consumers rather than citizens creates cognitive dissonance between
prosocial attitudes and non-prosocial behaviors. Therefore, the consumers’ role can be
confined to choosing between products and services and not necessarily involve emotional
participation and influencing food systems through purchasing behavior. Consumers
in this context are affected by what they can afford, and their income can inform their
preferences [39,86,87]. Bansback [87] (p. 6) argues that:
“Price factors are still the most important determinants of meat consumption . . . the
ability of the industry to reduce its costs relative to other competitors is getting more
limited. Income effects . . . are also of less importance in influencing demand (however)
consumer attitude/preference issues are growing in importance.”
Therefore, not all consumers may consider, or be able to financially consider, animal
welfare at the point of purchase. A survey conducted as part of the Welfare Quality Project in
the UK and six other countries supports this argument [28,88]. According to the survey, 73%
of respondents are interested in animal welfare. However, only 39% of respondents consider
welfare when purchasing meat, others adopting dissonance strategies to enable their guiltfree meat consumption [26,89]. Considering this apparent disconnect, and “unwillingness
to pay” mediating between citizens’ concerns, preferences, and consumers’ consumption, it
becomes imperative to understand the unresolved issues emanating from often contested,
even undisclosed animal welfare related narratives. It is our understanding that there have
been less studies examining the influence of expressive or descriptive language (whether
positive or negative) within narratives in the dissemination of information about animal
welfare. It is possible that further exploration of this topic will contribute to a better
understanding of the dynamics of consumer choices, and the impact that words, language
and the monologue/dialogue within a specific narrative may have on those choices.
2.5. The Animal Rights/Power-Based Narrative
Animal rights groups raise concerns with specific farm practices and systems, detailing
the consequences for the animals’ welfare [90]. These stakeholders focus on inducing
negative emotions using words like pain, fear or stress, to describe outcomes which can
be caused by certain husbandry practices, justifying ethical claims against these practices.
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
9 of 19
Animal rights groups focus on animals as sentient beings and will contest any practice
that would subject farm animals to negative experiences. An example of a campaign that
has utilized this narrative is the Plofkip campaign with chickens in the Netherlands in
2012 [91] which focused on ‘fast growing’ broilers. Thus, through their narrative animal
rights groups challenge and reject the commodification of animals in society, condemning
animal products such as meat, wool or fur because the animal may experience pain and
other negative experiences during the production process. These organizations draw
upon a combination of scientific, emotional, and ethical perspectives to criticize animal
farming and farming practices, seeking to influence and change consumer acceptance that
perpetuates these systems. In summary, the underlying argument of animal rights groups
are that good quality of life is not afforded to farm animals, when sentience is violated by
farming practices that subject animals to predominantly negative welfare experiences.
The negative narrative of cruelty, abuse, trauma, or torture is powerful in terms of
the descriptiveness or expressiveness of the language, leading to feelings of disbelief,
sympathy, concern and even condemnation in the people (recipients) who interact with
it. Thus, the language can be considered as powerful in terms of either its expressiveness
(words used) and/or the narrative can express notions of being empowered (the human)
versus unempowered (the animal) and as a result imply a power imbalance and notions
of abuse of that power within the human–animal relationship [92]. Jennings et al., [93]
describe this as ‘the power of talk’, i.e., the power of communication, or ‘the power in talk’, i.e.,
the power/powerlessness dynamics embodied in the language used in communication.
Deetz et al., [94] (p. 32) position the power of talk:
“we conceive of power neither as simply a possession of individuals nor a relationship
between individuals, but rather as a structural quality of institutional life, which is
chronically reproduced by the day to day communicative practices of its members”.
and the power in talk,
“Power is conceived as involving a relationship of autonomy and dependence between
social actors or groups, then power is exercised in the context of a struggle between
domination and resistance . . . . . . is conceived as the process through which competing
interests exist interdependently, simultaneously vying for a privileged status in the whole
constellation of interests that characterize institutional life”.
These explanatory passages demonstrate how stakeholders compete for control and
content of narratives and arguments adopted and based on power. Thus, societal processing
of the narratives and arguments depends on the situational aspect (what it is about) and
the level of cognitive engagement with the discourse (deriving what it means). These
two elements are influenced by the properties of the communication and the contextual
cognitive assessment by the recipient. Media culture “helps shape everyday life, influencing
how people think and behave, how they see themselves and other people, and how they
construct their identities” [95] (p. 2). There are many public spaces where images of
animal cruelty are placed, debated, and reproduced [96]. In these spaces, the media
coverage typically describes cruel, animal-related food production, or ‘factory farming’,
using the utility narrative describing animals as economically exploitable production units
and commodities [87]. Power-based media narratives typically focus on ethical issues in
agricultural production, particularly farm animal welfare [97]. Constructed arguments
were used to question the activities and motives of the wool industry in countries like
Australia, especially practices such as mulesing, leading to a decrease in sales of lamb and
wool due to activism driving lower consumer demand [89]. Media representations of farm
animal welfare issues are important because the media is a significant source of information
for consumers/citizens, and the way that issues are represented, or framed suggests causes,
solutions, or provides moral evaluations [97].
