DOCSLIB.ORG

Animal Welfare: from Science to Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animal Welfare: from Science to Law Animal Welfare: from Science to Law Edited by Sophie Hild and Louis Schweitzer Conference proceedings by La Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et Sciences Le bien-être animal : de la science au droit , sous la direction de S. Hild & L. Schweitzer, Ed. l’Harmattan (2018). Souffrance animale : de la science au droit , sous la direction de T. Auffret Van Der Kemp & M. Lachance, Ed. Yvon Blais (2013). Homme et animal : de la douleur à la cruauté , sous la direction de T. Auffret Van Der Kemp & J.C. Nouët, Ed. l’Harmattan (2008). Éthique et invertébrés , sous la direction de J.C. Nouët & G. Chapouthier, Numéro spécial STAL, éditions AFSTAL (2002). Droits de l’animal et pensée chrétienne , É. Baratay, J. Gaillard, Père P.H. Coutagne, C. L’Eplattenier, O. Clément, Père J.D. Bourinet, J. Bastaire, T. Monod & J. Guitton, éditions LFDA (1987). Droits de l’animal et pensée contemporaine : Violence et droits de l’animal , F. Jacques Duché, Pr J. Proteau, Pr L.V. Thomas, Bâtonnier A. Brunois, Pr J.C. Nouët, Recteur R. Mallet, Pr D. Armengaud, Pasteur E. Mathiot, B. Dutrillaux, Pr E. Wolf & G. Chapouthier, éditions LFDA (1985). La surconsommation carnée et ses risques , Pr A. Kastler, T. Auffret van der Kemp, Pr J.J. Bernier, Pr O. Bousquet, Pr J. Cottet, G. Friedenkraft, J.P. Garnier, Pr G. Heuse, H. Jumeau, D. Lecomte, J.P. Leleu, Pr J.C. Nouët, Pr G. Pequignot, M. Perez & Pr G. Turpin, éditions LFDA (1985). Other publications by La Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et Sciences Le Droit de l’animal , A.C. Lomellini-Dereclenne & K. Mercier, ed. L.G.D.J / Systèmes (2017). Les Droits de l’animal , J.C. Nouët & J.M. Coulon, ed. Dalloz (2nd ed. 2018). Le Droit de l'animal , S. Antoine, ed. Legis-France (2007). Les Droits de l’Animal aujourd’hui , sous la direction de G. Chapouthier et J.C. Nouët, ed. Arléa- Corlet (1997). Le Grand Massacre , M. Damien, A. Kastler, J.C. Nouët, ed. Fayard (1981). Other materials by La Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et Sciences "Les droits de l’animal dans les foires et marchés", édition LFDA (2004). "Liberté pour les ours ! ", Julie Delfour et Stéphane Né, édition LFDA (2003). "Découvrez la corrida", édition LFDA (2003). "Pour les éléphants", édition LFDA (2002). "Réformer la pêche de loisir", édition LFDA (2002). "Protection du cheval", édition LFDA (2001). "Non au foie gras ! ", fascicule, édition LFDA (2001 - en cours de réactualisation). "La condition des animaux dans les cirques", J.C. Nouët & S. Né, édition LFDA (2000). Dossiers sur le transport des animaux, sur les dangers de l’utilisation des hormones anabolisantes dans l’élevage intensif, sur les inconvénients de l’hormone de lactation rBST (communication de ce dossier au Codex alimentarius), dossiers complétés en collaboration avec la CENPA (Coalition pour l’élevage naturel et plein air). Dossier financier et fiscal (1991), remis au ministre de l’Économie pour que la TVA soit appliquée à la corrida au taux général. "L’animal et l’école", T. Auffret van der Kemp, J.L. Laure, J.C. Nouët & S. Boutinot, éditions LFDA (1989 - en cours de réactualisation). "La tauromachie et sa réglementation", éditions LFDA (1985). "L’animal sauvage dans le spectacle", éditions LFDA (1980). Animal Welfare: from Science to Law © La Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et Sciences (LFDA), 2019 39 rue Claude-Bernard, 75005 Paris www.fondation-droit-animal.org ISBN 978-2-9512167-5-4 Cover: Pixdelux/istock Animal Welfare: from Science to Law, 2019 Table of contents Opening speech to the symposium • J.-C. Nouët 5 Introduction • S. Hild 7 PART 1 What is animal welfare? 11 I Animal Welfare: A Brief History • I.J.H. Duncan 13 II How to access animal sentience? The close relationships between emotions and cognition • A. Boissy 21 III Evaluation of animal welfare: the weight of words and the power of numbers • I. Veissier & R. Botreau 33 IV Animal sentience: use and abuse of words Semantic and translatological differences between "bien-être" (welfare) and "bientraitance" (good treatment) of animals • A. Guillaume 41 V To which animals does animal welfare apply in law and why? • T. Auffret van der Kemp 47 PART 2 Animal welfare as taken into account by law around the world: globalisation and disparities 57 VI The European Union legislation on animal welfare: state of play, enforcement and future activities • D. Simonin & A. Gavinelli 59 VII Legal standards and animal welfare in European countries • M. Falaise 