International animal welfare initiatives: Engaging stakeholders with improvement across borders Michelle Lea Sinclair

BA (Psychology and Human Resources) MSc (International Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law)

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2020 School of Veterinary Science

1 Abstract In the fields of commercial marketing, human resources management, politics, education and international development, the importance and benefits of engaging target audiences is readily appreciated. Key to developing an effective strategy to engage targeted groups of people into an idea or product, is understanding the group; their motivations, their challenges, their solutions, and the benefits and environment in which they would consider engaging with the product or idea in question. This notion is rarely understood or applied in not-for-profit fields. This is particularly the case in animal welfare, which may be confounded by the fundamental focus of the movement—being that of the animals themselves and their wellbeing, rather than humans. Animal welfare and protection is a social cause of high significance. It is important to citizens across cultures; important to political agendas, business enterprises, and to the animals themselves. As the movement has grown, so has the academic field of animal welfare science and, with it, our knowledge of what animals prefer and biologically, physiologically and psychologically need, in order to improve their welfare. Animals, however, are very rarely in a position to choose whether or not these needs are met, in order to improve their own welfare. There has been very limited empirical consideration of people’s (as opposed to animals’) perspectives about improving animal welfare, and even less is understood about the perspectives of the key stakeholders tasked with making critical decisions about the welfare of animals at critical times, such as slaughter, and in intensive farming systems. Farm animals could be considered the most numerous, economically significant and societally pertinent interface between humans and other species. For this reason, engagement of key livestock stakeholders in improving animal welfare could have major positive effects on the experiences of farm animals, with a consequent reduction of their suffering on a large and meaningful scale. Considering global livestock production, the Asian region produces more animals than any other region, and China produces more animals than any other country in the world; 39% of the total world output. As the world is continuing to globalise and not-for-profit initiatives are increasingly seeking to operate across borders, particularly in Asia, it is of paramount importance to identify strategies for working collaboratively; to test ‘western’ presumptions and theories for cross- cultural applicability, and for respecting and understanding culture as it applies to this issue. Culture is the most significant demographic shaping attitudes to animal welfare (Phillips et al. 2012; Sinclair et al. 2017a). Therefore, cultural consideration could be seen as crucial for effective understanding of attitudes and perceptions of the global livestock stakeholders. To summarise, although the welfare of farm animals (arguably the subset of animals most important to humankind’s welfare) is globally significant, knowledge gaps exist; little is known about the motivations and perceptions of livestock stakeholders or their solutions to animal welfare issues. These are the stakeholders most able to implement necessary critical improvement. Even less is known about livestock stakeholders in Asian countries (the largest animal farming region of the world). This thesis presents a body of work that begins to address these gaps. In a novel approach to farm animal welfare, focus groups were held with livestock leaders across China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, India and Bangladesh, centred around their perceptions of animal welfare issues, the barriers to improvement, the factors that motivate their interest in animal welfare, and their suggested solutions to overcoming animal welfare challenges. This included a discussion on willingness to embrace pre-slaughter stunning for animal welfare reasons. Interviews were also conducted with leaders of the largest international animal welfare organisations operating in the countries and key tenets of successful programs were identified. A survey was also conducted with front line farmers involved in swine and poultry

2 production in China, to better understand commonly-held perceptions towards farming systems and the animals themselves. In conclusion, the findings of the work presented in this thesis clearly demonstrate the strong relationship between perceptions and opinions around animal welfare, and the country and culture of the relevant stakeholders. Importantly, it also highlights the importance of engaging livestock stakeholders into farm animal welfare initiatives, the benefits to doing so, the role of ascertaining mutual benefits as a way of facilitating that engagement, and presents some of these mutual benefits. While attempting to further understand a complex picture of motivators, barriers and solutions, this thesis also offers strategic advice and potential initiatives for farm animal welfare improvement, tailored to each country. These findings hold important implications for the field of international animal welfare management, and any party interested in the improvement of the welfare of animal across borders. It is also suggested that this local, people-based mixed methodology research approach could be applied as best practice in the development of an international animal welfare strategy. The development of anthrozoologists specialized in cross-cultural studies may provide a route by which to advise and measure initiatives for improved success into the future.