In summary, the typology of five narratives on farm animal welfare presented here
reflect the social construction of varying perspectives on the purpose and treatment of
animals in society. The social construction process enacted by different stakeholders is
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
10 of 19
influenced by experience, background knowledge and cultural values [14,40,43]. This
review has positioned language, narrative and arguments in the contested discourse of
animal welfare. These narratives can be seen along a spectrum, from positioning animals
as production commodities (farming as a business narrative), to humans having a moral
obligation to protect animals and prevent cruelty (religious based narratives), welfare optimized within and through new farming systems (higher welfare narrative), to consideration
of animals as sentient beings, capable of positive welfare experiences (research, legislative
and political narrative), to reflecting how a good life can be achieved and rejecting the utility
based concept of animals as units of food production (animal rights/power narrative).
According to [22], these differences in the articulation of animal welfare stem from varied
ideological positioning affecting the social construction and framing of these debated issues
and presenting a barrier to effective communication and resolution of conflicts, particularly
as livestock producers face increasing scrutiny by society. It is therefore important to bring
actors together from across the ideological spectrum, to provide mutually beneficially
insight and understanding, as a means of building and collaborating around common
ground. The next section considers how dialogue can be used to resolve such contested
positioning on animal welfare.
3. Dialogue as a Method of Resolving Contested Positions on Animal Welfare
Narratives considering what is good or bad animal welfare are framed from the
argument-to-win perspective. This fixed argument is not effective in driving change as
individuals only wish to affirm/reaffirm their own position. Furthermore, farmers can
find it challenging to embrace prescriptive welfare frameworks imposed on them by the
scientific community, or to comply with public concerns that are contrary to their own philosophy [98]. Indeed, scientific bodies and the public may not value the importance of tacit
knowledge of aspects of animal welfare that can only be gained from personal experience
with animals. There is also a lack of knowledge within the scientific community regarding
the economic cost and other barriers to applying certain measures relative to their health
and welfare benefits, which impedes their widespread implementation [98]. Therefore,
engaging in two-way dialogue can be beneficial for understanding differences and resolving conflicts between stakeholders’ perspectives, and promoting different narratives and
arguments on achieving good animal welfare [99]. Three communication strategies used in
corporate communications reflect how corporate or organizational values are established
via embedded strategy and the integration of stakeholder expectations [100,101]. This is
important when considering a values-laden narrative.
Information strategy is where corporate strategy is developed in isolation, priorities
set and then communicated as a monologue through corporate communications. This
communication is one-way, e.g., press releases, or information statements [86]. In this
form of communication, the expectations of interest groups or end users are not always
overtly integrated into the corporate vision. An example of this form of dialogue includes
the Animal Health and Welfare Statement by UK retailer Sainsburys [102]. Alternatively,
stakeholders such as farmers, food companies and retail businesses can often use a monologue response strategy to deliver to stakeholder or consumer demands, i.e., a reactive rather
than proactive unidirectional communication approach. Examples of response strategy
communications are corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports or company annual reports [101]. These can be prompted internally or externally to the business and are crafted
in terms of words, language and discourse especially with regard to target audience (s).
Conversely, involvement strategy is where a dialogue takes place between stakeholders,
e.g., via social media, online forms or meetings with interest groups, with implications
for the definition/redefinition of normative standards or corporate values and associated
CSR activities [101]. Involvement strategy is normally used by mediating bodies that aim
to promote dialogue and understanding in the animal welfare debate seeking to protect
consumer interests, whilst also listening to farmers and others to achieve a common objective. Advisors, certification bodies, standards owners, and service providers engaged
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
11 of 19
with involvement strategies may work with a broader stakeholder base such as farmers,
manufacturers, animal welfare groups and retailers and also mediate to protect consumers
interest in animal welfare. An example of an international involvement strategy addressing
animal welfare is the Better Chicken Commitment where over 200 food companies have
now publicly committed in organizational statements to meet specific welfare standards
within given timeframes [103].
3.1. Disclosure, Strategic Ambiguity, and Transparency
Welp et al., [104] define stakeholder dialogue in scientific research as structured
communication processes that link scientists with societal actors, such as representatives
of companies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, and the wider
public. A key aspect of this definition is the linkages between scientific knowledge and
local, tacit or indigenous knowledge. The intent of these collaborations is to generate
new ideas and co-create new solutions to contentious issues. Thus, the main objectives
of science-based stakeholder dialogues are to deepen the collective understanding of
contentious issues, combine scientific knowledge with other indigenous sources, and to
check the social relevance of concepts [104]. To support the implementation of good
animal welfare practices, there has been a growing stakeholder alliance seeking animal
welfare improvement initiatives through analyzing monologues as a form of disclosure.
One of these alliances is the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW), a
global measure of reporting corporate disclosure of farm animal welfare practices and
management, and corporate performances [105]. Based on the degree and content of
corporate disclosure, the framework evaluates how close, companies are to best practice
in three areas: Management Commitment, Governance and Performance and Leadership
and Innovation [106]. It allows investors, businesses, NGOs and other stakeholders to
understand and inculcate reported corporate practices and performances on farm animal
welfare and create a response narrative via the BBFAW with the aim of driving corporate
improvements in the welfare of farm animals. Levy et al., [107] (p.389) assert that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs):
“Participated in a sequence of strategic interactions that ultimately resulted in substantial
concessions by corporate actors, who adopted many of the elements of the discourse,
business models, and governance structures proposed by NGOs.”