71 VIII Why American Animal-Protective Legislation Does Not Always “Stick” and the Path Forward • T.L. Bryant & M. Sullivan 77 IX Animal welfare in Central and South America: What is going on? • A.P. de Oliveira Souza, L. Oliveira Leite & C. Forte Maiolino Molento 88 X Animal welfare in Africa: strength of cultural traditions, challenges and perspectives • D.N. Qekwana, C.M.E. McCrindle, B. Cenci-Goga & Delia Grace 103 XI Animal welfare in Asia: specific flaws and strengths, future trends and objectives • Q. Nizamuddin & Sira Abdul Rahman 109 PART 3 Animal welfare in the face of socio-economic and cultural factors 119 XII The Costs and Benefits of Animal Welfare 121 XIII Impact of international trade on ethical norms • K. Mercier 123 XIV Is Animal Welfare Better on Smaller Farms? • D.M. Weary, J. Robbins, D. Fraser & M.A.G. von Keyserlingk 133 XV Initiatives and achievements by farmers and the livestock sector in favour of animal welfare • J.-L. Peyraud & L. Mirabito 141 XVI Consumer information supplements the official (statutory) animal protection efforts in Switzerland • H.-U. Huber & S. Wehrli 155 PART 4 Objectives for the future: finding alternatives, overcoming the shortcomings 163 XVII Legally accepted pain and other poor welfare in animals • D.M. Broom 165 XVIII Importance of living environment for the welfare of captive animals: behaviours and enrichment • C. Sueur & M. Pelé 175 XIX The French national strategy for animal welfare: 20 priority actions • P. Dehaumont 189 Conclusion to the symposium: Animal welfare, law and ethics • L. Schweitzer 191 3 Animal Welfare: from Science to Law, 2019 4 Animal Welfare: from Science to Law, 2019 Opening speech to the symposium Pr Jean-Claude Nouët Honorary President of La Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et Sciences (LFDA) (The Foundation for Animal Law, Ethics and Sciences) Mr Louis Schweitzer, the President of La Fondation Droit Animal, Éthique et Sciences, and I express our gratitude to Daniel Janicot, the President of the French National Commission for Unesco for granting us with the patronage of the Commission for this conference, without any hesitation, even with enthusiasm. We also thank His Excellency Philippe Alliot, the French ambassador to Unesco, who has approved that this international conference is held here, in the world centre for science and culture. This is the twelfth conference that our Foundation has organised since its creation in 1977. At the time, we were five people who wanted to constitute a think tank about the living conditions that humans impose to animals for their own interest. Let us remind ourselves who were the founders: Alfred Kastler, Nobel Prize in Physics, Rémy Chauvin, ethologist, Philippe Diolé, author and explorer, Georges Browers, legal expert, and myself, biologist and doctor. From the beginning, we have seen the necessity to make people with too often compartmentalised knowledge meet, zoologists, lawyers, moralists, biologists, historians, doctors, veterinaries, religious people, etc. I will not list all our conferences, but I underline the evolution of the subjects throughout the years. The first ones mainly dealt with philosophy and ethics, then the interest focused on neurophysiology and behaviour, and then tightened on the feeling and suffering of animal and humans’ responsibility, entitled, “Human and animal: from pain to cruelty”, topic of our 2007’s conference, and “Animal suffering: from science to law”, in 2012. These two conferences allowed us to reaffirm the existence of pain and suffering in animals. That of 2012 more precisely showed that the law, still often limited to ban practices that can harm the animals, can and must progress based on the acquisition of scientific knowledge, and evolve towards measures which positively benefits the animals, meaning which can bring them satisfactions, in a word, a feeling of welfare. The topic needed to be dealt with in depth, and in his general conclusion, Mr Schweitzer had wished – I quote him – “that the next symposium will address the issue of animal welfare and its perception throughout the world, because science is also moving forward in this area and that we have a great deal to learn from this field and its consequences in ethical and legal terms”. Since 2014, we have fully worked on the design of a balanced and as complete a programme as possible, as well as on the search of the most qualified speakers. We very much thank the speakers who kindly accepted our invitation and travel, some of them from very far away, in order to share with us their science and enrich our