Introduction: Consumers are increasingly considering the ethical aspects of food production, including animal welfare, as important to them. However, how these concerns influence consumers' food choices has not been clearly studied. To address this issue, a separate choice experiment was conducted to assess consumers' willingness to pay for chicken meat. The research paper has been accepted for publication in the journal Ecological Economics, a leading publication by Elsevier, ranked Q1 in the SCOPUS database with an Impact Factor of 7 and a CiteScore of 11, making it one of the top journals globally in the field of managing economic activities in ways that promote welfare, sustainability, and human equity.
Methodology: To achieve the research objectives, the author conducted both qualitative and quantitative studies.
The qualitative study: To support the development of the separate choice experiment, the research team conducted 12 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with six English households (H1-H6). These interviews took place from June 2017 to July 2018 and were conducted as part of an extensive ethnographic field study involving 41 households across seven European countries (Amilien et al., 2022). Although the purpose of this study was to explore consumer perceptions and daily food consumption habits in the context of food quality labels and sustainability, it still revealed specific insights regarding the RSPCA Assured and Red Tractor quality assurance programs as well as preferences for chicken meat.
The quantitative study: The author carried out an online survey to investigate the impact of animal welfare food labels and purpose-related marketing on consumers' willingness to pay for chicken breast in the UK. A commercial market research company, LightSpeed, was commissioned to collect the data, with respondents receiving a small payment for completing the questionnaire. The average response time was approximately 10 minutes. The usable sample included 401 individuals, with participants selected if they (i.) were fully or partially responsible for grocery shopping in their households and (ii.) had consumed chicken breast at least once in the three months prior to the study. In the choice experiment, the product offered to participants was a 320g pack of chicken breast, with various label and purpose alternatives as well as pricing options.
.png)
Figure 1: Choices made in the experiment
The labels are divided into three levels (RSPCA Assured labels, Red Tractor labels, no label). The RSPCA Assured label, formerly known as Freedom Food, is a food labeling and farm assurance program dedicated to animal welfare (RSPCA, 2022). Launched in 1994 by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), this program aims to promote higher standards of animal welfare. It applies to every stage of an animal's life, including on-farm (encompassing both indoor and outdoor systems), transportation, and slaughter (RSPCA, 2022). To date, over 2,000 products carrying the RSPCA Assured label are marketed by food retailers in the UK, including product lines in major supermarkets.
The Red Tractor label is the largest agricultural and food standards program in the UK, measured by both farm participation and sales volume (Red Tractor, 2022). Established in 2000, the Red Tractor label is operated by Assured Food Standards, an independent, non-profit organization. This program sets standard industry practices, certifying that food has been produced in the UK (hence featuring the Union Jack logo) and ensuring minimum legal requirements for safety, hygiene, and environmental standards, along with rules related to food traceability, animal welfare, and environmental protection. The Red Tractor label is found on products available in all major grocery retailers in the UK and many branded manufacturers, with a total sales value of approximately £12 billion per year (Red Tractor, 2022).
Overall, the animal welfare standards required for the Red Tractor label are equivalent to legal requirements. The standards for the RSPCA Assured label, in some important aspects but not all, exceed legal requirements (RSPCA, 2017). Notably, for broiler chickens, the RSPCA label requires a lower stocking density than that mandated by law and allowed under Red Tractor standards (Red Tractor, 2020; RSPCA, 2017). The RSPCA Assured label also has additional requirements related to, for example, stocking density per box of over 1,000 chickens, bedding depth, and the number of drinkers per 100 chickens.
In terms of purpose, the experiment combines three levels (farmer, grassland cultivation, no cause). Thus, the selected options include two main types of purpose: supporting producers and external benefits for buyers or sellers.
Results and dicussion: Higher animal welfare standards incur greater costs for farmers; therefore, voluntary movements, as opposed to legislation, towards higher welfare standards require support through consumers paying higher prices (Clark et al., 2017; Harvey and Hubbard, 2013; Nocella et al., 2010). However, such pricing will only exist if (a) consumers are willing to pay extra for higher animal welfare standards and (b) it is possible to distinguish between meat produced under higher or lower animal welfare standards.
Certification programs provide the mechanism, and the first contribution in the paper relates to evidence showing that consumers are willing to pay more for meat produced according to stricter animal welfare standards. The utility and willingness to pay associated with the higher animal welfare standard program (RSPCA Assured) are greater than those associated with the leading farm assurance label in the UK (Red Tractor). However, the stratified analysis of the experiment suggests that the business case for producers considering 'upgrading' from national farm standards to specialized animal welfare labels (from Red Tractor to RSPCA Assured in the UK) is problematic. For price-sensitive consumers, the additional retail price may not be sufficient to offset the greater costs at the farm level when producing under higher welfare standards, even if the associated costs are modest (Seibert and Norwood, 2011). The results indicate that those willing to pay extra for meat products, supporting local farmers and other intrinsic concerns, may overshadow animal welfare considerations.
The second contribution relates to the impact of purpose marketing on consumer choice. While previous research has identified the importance of packaging in consumers' evaluations of food products (Morozzo et al., 2020; Steenis et al., 2017), there is still a lack of evidence regarding the relative importance of purpose compared to quality assurance. The study demonstrates that purpose marketing significantly influences consumers' evaluations of food products and affects their willingness to spend. Purpose-related campaigns often lack specific information about the amount of donations as well as the socioeconomic and environmental outcomes (Young, 2022). The author incorporated these characteristics into the two causes investigated in this study. Despite the lack of such specific information, the phrase “we are growing grassland on the farm” elicited a significantly greater willingness to pay among relevant consumers compared to the specialized animal welfare label. This suggests that quality assurance programs for animal welfare may be undermined by initiatives that are much less rigorous yet still seem favorable to consumers.
Regarding animal welfare, the general policy recommendation is to provide more information for consumers to change behavior (European Commission, 2021; Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2019). However, for a significant portion of consumers, additional information in the form of labeling may not alter their willingness to pay or their behavior.
Comparing the results with previous segments of meat consumers will highlight similarities and differences. Concerned consumers are often younger and more likely to have completed higher education than price-sensitive consumers, which aligns with previous findings (Alonso et al., 2020; Lagerkvist and Hess, 2010; Verbeke and Vackier, 2004). However, contrary to Akaichi et al. (2019), the authors found no significant differences between segments based on gender or whether respondents lived in urban or rural areas, which Weatherell et al. (2003) considered important. Overall, there is a stronger correlation between food attitudes and consumer behavior than between demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and consumer behavior.
Find out more:
Gorton, M., Yeh, C.-H., Chatzopoulou, E., White, J., Tocco, B., Hubbard, C., & Hallam, F. (2023). Consumers’ willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label. Ecological Economics, 209, 107852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107852