However, it is important to note that this benchmark looks at reported (publicly disclosed) policies and protocols. Public disclosure means “most . . . {corporate} . . . statements
are only relevant to stakeholders (such as retailers and food companies’) own brand product” [108] and may rarely provide actual or real-time information disclosing the spatial
or temporal status of animal welfare under the responsibility of a given business or supply chain. For this reason, it is possible for stakeholders and consumers to perceive an
organization’s degree of reporting as lacking transparency if either vague or ambiguous
language is used or fully or partially information remains undisclosed. Consequently,
this may give the impression that sensitive corporate information may be being withheld
from the discourse provided to or with external stakeholders, providing concerns over
greenwashing or ‘welfare washing’ [109].
Thus, self-reported publicly disclosed information is potentially a strategically ambiguous discourse that may lack content-related clarity and instead seeks to accomplish certain
organizational goals. The rise of strategic ambiguity in these stakeholder communications
means that an organization can promise a practice in the future or hint at contemporary
practice without it necessarily being verified independently to ensure it has been adopted.
Strategic ambiguity can be expressed as those instances where individuals, either themselves or on behalf of an organization, purposefully use ambiguity to accomplish defined
goals [16,110]. Strategic ambiguity allows multiple perspectives and narratives to co-exist
within the same communication, especially where certain stakeholders may have a different
sense of what they believe to be truth [16,111]. This means that considering only disclosed
one-way communication is of limited value in creating a consensus approach to animal
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
12 of 19
welfare narratives, arguments, and discourse and ultimately developing and embedding
good welfare policies and practices. The degree of transparency therefore is an important
aspect to consider when reflecting on publicly disclosed information.
Transparency is the information about decisions and decision-making processes that
is provided or made available to the public, and as such can be seen to be either partial or
full transparency or disclosure [112,113]. Supply chain transparency initiatives, such as the
Better Chicken Commitment, can increase consumer/stakeholder pressure on corporates to
disclose information [114] and make promises for the future. Transparency in this context
describes the visibility and accessibility of data associated with production processes and the
associated disclosure activities by one actor to other actors in the supply chain [16,113,115].
Failure to disclose information, or perception of failure to disclose information to others creates
a communication gap and in this situation the resultant opacity can create perceptions of
weak corporate integrity or lead to a failure to fully engage consumers in ethical forms of
consumerism to drive change supply chain practice.
Ethical consumerism is the conscious and deliberate choice to make certain consumption decisions based on personal and moral beliefs [116,117], or alternatively, ethical
consumerism has been described as the “political, religious, spiritual, environmental, social
or other motivations for choosing one product over another.” [118] (p. 2). More simply,
ethical consumption requires consumers to reduce cognitive dissonance and consider the
effects of their food choice on issues such as animal welfare and decide whether they wish to
use their purchasing power to influence corporate practice [119,120]. Ethical consumerism
can drive supermarket strategies, i.e., “the techniques and systems in place that retailers use
to effectively market their products to consumers” [121] (p. 147). These strategies can be
enforced within the store or by supply chain approaches that drive higher animal welfare
standards, better resource use or a reduction in product-related environmental footprint.
However, enabling stakeholder participation through inclusive and collective dialogues
still proves challenging.
3.2. Developing Collective Dialogue
Mullan et al. [98] proposes four solutions to difficulties that may arise when developing
a collective and co-owned stakeholders’ dialogue. These include allowing sufficient time
for key stakeholders’ dialogues to form, ensuring involvement of all interested parties in
the creation and maintenance of shared dialogue, using facilitation techniques to engage
and include, and also distinguishing clearly between experimental and applied science
when developing science-based discourse. Using a multi-actor approach to explore values,
preferences, expectations and risk perceptions of multiple stakeholders such as farmers,
food companies and retail businesses can facilitate engagement to co-create knowledge and
achieve mutual goals [122], such as with the Better Chicken Commitment.
The evidence of collective dialogue in animal welfare can be clearly seen in the case of
welfare assessment protocols [123,124]; religious slaughter [124]; and animal behavior [24].
By way of illustration, Ref. [88] describes the methods for establishing successful science
and societal dialogue for the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. To design the framework, there were numerous interactions between animal scientists, social scientists, and
members of the public. The social construction process was achieved through multi-actor
interactions included meetings, conferences, workshops, websites, newsletters, interviews,
focus groups, and citizen and farmers juries. Through these series of collaborations, the
stakeholders developed twelve welfare criteria, which were vetted by citizen juries. Animal
scientists therefore took account of societal opinion when developing the farm animal welfare assessment tools which can increase the likelihood of palatability of use and outcomes
for societal expectations and animal welfare standards on farm.