exchanges. From this conference, we expect to have answers to questions of primary interest, as for example: What is the scientific definition of animal welfare? On which criteria should it be assessed? Which national or international legislations take it into account? Which animals are concerned with it, which are not and why? What are the obstacles to the concern of securing animal welfare? This conference and its conclusions will significantly contribute to inform the public. They will also reinforce the steps to undertake in favour of new regulatory measures, particularly because of the reorientation of regulations, which, regarding animal welfare, tend to abandon obligations of means and only target a result obligation, which will lead to the necessity of controls which will have to be based on rigorous and unquestionable appraisal criteria.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Are Illegal Direct Actions by Animal Rights Activists Ethically Vigilante?
    260 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Is the Radical Animal Rights Movement Ethically Vigilante? ABSTRACT Following contentious debates around the status and justifiability of illegal direct actions by animal rights activists, we introduce a here- tofore unexplored perspective that argues they are neither terrorist nor civilly disobedient but ethically vigilante. Radical animal rights movement (RARM) activists are vigilantes for vulnerable animals and their rights. Hence, draconian measures by the constitutional state against RARM vigilantes are both disproportionate and ille- gitimate. The state owes standing and toleration to such principled vigilantes, even though they are self-avowed anarchists and anti-stat- ists—unlike civil disobedients—repudiating allegiance to the con- stitutional order. This requires the state to acknowledge the ethical nature of challenges to its present regime of toleration, which assigns special standing to illegal actions in defense of human equality, but not equality and justice between humans and animals. Michael Allen East Tennessee State University Erica von Essen Environmental Communications Division Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Volume 22, Issue 1 Fall 2018 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 261 Michael Allen and Erica von Essen Introduction We explore the normative status of illegal actions under- taken by the Radical Animal Rights Movement (RARM), such as animal rescue, trespass, and sabotage as well as confronta- tion and intimidation. RARM typically characterizes these ac- tions as examples of direct action rather than civil disobedience (Milligan 2015, Pellow 2014). Moreover, many RARM activ- ists position themselves as politically anarchist, anti-statist, and anti-capitalist (Best 2014, Pellow 2014). Indeed, the US and UK take these self-presentations at face value, responding to RARM by introducing increasingly draconian legislation that treats them as terrorists (Best 2014, McCausland, O’Sullivan and Brenton 2013, O’Sullivan 2011, Pellow 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Stronger Regulation of Environmental Marketing
    University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship Summer 2020 Greenwashing No More: The Case for Stronger Regulation of Environmental Marketing Robin M. Rotman Chloe J. Gossett Hope D. Goldman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Marketing Law Commons 08. ALR 72.3_ROTMAN (ARTICLE) (DO NOT DELETE) 8/22/2020 11:30 PM GREENWASHING NO MORE: THE CASE FOR STRONGER REGULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING ROBIN M. ROTMAN*, CHLOE J. GOSSETT**, AND HOPE D. GOLDMAN*** Fraudulent and deceptive environmental claims in marketing (sometimes called “greenwashing”) are a persistent problem in the United States, despite nearly thirty years of efforts by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prevent it. This Essay focuses on a recent trend in greenwashing—fraudulent “organic” claims for nonagricultural products, such as home goods and personal care products. We offer three recommendations. First, we suggest ways that the FTC can strengthen its oversight of “organic” claims for nonagricultural products and improve coordination with the USDA. Second, we argue for inclusion of guidelines for “organic” claims in the next revision of the FTC’s Guidelines for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (often referred to as the “Green Guides”), which the FTC is scheduled to revise in 2022. Finally, we assert that the FTC should formalize the Green Guides as binding regulations, rather than their