Background
Over the past years, consumers’ concern about the welfare of farm animals increased (Alonso et al., 2020; EC, 2016). As a result, companies bring more products with higher animal welfare standards on the market (e.g., Esbjerg et al., 20222). Companies, however, also respond to this increased concern by boosting the attractiveness of their products using misleading information about animal welfare. This ‘welfare washing’ (occasionally also referred to as humane washing) is defined as “disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present a public image in which the organization appears to take responsibility for animal welfare” (Bjørkdahl & Syse 2021, p. 3). This can be done via information presented on product packages, via advertisements, and via the website and other forms of communication by the company and by using misleading quotes, terms, and labels (e.g., humanely raised, natural) as well as imagery (e.g., showing happy animals having ample space outside). An example of an existing welfare washing practice is a cheese package showing a cow with her calf enjoying the grass outside while in reality the product company separates the calf from his mom and they both never see daylight, nor grass. Misleading welfare information is often disseminated, including by major companies (Borkfelt et al., 2015; Thibault et al., 2022). Research showed that even among the certified meat welfare label claims, 85% lack substantiation (Sutherland et al., 2023). Welfare washing has detrimental consequences as companies are 1) misleading consumers, 2) at the cost of animal welfare, 3) while unfairly competing with companies that do produce with higher animal welfare standards. Given these harmful consequences, we are in great need to understand whether and how consumers are able to detect welfare washing. By investigating the mechanisms leading consumers to fall prey to welfare washing, insights will be provided how to empower consumers to detect deceptive welfare messages.
In this project, you can choose either to 1) investigate whether consumers are aware that welfare washing occurs using interviews or 2) identify cues of welfare washing by a combination of a small literature study and interviewing experts on welfare washing.
Type of research
Interviews
1) You will conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews using a heterogeneous sample of consumers to investigate whether they are aware that welfare washing occurs.
2) OR you will conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews (based on literature) with experts on welfare washing on tips they would give consumers to be able to detect welfare washing.
information
If you are interested in this topic, please contact Steven Watson via s.j.watson@utwente.nl.
Literature
Bjørkdahl, K., & Syse, K. V. L. (2021). Welfare Washing: Disseminating Disinformation in Meat Marketing. Society & Animals, 32(1), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-BJA10032
Kühl, S., Bayer, E., & Schulze, M. (2023). The role of trust, expectation, and deception when buying organic animal products. Animal Frontiers, 13(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfac080
Thibault, M., Pailler, S. & Freund, D. (2022). Why Are They Buying It?: United States Consumers’ Intentions When Purchasing Meat, Eggs, and Dairy With Welfare-related Labels. Food ethics 7, 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-022-00105-3