Dialogue between scientists and farmers can be complex to facilitate and can have
repercussions for the scientific-societal relationship [125]. This study found that farmers
were only moderately open to scientific knowledge on animal behavior relating to reducing
tail biting in pigs, and found scientific solutions proposed to be too uncertain, not well
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
13 of 19
understood or not applicable in their context. The authors did however find that dialogues
between scientists and farmers did lead to improved mutual trust and understanding of
each other’s framing and context. Both groups appeared to react and argue from their
praxis, including their local environment and situation, especially their way of living and
understanding their environment. Therefore, stepping into each other’s praxis through
social learning might provide the concrete and fusing insights, required to facilitate joint
co-constructed learning processes [24,125]. The challenges facing animal welfare scientists
and society are rooted in the trade-offs between perceptions of animals as production units
and ethical positioning of animals as sentient beings. Sandøe et al., [126] identified four
key value-related questions that have troubled the scientific definitions of animal welfare
namely: What is the benchmark for morally acceptable animal welfare? What is a good
animal life? What farming purposes are legitimate? And. What kinds of compromise are
acceptable in a less-than-perfect world? These are legitimate questions, and this research
proposes that animal welfare scientists should consider them carefully when developing
welfare assessments that are properly interpreted and applied to practical situations. Such
reflection will lead to a more transparent appreciation of the values underlying welfare
assessment [126].
The concept of positive welfare is being proposed by the literature as a way of shifting
the definition of animal welfare from reduction in negative experiences towards enhancing
positive welfare experiences and towards a good life [61]. A person’s way of conceptualizing and studying positive welfare is linked therefore to their own ethical beliefs [127]. This
difference in perceptions is responsible for multiple co-existing concepts and definitions of
welfare that are influenced by ethical views from different interest groups including the scientific community [127]. Therefore, multiple perceptions of good welfare through to a good
life [30] can exist without necessarily conflicting with one another based on value-based
judgments of what positive welfare is. Positive welfare acknowledges sentience and anthropomorphic terms (such as happy, pleasure) which demonstrate advancement in the animal
welfare research domain. Nevertheless, a collective dialogue and co-created definition of
“positive welfare” which allows for dynamic progression of research and translating this to
farmer led innovation is necessary for extant science to make a meaningful contribution to
society [127].
In reflecting on the animal welfare discourses within this review and the particular
focus on content and context, an explanatory framework has been developed to inform
future work on animal welfare discourse analysis. Previous work by [23], who considered
the word (s), the discourse and the context, can inform how we interpret discourse. Figure 1
presents an explanatory framework that builds on this work in terms of word-languagediscourse-person-situation-environment dynamic that can be used to evaluate and interpret
the structure of single and multi-stakeholder communications. This captures the themes
running through this review paper.
At the first level words such as welfare, husbandry and farming are used. These are
then framed into language. The language used then implicitly or explicitly infers particular
meaning. In the context of welfare, the language used could be good or bad welfare,
positive or negative welfare. Similarly, the word farming has been extended in narratives to
language such as welfare friendly farming, sustainable farming, factory farming, intensive
farming or extensive farming. The language is structured into a given discourse. The
person, their positionality, role or identity also frame the discourse, e.g., being the regulator,
the vet, the farmer, or the consumer and this can have both implicit and explicit impact on
the words and language used. In future animal discourse or dialetic studies, the critical
discourse analysis needs to move beyond content analysis (the words and language) and
the themes that can arise which can be associated with given meanings. This means beyond
the person the situation and the socio-economic and socio-political environment needs
to be considered and how this influences language, discourse and the meanings that are
derived. The explanatory framework herein can support qualitative research and criticality
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
14 of 19
in discourse analysis. The framework informs consideration of narratives and co-created
and contested discourse among and between stakeholders.
Figure 1. Animal welfare discourse explanatory framework Adapted from [23].
4. Conclusions
This review has explored the contribution of narrative and argumentative discourse to
the social construction and framing of animal welfare. Stakeholder discourse is contested, as
is the positioning of a good life for farm animals which is rooted in multiple utility based or
values-laden narratives. To resolve these differences and advance animal welfare research
and implementation in practice, developing a collective understanding and collective
narrative among stakeholders is crucial. The explanatory framework described in this paper
can potentially be a useful tool to achieve this outcome. The concept of positive welfare
has a scientific and societal appeal and can prove to be a useful mechanism in advancing
farm animal welfare. Positive welfare as a concept, challenges contemporary use of animal
welfare related language, understandings and attitudes and requires farm practices to be
adapted to go beyond minimizing negative experiences and proactively promoting positive
experiences for farm animals too. Therefore, future research should critically examine
both the dialogues and discourses expressed among and between stakeholders to embody
the breadth, depth, and understanding of the multiple meanings of farm animal welfare,
through the emergent positioning of positive welfare for farm animals as well as how to
achieve good welfare in practice. Further research on the articulation and implementation
of discourses that support the social construction of collective narratives within the farm
animal welfare debate would also be of value.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M. and L.M. (Louise Manning); methodology, M.M.
and L.M. (Louise Manning); formal analysis, all; investigation, M.M. and L.M. (Louise Manning);
writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and L.M. (Louise Manning); writing—review and editing,
all; supervision, J.E.S., L.M. (Lisa Morgans) and L.M. (Louise Manning). All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
15 of 19
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Potter, J.; Wetherell, M. Analyzing discourse. In Analysing Qualitative Data; Routledge: London, UK, 2002; pp. 61–80.
Howe, C.; Abedin, M. Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Camb. J. Educ. 2013, 43, 325–356.