current form as nonbinding interpretive guidance, as the USDA has done for the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations. This Essay concludes that more robust regulatory oversight of “organic” claims, together with efforts by the FTC to prevent other forms of greenwashing, will ultimately bolster demand for sustainable products and incentivize manufacturers to innovate to meet this demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Redfame Publishing: E-Journals Studies in Media and Communication Vol. 7, No. 1; June 2019 ISSN: 2325-8071 E-ISSN: 2325-808X Published by Redfame Publishing URL: http://smc.redfame.com Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals. Challenges for Media and Communication Ethics Núria Almiron1, Catia Faria2 1Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain 2Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade, ILCH, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal Correspondence: Núria Almiron, Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain. Received: April 21, 2019 Accepted: May 21, 2019 Online Published: May 29, 2019 doi:10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 URL: https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 Abstract The mainstream discussion regarding climate change in politics, public opinion and the media has focused almost exclusively on preventing the harms humans suffer due to global warming. Yet climate change is already having an impact on free-living nonhumans, which raises unexplored ethical concerns from a nondiscriminatory point of view. This paper discusses the inherent ethical challenge of climate change impacts on nonhuman animals living in nature and argues that the media and communication ethics cannot avoid addressing the issue. The paper further argues that media ethics needs to mirror animal ethics by rejecting moral anthropocentrism. Keywords: media ethics, egalitarianism, climate change, wildlife, anthropocentrism 1. Introduction Since evidence of climate change was brought to light by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, concerns regarding the issue have focused almost exclusively on preventing the harm humans suffer due to global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Behaviour, Animal Welfare and the Scientific Study of Affect
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 5-2009 Animal Behaviour, Animal Welfare and the Scientific Study of Affect David Fraser University of British Columbia Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/emotio Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Comparative Psychology Commons, and the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Fraser, D. (2009). Animal behaviour, animal welfare and the scientific study of affect. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 118(3), 108-117. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Behaviour, Animal Welfare and the Scientific Study of Affect David Fraser University of British Columbia KEYWORDS animal behaviour, animal welfare, affect, emotion, qualitative research ABSTRACT Many questions about animal welfare involve the affective states of animals (pain, fear, distress) and people look to science to clarify these issues as a basis for practices, policies and standards. However, the science of the mid twentieth century tended to be silent on matters of animal affect for both philosophical and methodological reasons. Philosophically, under the influence of Positivism many scientists considered that the affective states of animals fall outside the scope of science. Certain methodological features of the research also favoured explanations that did not involve affect. The features included the tendency to rely on abstract, quantitative measures rather than description, to use controlled experiments more than naturalistic observation, and to focus on measures of central tendency (means, medians) rather than individual differences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Welfare of Ducks and Geese in Foie Gras Production