3 Declaration by author This thesis is composed of my original work and contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis. I have also clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, financial support and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award. I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the policy and procedures of The University of Queensland, the thesis be made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 unless a period of embargo has been approved by the Dean of the Graduate School. I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis and have sought permission from co- authors for any jointly-authored works included in the thesis.

4 Publications included in this thesis

Sinclair, M., Phillips, C.J.C. Key Tenets of Operational Success in International Animal Welfare Initiatives. Animals 2018, 8, 92.

Sinclair, M., Phillips, C.J.C. International Animal Protection Society Leadership: The Right People for the Right Issues. Animals 2018, 8, 89.

Sinclair, M., Yan, W., Phillips, C.J.C. Attitudes of stakeholders in the Chinese pig and poultry industries to the welfare of animals. Animals 2019, 9 (11), 860.

Sinclair, M., Idrus, Z., Nhiem, D., Katawatin, S., Todd, B., Burns, G.L., Phillips, C.J.C. Motivations for Industry Stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia to Improve Livestock Welfare. Animals 2019, 9, 416.

Sinclair, M., Idrus, Z., Burns, G. L., & Phillips, C. J.C. Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter Stunning in Key Asian Countries. Animals 2019 9(5), 224.

Sinclair, M., Fryer, C., Phillips, C.J.C. The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of Livestock Stakeholders across Asia. Animals 2019, 9, 123.

Sinclair, M., Phillips, C.J.C. Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues. Animals 2019, 9, 319.

Submitted manuscripts included in this thesis

All manuscripts contained in this thesis have been published in full.

Other publications during candidature

Published manuscripts

Sinclair, M., Morton, J., Phillips, C.J.C. Turning Intentions into Animal Welfare Improvement in the Asian Livestock Sector. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 2018, 4, pp.1-15.

Sinclair, M., Derkley, T., Fryer, C., Phillips, C.J.C. Australian public opinions regarding the live export trade before and after an animal welfare media expose. Animals 2018, 8(7), p.106.

Li, X., Zito, S., Sinclair, M., Phillips, C.J.C. Perception of animal welfare issues during Chinese transport and slaughter of livestock by a sample of stakeholders in the industry. PloS one 2018, 13(6), p.e0197028.

Erian, I., Sinclair, M., Phillips, C.J.C. Knowledge of Stakeholders in the Livestock Industries of East and Southeast Asia about Welfare during Transport and Slaughter and Its Relation to Their Attitudes to Improving Animal Welfare. Animals 2019, 9(3), p.99.

5

Descovich, K., Li, X., Sinclair, M., Wang, Y., Phillips, C.J.C. The Effect of Animal Welfare Training on the Knowledge and Attitudes of Abattoir Stakeholders in China. Animals 2019, 9(11), p.989.

Contributions by others to the thesis

PhD supervisors Prof Clive JC Phillips & Dr Georgette Leah Burns: Editorial advice throughout the thesis, and published papers contained within. Methodological input and advice on research components.

Field research Claire Fryer: Field assisting, development of field notes.

Academic collaborators in Asia Prof Zulkifli Idrus (Malaysia), Dr Suporn Katawatin (Thailand), Dr Wang Yan (China), Dr Duong van Nhiem (Vietnam), Dr Abdul Rahman (India), Dr M. Ariful Islam (Bangladesh): coordinating attendance and logistics for research sessions in respective countries.

Manuscript co-authors As outlined at the onset of each chapter.

PhD Thesis Editor Brendon Todd: Editorial oversight of the thesis.

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree No works submitted towards another degree have been included in this thesis.

Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects All research pertaining to this thesis and the publications within it were approved by the University of Queensland Human Ethics Committee (approval number 2017000628). Please find the project ethical approval letter contained in the appendix of this thesis.

6 Acknowledgements The PhD candidate wishes to acknowledge the editorial and content advice received from her PhD supervisors, Prof Clive JC Phillips and Dr Georgette Leah Burns. The PhD candidate also acknowledges thesis editor Brendon Todd for editorial oversight and contribution. The author wishes to sincerely thank Lewis Bollard and Amanda Hungerford, whom without their support this body of work would not have been possible.