[CrossRef]
Gilgun, J.F.; Abrams, L.S. The nature and usefulness of qualitative social work research: Some thoughts and an invitation to
dialogue. Qual. Soc. Work 2002, 1, 39–55. [CrossRef]
Blokhuis, H.J.; Jones, R.B.; Geers, R.; Miele, M.; Veissier, I. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: Transparency in the food
product quality chain. Anim. Welf-Potters Bar Then Wheathampstead 2003, 12, 445–456.
Karlsen, M.P.; Villadsen, K. Who should do the talking? The proliferation of dialogue as governmental technology. Cult. Organ.
2008, 14, 345–363. [CrossRef]
Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding
Governance in the Network Society; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 33–59.
Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E.; Di Vittorio, S. Strategies for megaregion governance: Collaborative dialogue, networks, and selforganization. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 77, 55–67. [CrossRef]
Blaha, T. Animal Welfare: Thoughts about how to achieve the most (for the animals!) Consensus-driven dialogues vs. scandalisation, gradual improvements vs. maximisation. Landbauforschung J. Sustain. Org. Agric. Syst. 2020, 70, 5–10.
Johansen, T.S.; Nielsen, A.E. Strategic stakeholder dialogues: A discursive perspective on relationship building. Corp. Commun.
Int. J. 2011, 16, 204–217. [CrossRef]
Starke, P. The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review. Soc. Policy Adm. 2006, 40, 104–120. [CrossRef]
Amhag, L.; Jakobsson, A. Collaborative learning as a collective competence when students use the potential of meaning in
asynchronous dialogues. Comput. Educ. 2009, 52, 656–667. [CrossRef]
Haney, L.A. Feminist state theory: Applications to jurisprudence, criminology, and the welfare state. Ann. Rev. Soc. 2000, 26,
641–666. [CrossRef]
Robertson, C. Autonomy and identity: The need for new dialogues in education and welfare. Support Learn. 2001, 16, 122–127.
[CrossRef]
Verbeke, W. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2009, 18, 325–333.
Stafford, K. Sheep veterinarians and the welfare of sheep: No simple matter. Small Rumin. Res. 2014, 118, 106–109. [CrossRef]
Manning, L. Corporate social responsibility. In Food Ethics Education; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 121–146.
Crapanzano, V. On dialogue. In The Interpretation of Dialogue; Maranhao, T., Ed.; University of Chcago Press: Chicago, IL, USA,
1990; pp. 269–291.
Duijvesteijn, N.; Benard, M.; Reimert, I.; Camerlink, I. Same pig, different conclusions: Stakeholders differ in qualitative behaviour
assessment. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 1019–1047. [CrossRef]
Te Velde, H.; Aarts, N.; Van Woerkum, C. Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in
livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2002, 15, 203–219. [CrossRef]
Schön, D.A.; Rein, M. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies; Basic Books: New York, NY,
USA, 1994.
Schulze, B.; Deimel, I. Conflicts between agriculture and society: The role of lobby groups in the animal welfare discussion
and their impact on meat consumption (No. 2073-2018-1433). In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual IFAMA World Forum and
Symposium, Shanghai, China, 18–23 June 2012.
Buddle, E.A.; Bray, H.J.; Ankeny, R.A. “Of course we care!: A qualitative exploration of Australian livestock producers’ understandings of farm animal welfare issues. J. Rural Stud. 2021, 83, 50–59. [CrossRef]
Boyd, R.L.; Schwartz, H.A. Natural language analysis and the psychology of verbal behavior: The past, present, and future states
of the field. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 2021, 40, 21–41. [CrossRef]
Benard, M.; de Cock Buning, T. Exploring the potential of Dutch pig farmers and urban-citizens to learn through frame reflection.
J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2013, 26, 1015–1036. [CrossRef]
Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Pieniak, Z.; Nijs, G.; Tuyttens, F. The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen
perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2012, 25, 79–101. [CrossRef]
Clark, B.; Stewart, G.B.; Panzone, L.A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Frewer, L.J. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and
behaviors towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2016, 29, 455–478. [CrossRef]
Doughty, A.K.; Coleman, G.J.; Hinch, G.N.; Doyle, R.E. Stakeholder perceptions of welfare issues and indicators for extensively
managed sheep in Australia. Animals 2017, 7, 28. [CrossRef]
Alonso, M.E.; González-Montaña, J.R.; Lomillos, J.M. Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 2020,
10, 385. [CrossRef]
Animal Welfare Institute. Consumer Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. 2019. Available online: https://awionline.org/sites/
default/files/uploads/documents/fa-consumer_perceptionsoffarmwelfare_-112511.pdf (accessed on 26 May 2022).
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
16 of 19
Vigors, B.; Sandøe, P.; Lawrence, A.B. Positive Welfare in Science and Society: Differences, Similarities and Synergies. Front. Anim.
Sci. 2021, 2, 738193. [CrossRef]
Swan, D.; McCarthy, J.C. Contesting animal rights on the internet: Discourse analysis of the social construction of argument. J.
Lang. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 22, 297–320. [CrossRef]
Moore, A.R. That could be me: Identity and identification in discourses about food, meat, and animal welfare. Linguist. Hum. Sci.