    The Welfare of Ducks and Geese in Foie Gras Production A Summary of the Scientific and Empirical Evidence A Farm Sanctuary Report Farm Sanctuary · P.O. Box 150 · Watkins Glen, NY www.FarmSanctuary.org · www.NoFoieGras.org Introduction Foie gras, a French term meaning "fatty liver," is produced by force-feeding ducks and geese large amounts of meal that enlarges their livers up to 10 times the nor- mal size. In medical terms, ducks and geese raised for foie gras suffer from hepatic lipi- dosis, a pathologically enlarged, physiologi- cally impaired liver. Foie gras was traditionally produced from geese, but the trend in recent years has been toward using ducks, who require less space to house and are slaughtered younger. Only ducks are currently being used in the US to make foie gras. The species of duck used in foie gras production is a hybrid between the Muscovy duck (Carina moschata) and the domestic duck (Anas platyrhnchous). A male Muscovy duck, which is nearly twice the size of a female Muscovy, is crossed with a domestic female duck such as the Pekin, and the result is a sterile hybrid called the Mulard duck. Male Mulard ducks are used for foie gras production, while the females are either killed at birth or raised and slaughtered for meat con- sumption. During the force-feeding process, the duck is grabbed by the neck, and a metal or plastic tube 8 to 12 inches long is inserted down the esophagus. The desired amount of high fat, high carbohydrate corn mash is pushed through the tube and into the duck's esophagus by either a manual or a pneu- matic pump.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 HSUS Annual Report
    2015 Annual Report You Changed the World WITH YOUR SUPPORT, WE AND OUR AFFILIATES DIRECTLY HELPED 171,476 ANIMALS—AND DROVE CHANGE FOR MILLIONS MORE. With you by our side, 2015 was the highest impact year in the history of The Humane Society of the United States. Thank you for caring so much about animals. We could not have done this without you. As Kathy Klueh, a monthly donor from Florida, told us, “When we pool our resources we are a force that cannot be stopped.” HUMANE HEROES: Throughout this report, we’ve highlighted some of the people and organizations that helped us in 2015. ISLAND CONNECTION: OUR DONORS’ STORY In April, The HSUS and Humane Society International partnered with agencies in Puerto Rico to launch an island-wide initiative to help stray animals struggling to survive. In November, 15 donors came to help provide vaccines, flea/tick preventative and triage at a dog sanctuary, check in animals at an HSI spay/neuter clinic, visit shelters and assist with a stray dog feeding route. PICTURED ABOVE: Amanda Hearst, Steve Read and Daran Haber helped island dogs. NOT SHOWN: Pia Acker- man, Kami Anderson, Georgina Bloomberg, David Brownstein, Lisa Feria, Marion Look Jameson, Stacey Kivowitz, Colleen Lang, Marti Peretzman, Jerry Rosenthal, Bob Rhue and Courtney Stroum Meagher. OPPOSITE PAGE: Puppy mills campaign staffer Tara Loller visited with some of the dogs who will be helped by our work on the island. ON THE COVER: Cecil RIP July 1, 2015. This was an enormous year for our campaign to stop trade in products from endangered and rare animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Atrocities Go Vegan, Lose Weight MFA Undercover Investigation Exposes Heartbreaking Abuse Tips from an Expert the Artivists Creativity Meets Compassion
    - FREE - Go ahead, take it. Living Compassionate CTHE MAG OF MFA. FALL-WINTERL 12 ISSUE 11 Wicked Walmart The Hidden Cost of the Mega Retailer's Cheap Pork Butterball Gets Busted Historic Cruelty Conviction + Auction Against Turkey Tyrant Atrocities Go Vegan, Lose Weight MFA Undercover Investigation Exposes Heartbreaking Abuse Tips from an Expert The Artivists Creativity Meets Compassion MercyForAnimals.org dear friends newswatch Living Meaty Environmental Issues The Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Commission studied the matter extensively. What they Compassionate According to NPR, meat consumption in the reports that the 10 million automobiles in the region found wasn’t all too surprising: “When sows are put United States is on a downward spiral, and not only produce far less smog than the area's 300,000 into a very small pen, they indicate by their behavioral out of animal cruelty concerns. The media magnate dairy cows. responses that they find the confinement aversive. If given CL states that 29 percent of its Truven Health Analytics Water depletion is another major concern. Researchers the opportunity, they leave the confined space and they Health Poll’s 3,000 participants cited concern for the at the Stockholm International Water Institute find that usually resist attempts to make them return to that place.” Contributors environment as their motivation for forgoing animal "there will not be enough water available on current products. It’s no wonder why, considering the Amy Bradley croplands to produce food for the expected 9 billion frightening facts. In other words, pigs want freedom. Just like you and Becca Frye population in 2050 if we follow current trends and me.