7 Financial support This PhD student was supported by a University of Queensland PhD scholarship, a ‘top-up’ scholarship from the Open Philanthropy Project, and a single award of the George Osborne Scholarship through the School of Veterinary Science. This research was supported by the Open Philanthropy Project, Washington DC.

Keywords Animal welfare, stakeholders, international, engagement, Asia, solutions, benefits, leadership, strategy, anthrozoology

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC) ANZSRC code: 070207, Humane Animal Treatment, 40% ANZSRC code: 200209, Multicultural, Intercultural and Cross-cultural Studies, 40% ANZSRC code: 070799, Veterinary Sciences not elsewhere classified, 20%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification FoR code: 0702, Animal Production, 40% FoR code: 2002, Cultural Studies, 40% FoR code: 0707, Veterinary Sciences, 20%

Dedications This PhD thesis is dedicated to the author’s parents (Stuart Sinclair, Andrea and Brendon Todd), and her dogs (Moppy and WilburPig); for their unrelenting moral support and encouragement in undertaking a PhD.

8 List of Tables in Thesis # Title Section Page number 1 Key tenets of successful international welfare initiatives (Chapter 3.4 Results 38 One): Frequency of nodes identified to themes and subthemes as a proportion of total participants (n = 15) and number of times the theme was mentioned, according to the attributed hierarchy. 2 Key tenets of successful international welfare initiatives (Chapter 3.4 Results 40 One): Frequency of words associated with successful initiatives. 3 International animal protection society leadership: The right people 4.4 Results 53 for the right issues (Chapter Two): Summary and frequency of nodes (identified occurring theme). 4 International animal protection society leadership: The right people 4.4 Results 55 for the right issues (Chapter Two): Themes and words cited in relation to the question “What makes a good international animal welfare leader?”

5 Attitudes of stakeholders in Chinese pig and poultry farming 5.4.1 Results: 66 industries to the welfare of animals (Chapter Three): Description of Demographics respondent demographics 6 Attitudes of stakeholders in Chinese pig and poultry farming 5.4.2 Results: 69 industries to the welfare of animals (Chapter Three): Responses to Attitudes to pigs general attitude questions about animal welfare, with differences and chickens in between mean responses farming systems 7 Attitudes of stakeholders in Chinese pig and poultry farming 5.4.2 Results: 69 industries to the welfare of animals (Chapter Three): Responses to Attitudes to pigs attitude questions about the impact of type of pig and chicken farming and chickens in system on animal welfare, with differences between mean responses farming systems 8 Attitudes of stakeholders in Chinese pig and poultry farming 5.4.2 Results: 70 Attitudes to pigs industries to the welfare of animals (Chapter Three): Attitude towards and chickens in farming systems pigs and their behaviour, with differences between mean responses

9 Attitudes of stakeholders in Chinese pig and poultry farming 5.4.2 Results: 71 industries to the welfare of animals (Chapter Three): Attitude towards Attitudes to pigs chickens and their behaviour, with differences between mean and chickens in responses farming systems 10 Motivations for industry stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand 6.3.1 Analysis 79 and Malaysia to improve livestock welfare (Chapter Four): Location of focus groups and abbreviation codes used in quote citations.

11 Motivations for industry stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand 6.3.1 Analysis 80 and Malaysia to improve livestock welfare (Chapter Four): Summary of top five rankings factors influencing attitudes to animal welfare, from most important (top) to least important (bottom) by Chinese (n = 381), Thai (n = 307), Malaysian (n = 124) and Vietnamese (n = 210) respondents, as presented in Sinclair et al in 2017a. 12 Motivations for industry stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand 6.4 Results and 81 and Malaysia to improve livestock welfare (Chapter Four): Motivators Discussion (themes) and subthemes. 13 Motivations for industry stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand 6.4 Results and 81 and Malaysia to improve livestock welfare (Chapter Four): Number of Discussion participants in each stakeholder group.