2014, 9, 59–93. [CrossRef]
Cobley, P. Narrative; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; 304p. [CrossRef]
Boogaard, B.K.; Oosting, S.J.; Bock, B.B.; Wiskerke, J.S.C. The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: An inquiry into
social perceptions of dairy farming. Animal 2011, 5, 1458–1466. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lusk, J.L. The market for animal welfare. Agric. Hum. Values 2011, 28, 561–575. [CrossRef]
Fisher, M.; Keil, F.C. The Trajectory of Argumentation and Its Multifaceted Functions. In Paglieri, Bonelli, and Felletti; The
Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion; College Publications: London, UK, 2016;
pp. 347–362.
Dutilh, N.C. Argument and Argumentation. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition); Zalta, E.N., Ed.; Stanford
University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2021. Available online: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/argument (accessed
on 1 June 2022).
Smiley, M. Collective intentions and collective moral responsibility. In The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality; Routledge:
London, UK, 2017; pp. 316–326.
De Greef, K.; Stafleu, F.; De Lauwere, C. A simple value-distinction approach aids transparency in farm animal welfare debate. J.
Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 57–66. [CrossRef]
Fraser, D. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet. Scand. 2008, 50, 1–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wemelsfelder, F.; Vigors, B.; Lawrence, A. A Good Animal Life: Bringing Awareness of Animal Sentience into Farming Practice.
Policy Paper, SRUC. 2022. Available online: https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/en/publications/a-good-animal-life-bringing-awarenessof-animal-sentience-into-fa (accessed on 2 June 2022).
Cornish, A.; Raubenheimer, D.; McGreevy, P. What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food
production in developed countries. Animals 2016, 6, 74. [CrossRef]
Bracke, M.B.M.; De Greef, K.H.; Hopster, H. Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monitoring
systems for farm animal welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2005, 18, 27–56. [CrossRef]
Garner, R. Animal welfare, ethics and the work of the International Whaling Commission. J. Glob. Ethics 2011, 7, 279–290.
[CrossRef]
Johansson-Stenman, O. Animal welfare and social decisions: Is it time to take Bentham seriously? Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 90–103.
[CrossRef]
Gill, M.; Smith, P.; Wilkinson, J.M. Mitigating climate change: The role of domestic livestock. Animal 2010, 4, 323–333. [CrossRef]
Bartley, D.J.; Skuce, P.J.; Zadoks, R.N.; MacLeod, M. Endemic sheep and cattle diseases and greenhouse gas emissions. Adv. Anim.
Bio. 2016, 7, 253–255. [CrossRef]
Llonch, P.; Haskell, M.J.; Dewhurst, R.J.; Turner, S.P. Current available strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in livestock
systems: An animal welfare perspective. Animal 2017, 11, 274–284. [CrossRef]
Sørensen, J.T.; Fraser, D. On-farm welfare assessment for regulatory purposes: Issues and possible solutions. Livest. Sci. 2010, 131,
1–7. [CrossRef]
Mangen, M.J.J.; Havelaar, A.H.; Nauta, M.J.; De Koeijer, A.A.; De Wit, G.A. Controlling Campylobacter in the Chicken Meat
Chain-Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis. 2005. Series/Report No. RIVM Rapport 250911007. Available online:
http://hdl.handle.net/10029/7249 (accessed on 4 June 2022).
Kleczkowska, K. Those who cannot speak: Animals as others in ancient Greek thought. Maska 2014, 24, 97–108.
Shaw, N. When is a pet not a pet? Rethinking the ethics of animal terminology. Vet. Nurse 2012, 3, 64–69. [CrossRef]
Caruana, S.J.L. Different religions, different animal ethics? Anim. Front. 2020, 10, 8–14. [CrossRef]
Szűcs, E.; Geers, R.; Jezierski, T.; Sossidou, E.N.; Broom, D.M. Animal welfare in different human cultures, traditions and religious
faiths. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 1499. [CrossRef]
OIE. Introduction to the Recommendations for Animal Welfare. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code; OIE: Paris, France, 2019; pp. 1–4.
Available online: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/chapitre_aw_introduction.pdf
(accessed on 4 June 2022).
Grandin, T.; Regenstein, J.M. Religious slaughter and animal welfare: A discussion for meat scientists. Meat Focus Int. 1994, 3,
115–123.
Farouk, M.M.; Pufpaff, K.M.; Amir, M. Industrial halal meat production and animal welfare: A review. Meat Sci. 2016, 120, 60–70.
[CrossRef]
Rahman, S.A. Religion and animal welfare—An islamic perspective. Animals 2017, 7, 11. [CrossRef]
Jalil, N.S.; Tawde, A.V.; Zito, S.; Sinclair, M.; Fryer, C.; Idrus, Z.; Phillips, C.J. Attitudes of the public towards halal food and
associated animal welfare issues in two countries with predominantly Muslim and non-Muslim populations. PLoS ONE 2018, 13,
e0204094. [CrossRef]
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
17 of 19
Woods, A. From cruelty to welfare: The emergence of farm animal welfare in Britain, 1964–1971. Endeavour 2012, 36, 14–22.
[CrossRef]
FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Committee). Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future; Farm Animal Welfare
Committee: London, UK, 2009.
Lawrence, A.B. Applied animal behaviour science: Past, present and future prospects. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008, 115, 1–24.
[CrossRef]
Mellor, D.J. Moving beyond the “five freedoms” by updating the “five provisions” and introducing aligned “animal welfare
aims”. Animals 2016, 6, 59. [CrossRef]
Yeates, J.W.; Main, D.C.J. Assessment of positive welfare: A review. Vet. J. 2008, 175, 293–300. [CrossRef]
Mellor, D.J. Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours. N.