    [Show full text]
  • MAC1 Abstracts – Oral Presentations
    Oral Presentation Abstracts OP001 Rights, Interests and Moral Standing: a critical examination of dialogue between Regan and Frey. Rebekah Humphreys Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom This paper aims to assess R. G. Frey’s analysis of Leonard Nelson’s argument (that links interests to rights). Frey argues that claims that animals have rights or interests have not been established. Frey’s contentions that animals have not been shown to have rights nor interests will be discussed in turn, but the main focus will be on Frey’s claim that animals have not been shown to have interests. One way Frey analyses this latter claim is by considering H. J. McCloskey’s denial of the claim and Tom Regan’s criticism of this denial. While Frey’s position on animal interests does not depend on McCloskey’s views, he believes that a consideration of McCloskey’s views will reveal that Nelson’s argument (linking interests to rights) has not been established as sound. My discussion (of Frey’s scrutiny of Nelson’s argument) will centre only on the dialogue between Regan and Frey in respect of McCloskey’s argument. OP002 Can Special Relations Ground the Privileged Moral Status of Humans Over Animals? Robert Jones California State University, Chico, United States Much contemporary philosophical work regarding the moral considerability of nonhuman animals involves the search for some set of characteristics or properties that nonhuman animals possess sufficient for their robust membership in the sphere of things morally considerable. The most common strategy has been to identify some set of properties intrinsic to the animals themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Lines NEWS, CAMPAIGNS, and ADVOCACY
    Front Lines NEWS, CAMPAIGNS, AND ADVOCACY The Numbers Behind Canada’s Commercial SEAL SLAUGHTER MORE SENSELESS CRUELTY: THAN2MILLION In Canada’s commercial seal hunt, pups as young as % 12 days old are shot or clubbed to death for their KILLED 98 fur. Studies show that 82 percent of seals aren’t IN THE LAST killed with the first shot, and as many as two-thirds YOUNGER may still be conscious when skinned. 10 THAN 3 YEARS MONTHS OLD SEALING ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN .00005% OF CANADA’S $1.8 TRILLION GDP. NO ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION: SEALING Sealing revenues are a small fraction of the millions .00005% of taxpayer funds the Canadian government spends OTHER to prop up the industry. For the few thousand fisher- 99.99995% men who participate in the hunt, an average of less than 5 percent of their incomes comes from killing seals. A DYING INDUSTRY: Since The HSUS and Humane Society International PELT PRICES KILL TOTAL renewed the Protect Seals campaign in 2004, global 32 demand for sealskins has plummeted and kills have dropped to a fraction of government quotas. We’re COUNTRIES HAVE BANNED SEAL 2012 now pushing for a government buyout of the in- PRODUCT TRADE SINCE 2006 dustry. Learn how you can help end the hunt for 65,235* good at hsi.org/protectseals. Russia, Nearly 6,000 Protect Seals Kazakhstan, businesses and and Belarus 750,000 people launches Canadian HSI helps seafood boycott; ban harp seal have joined the 450,000 stop China Mexico, Croatia, fur trade seafood boycott slaughter footage U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing Under Sustainable Development Goals
    sustainability Article Green Brand of Companies and Greenwashing under Sustainable Development Goals Tetyana Pimonenko 1, Yuriy Bilan 2,* , Jakub Horák 3 , Liudmyla Starchenko 4 and Waldemar Gajda 5 1 Department of Marketing, Sumy State University, 40007 Sumy, Ukraine; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Management, University of Social Sciences, 90–113 Lodz, Poland 3 School of Expertness and Valuation, The Institute of Technology and Business in Ceskˇ é Budˇejovice, Okružní 517/10, 37001 Ceskˇ é Budˇejovice,Czech Republic; [email protected] 4 Department of Economics, Entrepreneurship and Business Administration, Sumy State University, 40007 Sumy, Ukraine; [email protected] 5 Warsaw Management School-Graduate and Postgraduate School, Siedmiogrodzka 3A, 01204 Warszawa, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 15 January 2020; Accepted: 21 February 2020; Published: 24 February 2020 Abstract: Implementing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and increasing environmental issues provokes changes in consumers’ and stakeholders’ behavior. Thus, stakeholders try to invest in green companies and projects; consumers prefer to buy eco-friendly products instead of traditional ones; and consumers and investors refuse to deal with unfair green companies. In this case, the companies should quickly adapt their strategy corresponding to the new trend of transformation from overconsumption to green consumption. This process leads to increasing the frequency of using greenwashing as an unfair marketing instrument to promote the company’s green achievements. Such companies’ behavior leads to a decrease in trust in the company’s green brand from the green investors. Thus, the aim of the study is to check the impact of greenwashing on companies’ green brand.