14 Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter Stunning 7.3 Methods and 99 in Key Asian Countries’ (Chapter Five): Participants by location materials

9 15 Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter Stunning 7.3 Methods and 100 in Key Asian Countries’ (Chapter Five): Breakdown of stakeholder materials roles within the livestock industry, by country 16 Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter Stunning 7.4 Results and 100 in Key Asian Countries’ (Chapter Five): Likelihood to adopt stunning, discussion by and key themes, by country and region (all stunning data). country 17 Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter Stunning 7.4 Results and 101 in Key Asian Countries’ (Chapter Five): Key themes, by country, in discussion by response to the question: ‘How to encourage stunning where it isn’t country being used? 18 The benefits of improving animal welfare from the perspective of 8.3 Methods and 113 livestock across Asia (Chapter Six): Location of focus group and materials abbreviation codes used in quote citations. 19 The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of 8.3 Methods and 113 Livestock Stakeholders across Asia (Chapter Six): Breakdown of materials stakeholder participant roles within the livestock industry, by country. 20 The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of 8.4 Results 116 Livestock Stakeholders across Asia (Chapter Six): Benefits as raised by participants in each region, in each country, presented in order of most frequently raised benefit to the least (top to bottom). 21 The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of 8.4 Results 119 Livestock Stakeholders across Asia (Chapter Six): Activity outcomes where leaders were asked to rank the benefits they presented at the onset of the session, in order of importance. 22 Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, 9.3 Materials 129 and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues (Chapter Seven): Location and methods of focus groups and abbreviation codes used in quote citations. 23 Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, 9.3 Materials 129 and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues (Chapter Seven): and methods Breakdown of stakeholder participant roles within the livestock industry, by country. 24 Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, 9.4 Results 132 and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues (Chapter Seven): Group ranking of animal welfare issues, by country. 25 Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, 9.4 Results 138 and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues (Chapter Seven): Solutions to improving animal welfare presented by livestock leaders in each location. 26 Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, 9.4 Results 145 and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues (Chapter Seven): Willingness to learn calmer animal handling techniques, from a scale of 1–10 (not willing—extremely willing), by location. 27 Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, 9.5 Discussion 147 and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues (Chapter Seven): Evidence supported opportunities for international animal welfare initiatives operating in Asia. 28 Theory summary: Brief summary of motivations, perceived benefits 10 Theory 153 and potential solutions to improving farm animal welfare in Asia summary (chapters four, six and seven).

List of Figures in Thesis # Title Section Page number 1 Flow of thought in literature review 2. Literature review 16 2 Summary of literature review 2. Literature review 30 3 Flow of thought in thesis research chapters 2.6 Flow of chapters 32 4 Chapter One: Bar graph visually presenting 3.4 Results 37 the 20 most frequent words used by

10 respondents when describing successful international initiatives. 5 Chapter One: Mindmap 1: Tenets of 3.4 Results 39 successful international animal welfare initiatives 6 Chapter One: Mindmap 2: Engaging people 3.4 Results 40 7 Chapter One: Mindmap 3: The case of the 3.4 Results 49 carrot vs the stick 8 Chapter Three: The relationship between 5.2 Introduction 63 law, and financial benefit as motivators to improve animal welfare in the Asian livestock industry. 9 Chapter Four: The relationship of intrinsic 6.5 Motivator 93 and extrinsic stakeholder motivators on relationships and improving animal welfare in the Asian application livestock industry.

10 Chapter Four: The relationship between law, 6.5 Motivator 93 and financial benefit as motivators to relationships and improve animal welfare in the Asian application livestock industry. 11 Chapter Six: Comparison within countries 8.4 Results 118 regarding the appearance of certain perceived benefits for addressing animal welfare. 12 Chapter Six: Comparison between countries 8.4 Results 118 of benefit categories, based on frequency of appearance.

13 Chapter Seven: Percentage of total solutions 9.4 Results 136 by the focus groups citing each animal welfare issue in farming and slaughter rated in the top three ‘most important’. 14 Chapter Seven: The top 12 stakeholder 9.4 Results 137 suggested solutions and opportunities to improving animal welfare (% frequency with which each of the top 12 solutions was represented, across all countries). 15 Chapter Seven: Visual representation of 9.4 Results 137 the % frequency of subsets within the ‘Education and Training’ solution, across all countries. 16 Brief summary of ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ 10. Theory summary 151 in approaching the development of international animal welfare, based on the findings of this manuscript.