Z. Vet. J. 2015, 63, 9–16. [CrossRef]
Mellor, D.J.; Beausoleil, N.J.; Littlewood, K.E.; McLean, A.N.; McGreevy, P.D.; Jones, B.; Wilkins, C. The 2020 five domains model:
Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 1870. [CrossRef]
Fraser, D.; Weary, D.M.; Pajor, E.A.; Milligan, B.N. A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim.
Welf. 1997, 6, 187–205.
Mellor, D.J. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “a Life Worth Living”. Animals
2016, 6, 21. [CrossRef]
Dwyer, C.M. Welfare of sheep: Providing for welfare in an extensive environment. Small Rumin. Res. 2009, 86, 14–21. [CrossRef]
Yeates, J. Naturalness and animal welfare. Animals 2018, 8, 53. [CrossRef]
Winter, A.C.; Fitzpatrick, J.L. Sheep welfare: Standards and practices. In Diseases of Sheep, 4th ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford,
UK, 2007.
Red Tractor Standards (nd). Available online: https://redtractor.org.uk/our-standards/beef-lamb/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Standards (nd). Available online: https://science.rspca.org.uk/
sciencegroup/farmanimals/standards/sheep (accessed on 8 August 2022).
Soil Association Standards (nd). Available online: https://www.soilassociation.org/our-standards/ (accessed on 8 August 2022).
Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines (nd). Available online: https://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/cattle/
(accessed on 12 September 2022).
World Organization for Animal Welfare Standards (nd). Available online: https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/
codes-and-manuals/ (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Defra (Department of Food and Rural Affairs). Our Priorities for the Animal Health and Welfare Pathway. 2022. Available online:
https://defrafarming.blog.gov.uk/2022/02/22/our-priorities-for-the-animal-health-and-welfare-pathway/ (accessed on 12
September 2022).
Almond, B. Commodifying animals: Ethical issues in genetic engineering of animals. Health Risk Soc. 2000, 2, 95–105. [CrossRef]
Clipsham, P.; Fulfer, K. An Anti-Commodification Defense of Veganism. Ethic-Policy Environ. 2016, 19, 285–300. [CrossRef]
Europa (nd). Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/retail/pdf/issue_paper_13.pdf (accessed on 10
August 2022).
SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Animal Welfare Certified Standards (nd). Available online: https:
//www.spcacertified.nz/standards (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Label Rouge Website. Available online: https://www.inao.gouv.fr/eng/Official-signs-identifying-quality-and-origin/LabelRouge-Red-Label (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Pachur, T.; Hertwig, R.; Steinmann, F. How do people judge risks: Availability heuristic, affect heuristic, or both? J. Exp. Psych.
Appl. 2012, 18, 314. [CrossRef]
Grunert, K.G. Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Sci. 2006, 74, 149–160. [CrossRef]
Food Ethics Council. Harnessing the Power of Food Citizenship. 2019. Available online: https://www.foodethicscouncil.org/
app/uploads/2019/10/Harnessing-the-power-of-food-citizenship_Food_Ethics_Council_Oct-2019.pdf (accessed on 1 August
2022).
Hughes, D. Animal welfare: The consumer and the food industry. Br. Food J. 1995, 97, 3–7. [CrossRef]
Bansback, B. Towards a broader understanding of meat demand—Presidential Address. J. Agric. Econ. 1995, 46, 287–308.
[CrossRef]
Miele, M.; Veissier, I.; Evans, A.; Botreau, R. Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Anim. Welf.
2011, 20, 103.
Schwartz, B. The animal welfare battle: The production of affected ignorance in the Swedish meat industry debate. Cult. Org.
2020, 26, 75–95. [CrossRef]
Norwood, F.B.; Lusk, J.L. The farm animal welfare debate. Choices 2009, 24, 1–6.
Plofkipcampagne. Available online: https://www.wakkerdier.nl/campagnes/plofkip/ (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Alexander, G.S. Takings, Narratives, and Power. Colum. L. Rev. 1988, 88, 1752. [CrossRef]
Jennings, W.; Bond, C.; Hill, P.S. The power of talk and power in talk: A systematic review of Indigenous narratives of culturally
safe healthcare communication. Aust. J. Prim. Health 2018, 24, 109–115. [CrossRef]
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
18 of 19
Deetz, S.; Mumby, D.K. Power, discourse, and the workplace: Reclaiming the critical tradition. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 1990, 13,
18–47. [CrossRef]
Kellner, D. Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between the Modern and the Post-Modern; Routledge: London,
UK, 1995.
Berns, N. Degendering the problem and gendering the blame: Political discourse on women and violence. Gend. Soc. 2001, 15,
262–281. [CrossRef]
Buddle, E.A.; Bray, H.J. How farm animal welfare issues are framed in the Australian media. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic 2019, 32,
357–376. [CrossRef]
Mullan, S.; Edwards, S.A.; Butterworth, A.; Ward, M.; Whay, H.R.; Main, D.C.J. Welfare science into practice: A successful case
example of working with industry. Anim. Welf.-UFAW J. 2011, 20, 597.