    [Show full text]
  • Science in the Service of Animal Welfare
    Science in the Service of Animal Welfare Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Annual Report 2008-2009 Annual Report The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, founded in 1926, is an internationally recognised, independent, scientific and educational animal welfare charity concerned with promoting high standards of welfare for farm, companion, laboratory and captive wild animals, and for those animals with which we interact in the wild. It works to improve animals’ lives by: • Promoting and supporting developments in the science and technology that underpin advances in animal welfare • Promoting education in animal care and welfare • Providing information, organising meetings, and publishing books, videos, articles, technical reports and the journal Animal Welfare • Providing expert advice to government departments and other bodies and helping to draft and amend laws and guidelines • Enlisting the energies of animal keepers, scientists, veterinarians, lawyers and others who care about animals Photograph Credits Dr Cathryn Mellersh p3 courtesy of the Animal Health Trust. Broiler p7 courtesy of Louise Buckley. Sheep p9 courtesy of Bluemoondog Pictures. Elephant p9 courtesy of Dr Chris Sherwin. Zoo Outreach p10 courtesy of The Zoo Outreach Organisation. © UFAW 2009. Published by UFAW, The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK. Tel: +44 1582 831818 Fax: +44 1582 831414 Website: www.ufaw.org.uk Email: [email protected] Printed on NAPM approved recycled paper Science in the Service of Animal Welfare 1 Letter from the Chief Executive’s Chairman Report It gives me great pleasure to Fifty years ago William report another very Russell and Rex Burch’s ‘The successful year for the Principles of Humane charity with many notable Experimental Technique’ achievements, confirmation was published.
    [Show full text]
  • Crowdsourcing, Citizen Science Or Volunteered Geographic Information? the Current State of Crowdsourced Geographic Information
    International Journal of Geo-Information Article Crowdsourcing, Citizen Science or Volunteered Geographic Information? The Current State of Crowdsourced Geographic Information Linda See 1,*, Peter Mooney 2, Giles Foody 3, Lucy Bastin 4, Alexis Comber 5, Jacinto Estima 6, Steffen Fritz 1, Norman Kerle 7, Bin Jiang 8, Mari Laakso 9, Hai-Ying Liu 10, Grega Milˇcinski 11, Matej Nikšiˇc 12, Marco Painho 6, Andrea P˝odör 13, Ana-Maria Olteanu-Raimond 14 and Martin Rutzinger 15 1 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, Laxenburg A2361, Austria; [email protected] 2 Department of Computer Science, Maynooth University, Maynooth W23 F2H6, Ireland; [email protected] 3 School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; [email protected] 4 School of Engineering and Applied Science, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK; [email protected] 5 School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK; [email protected] 6 NOVA IMS, Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), 1070-312 Lisboa, Portugal; [email protected] (J.E.); [email protected] (M.P.) 7 Department of Earth Systems Analysis, ITC/University of Twente, Enschede 7500 AE, The Netherlands; [email protected] 8 Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, Division of GIScience, University of Gävle, Gävle 80176, Sweden; [email protected] 9 Finnish Geospatial Research Institute, Kirkkonummi 02430, Finland; mari.laakso@nls.fi 10 Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), Kjeller 2027, Norway; [email protected]
    [Show full text]