11 Contents 1 Introduction ...... 16 Overview ...... 16 Context: Animal Welfare Standards Project ...... 17 2 Literature Review ...... 17 The importance of international animal welfare standards ...... 18 The importance of understanding and engaging the audience ...... 21 Profit and not-for-profit: Lessons from other industries ...... 21 Identifying the audience ...... 24 Motivators for change ...... 25 The relevance of cross-cultural research ...... 27 Gaps identified and research needed ...... 30 Research questions ...... 32 Flow of publication chapters ...... 33 3 Publication: Key tenets of successful international animal welfare initiatives ...... 35 Abstract ...... 35 Introduction ...... 35 Materials and methods ...... 37 Results ...... 39 Discussion ...... 51 Conclusion ...... 52 4 Publication: International Animal Protection Society Leadership: The Right People for the Right Issues ...... 53 Abstract ...... 53 Introduction ...... 53 Materials and methods ...... 54 Results ...... 55 Discussion ...... 61 Conclusion ...... 62 5 Publication: Attitudes of Stakeholders in Chinese pig and poultry farming industries to the welfare of animals...... 64 Abstract ...... 64 Introduction ...... 64 Materials and methods ...... 66 Statistical analysis ...... 67 Results ...... 67 Demographics ...... 67 Attitudes to pigs and chickens in farming systems ...... 70 Demographic influences ...... 74 Discussion ...... 75

12 Conclusion ...... 77 6 Publication: Motivations for industry stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia to improve livestock welfare...... 78 Abstract ...... 78 Introduction ...... 78 Materials and methods ...... 80 Analysis...... 81 Results and discussion ...... 82 Motivators ...... 84 Workplace approval ...... 86 Personal knowledge ...... 87 Tools and resources ...... 90 Personal value ...... 90 Religion ...... 92 Other: financial benefit ...... 93 Other: food safety ...... 94 Motivator relationships and application ...... 94 Conclusion ...... 97 7 Publication: Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter Stunning in Key Asian Countries ...... 98 Abstract ...... 98 Introduction ...... 98 Materials and methods ...... 99 Results and discussion by country ...... 102 Conclusion ...... 110 8 Publication: The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of Livestock Stakeholders across Asia ...... 112 Abstract ...... 112 Introduction ...... 112 Materials and methods ...... 114 Results ...... 116 Discussion ...... 124 Conclusion ...... 127 9 Publication: Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues...... 128 Abstract ...... 128 Introduction ...... 129 Materials and methods ...... 130 Results ...... 133 Discussion ...... 147 Conclusion ...... 152

13 10 General Theory Discussion ...... 153 11 Conclusion ...... 161 Bibliography ...... 162 Appendix A (Study One: Survey) ...... 185 Appendix B: (Study Two: Focus Groups) ...... 191 Appendix C: Study 3 (Interviews) ...... 193 Appendix D: Ethical approval letter ...... 194

14 List of abbreviations and definitions used in the thesis

For reader ease, all abbreviations used within this thesis are defined throughout, on first appearance in each chapter.

‘Animal welfare’ throughout this thesis refers to “how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives” (OIE, 2016). In line with the ‘World Organisation for Animal Health’, formally known as ‘Office International des Epizooties’ (OIE):

An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. (OIE, 2016)

‘Culture’ throughout this thesis refers to “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” (Hofstede, 1984). In this instance, national culture is investigated in relation to, and in the context of, animal welfare and initiatives to improve animal welfare.