Appleby, M.C. Science is not enough: How do we increase implementation? Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, 159–162.
Morsing, M.; Schultz, M. Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement
strategies. Bus. Ethics 2006, 15, 323–338. [CrossRef]
Monfort, A.; Villagra, N.; López-Vázquez, B. Exploring stakeholders’ dialogue and corporate social responsibility (CSR) on
Twitter. Profesional de la Información 2019, 28, 1–15. [CrossRef]
Sainsburys Animal Health and Welfare (Website). Available online: https://www.about.sainsburys.co.uk/sustainability/betterfor-everyone/animal-welfare (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Better Chicken Commitment. Available online: https://betterchickencommitment.com (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Welp, M.; de la Vega-Leinert, A.; Stoll-Kleemann, S.; Jaeger, C.C. Science-based stakeholder dialogues: Theories and tools. Glob.
Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 170–181. [CrossRef]
Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (nd). Available online: www.bbfaw.com (accessed on 12 September 2022).
Sullivan, R.; Amos, N.; Van de Weerd, H.A. Corporate reporting on farm animal welfare: An evaluation of global food companies’
discourse and disclosures on farm animal welfare. Animals 2017, 7, 17. [CrossRef]
Levy, D.; Reinecke, J.; Manning, S. The Political Dynamics of Sustainable Coffee: Contested Value Regimes and the Transformation
of Sustainability. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 364–401. [CrossRef]
FAWC. Education, Communication, and Knowledge Application in Relation to Farm Animal Welfare; Farm Animal Welfare Committee:
London, UK, 2011.
Bjørkdahl, K.; Syse, K.V.L. Welfare Washing: Disseminating Disinformation in Meat Marketing. Soc. Anim. 2021, 1, 1–19.
[CrossRef]
Eisenberg, E.M. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Commun. Monogr. 1984, 51, 227–242. [CrossRef]
Leitch, S.; Davenport, S. Strategic ambiguity as a discourse practice: The role of keywords in the discourse on sustainable
biotechnology. Discourse Stud. 2007, 9, 43–61. [CrossRef]
De Fine Licht, J. Transparency actually: How transparency affects public perceptions of political decision-making. Eur. Politi-Sci.
Rev. 2014, 6, 309–330. [CrossRef]
Manning, L.; Brewer, S.; Craigon, P.J.; Frey, J.; Gutierrez, A.; Jacobs, N.; Kanza, S.; Munday, S.; Sacks, J.; Pearson, S. Artificial
intelligence and ethics within the food sector: Developing a common language for technology adoption across the supply chain.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 125, 33–42. [CrossRef]
Egels-Zandén, N.; Hansson, N. Supply chain transparency as a consumer or corporate tool: The case of Nudie Jeans Co. J. Consum.
Policy 2016, 39, 377–395. [CrossRef]
Turilli, M.; Floridi, L. The ethics of information transparency. Ethic Inf. Technol. 2009, 11, 105–112. [CrossRef]
Carrigan, M.; Szmigin, I.; Wright, J. Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption
within the older market. J. Consum. Mark. 2004, 21, 401–417. [CrossRef]
Crane, A.; Matten, D. Business Ethics: A European Perspective: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of
Globalization; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004.
Harrison, R.; Newholm, T.; Shaw, D. (Eds.) The Ethical Consumer; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
Auger, P.; Devinney, T.M. Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions.
J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 76, 361–383. [CrossRef]
Zander, K.; Stolz, H.; Hamm, U. Promising ethical arguments for product differentiation in the organic food sector. A mixed
methods research approach. Appetite 2013, 62, 133–142. [CrossRef]
Gravely, E.; Fraser, E. Transitions on the shopping floor: Investigating the role of Canadian supermarkets in alternative protein
consumption. Appetite 2018, 130, 146–156. [CrossRef]
Feo, E.; Spanoghe, P.; Berckmoes, E.; Pascal, E.; Mosquera-Losada, R.; Opdebeeck, A.; Burssens, S. The multi-actor approach in
thematic networks for agriculture and forestry innovation. Agric. Food Econ. 2022, 10, 3. [CrossRef]
Bock, B.B.; Swagemakers, P. Dialogue between farmers and experts regarding farm animal welfare; farmers’ juries in Norway, the
Netherlands and Italy. In Part II The Netherlands; Cardiff University Press: Cardiff, UK, 2010; pp. 35–66.
Miele, M.; Lever, J.; Evans, A. Establishing a Dialogue Between Science, Society and Religion About Religious Slaughter: The
Experience of the European Funded Project Dialrel. In The Halal Food Handbook; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020;
pp. 343–351.
Animals 2022, 12, 2582
19 of 19
125. Benard, M.; Schuitmaker, T.J.; de Cock Buning, T. Scientists and Dutch pig farmers in dialogue about tail biting: Unravelling the
mechanism of multi-stakeholder learning. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2014, 27, 431–452. [CrossRef]
126. Sandøe, P.; Christiansen, S.B.; Appleby, M.C. Farm animal welfare: The interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science.
Anim. Welf. 2003, 12, 469–478.
127. Rault, J.L.; Hintze, S.; Camerlink, I.; Yee, J.R. Positive welfare and the like: Distinct views and a proposed framework. Front. Vet.
Sci. 2020, 7, 370. [CrossRef]