15 1 Introduction

Overview

Animal welfare is a social issue that is increasingly growing in international interest. This is not just the case in Europe, where 94% of citizens now state that protecting the welfare of farm animals is important (European Commission 2016). A survey with citizens of 12 culturally diverse nations (China, Spain, Iran, Serbia, Sweden, United Kingdom, Macedonia, Norway, South Korea, Portugal, Czech Republic and Ireland) showed that ‘animal protection’ was rated with the highest importance, even when measured comparatively against other world social issues such as poverty and racial inequality (Sinclair & Phillips 2017). This is of particular interest when considering the scale of animal agriculture around the world; arguably the largest interface between humans and other species, and one with potential for great suffering. The welfare of animals subjected to farming and slaughter, particularly within intensive systems, garners the focus of those concerned with animal welfare in broader contexts. If animal welfare is perceived as threatened to a degree that those who advocate for animals find intolerable, it elicits highly emotive responses in individuals at a minimum and, at its most powerful, it has the ability to jeopardise diplomatic relationships, shut down agricultural trade, and reform industries. At the centre of it all, threats to animal welfare concern the very lives, potential pain and suffering of the non- human animals with whom we share the planet. Driven by the profile of animal welfare as a shared global issue of increasing interest and power, international not-for-profits are developing initiatives aimed at improving animal welfare across borders. In some national landscapes, this is further supported by the introduction of a set of government-introduced legislation, and sometimes addressed within industry by policy aimed to improve animal welfare. These initiatives are sometimes successful, and sometimes not; the driving factors determining success or failure have not been researched to date. Animal welfare has also become an issue often associated with an inherent combativeness between those perceived as causing threats to the welfare of animals, and those identifying as advocates for the animals. The anecdotal result of this is ultimately reduced (often non-existent) lines of communication between the various groups of stakeholders involved in the welfare of animals, and what could be referred to as ‘stalemates’ in instances where potential collaboration is necessary to achieve meaningful progress. Animal advocates and industry leaders in many instances rarely meet to collaborate on animal welfare issues. Indeed, how conversation or collaboration might be nurtured successfully is also not understood. In line with this, animal welfare science and research has focussed extremely limited attention on the human stakeholders involved in animal welfare, such as livestock leaders; the very stakeholders making daily choices that have the direct ability to threaten or improve the welfare of animals. Lastly, as with any enterprise that operates across national borders, international animal welfare endeavours are heavily impacted by culture, which is also not adequately understood. This is particularly the case concerning animal welfare initiatives driven out of regions such as the European Union (EU) and countries such as the United States of America (USA), Australia and New Zealand (NZ), and being operated in Asia where dimensions of culture contrast to a large degree between the regions. This dynamic is of particular importance, with a high proportion of global animal agriculture currently conducted in the Asian region. One important country in the region (and the global stage), China, is responsible for nearly 40% of the world’s livestock production; over 60% of farmed fish and over half of the world’s pigs (FAOSTAT 2017c). Despite the importance of this

16 region, very little is known about its approach to animal welfare by advocates outside of Asia, including how best to address the issues. The aim of this PhD is to build on the research started by the candidate in her Master’s degree, to begin to understand key stakeholders involved in animal welfare in Asia in particular, and to begin understanding what may be key in animal welfare successes. This heightened understanding will facilitate the establishment of best practice approaches to international animal welfare leadership, and the development of strategic animal welfare initiatives that are more likely to be well received, and therefore more successful, across borders. This PhD thesis aims to start this process by exploring the existing multi-disciplinary literature for relevance and applicability to international animal welfare. It then identifies knowledge gaps, and presents published research that was conducted in response to these gaps. This includes manuscripts drafted from three key studies. The first consisted of interviews conducted with leaders of major international animal welfare charities to explore what constituted successful and unsuccessful initiatives they had conducted in the past, what made for effective animal welfare leaders, and how animal welfare issues were selected for focus. The second consisted of surveys conducted with Chinese swine and poultry farmers in the largest livestock producing provinces in China, the focus of which was their perception of animal welfare, intensive and extensive farming systems, and the animals themselves. The final and largest study contained within this PhD thesis involved focus groups with livestock leaders across key Asian countries (China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and Bangladesh), in which leaders were asked what might motivate livestock industries to improve animal welfare, what might be the perceived benefits in doing so, what animal welfare issues were most important to them, and what some solutions might be for improving animal welfare in their country. The final component of this thesis draws together the results from these studies, and the seven manuscripts presented as chapters, and presents overall theory and application, with attention to possibilities for the future and progress of the international animal welfare movement.

Context: Animal Welfare Standards Project

The Animal Welfare Standards Project (phase II) is the umbrella project under which this research falls. A successful funding bid of $320,000 was made by the current PhD thesis author (who is also the Project Manager) to one major funder (Open Philanthropy Project, Washington DC) to support this project, and the research contained within this PhD thesis. Advised by the findings of the research within this thesis, a funding bid of $2.2 million was made to the same funding body to establish a locally coordinated ‘Sino-Australian Animal Welfare Centre’ in Beijing and build a network of regional collaborators throughout China for the purpose of capacity building Chinese animal welfare experts. This funding bid was successful, and is now underway. The project’s website (and many of the fully translated training material so far developed by the project) is available at www.animalwelfarestandards.org).

2 Literature Review

This literature review is divided into six sections and the following figure (Figure 1) demonstrates the flow of thought that underpins these sections, the logic of their order and the reasoning for the forthcoming research presented within this PhD thesis.

17 Figure 1: Flow of thought in literature review.

Animal welfare standards are important, and improvement is needed (2.1)

Sustainable and meaninful change requires engagement of stakeholders (2.2)

Engaging stakeholders requires understanding stakeholders (2.2.1)

... which first requires identifying who the most powerful stakeholders are (2.2.2)

... and what might motivate them to engage and change (2.2.3)

... integral to which is culture, and the investigation of the context of animal welfare by culture (2.3)

In light of this, what are the gaps in our knowledge? (2.4)

What are the research questions? (2.5)

What research has been conducted and how is it presented in this thesis? (2.6)

The importance of international animal welfare standards

Kofi Annan (Annan 2000) claims that ‘arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity’. There is little debate that the world is becoming a smaller place, with technology fueling a powerful process started by trade, and resulting in a shared and

18 overlapping global community to an extent not seen before (Levitt 1993). Major events and incidents in one country are not just developments of significance for that country alone (Zastrow 2009). This is the case for war, politics, technology, science, commerce and trade. On highlighting this increasing interdependence, Martin Luther King Jnr famously stated that ‘before you’ve finished eating your breakfast this morning, you’ve depended on more than half the world’ (King 1967). Although less understood, this can also be seen to be the case for social progression initiatives, which are increasingly seeking to operate beyond their original borders to further their cause (Bennett 2005). The social movement for equal marriage rights for identified LGBTI members, for example, has been gaining international momentum recently, with pro- equality bills being passed in a growing number of countries (Human Rights Law Centre 2013). This is likely to be, in part, attributable to increased exposure of not-for-profits in the emerging social media (Lovejoy & Saxton 2012). Another such initiative, and the focus of this submission and resulting studies, is that of animal welfare. It has been argued that a ‘growing circle of compassion’ exists within western cultures. That is, a progression of social concerns that has addressed the rights of, in chronological order, men, women, children, LGBTI, people with disability, and finally, animals (Phillips 2008). The population in many highly developed nations is increasingly concerned with animal welfare, such as those in Europe (Blandford et al. 2002; European Commission 2016), North America (Mench 2008; Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production 2008) and Australia (Phillips et al. 2009), and this also seems to be the case in rapidly developing nations, such as China and India (You et al. 2014; Bayne et al. 2015). Many more countries now have some form of domestic legislation to protect animals from cruelty, as compared with the past, with many other countries looking at developing legislation (World Animal Protection 2017). In fact, it appears that animal welfare and ‘animal protection’ may be not only increasing in importance across a multitude of nations, but also may be rated as highly important when considered alongside other major world social issues. One recent study by the current author and colleagues compared ‘animal protection’ against other issues such as poverty, racial equality, women’s rights and LGBTI rights and found that the issue consistently ranked of the highest importance next to ‘environmental protection’ amongst university students in 12 culturally varied countries including Scandinavian, Asian, Middle Eastern and other European countries (Sinclair & Phillips 2017). There are many reasons why animal welfare may be seen as an important issue faced by societies. The first reason cited for considering animal welfare is an ethical one; the experiences of other living sentient creatures, including potential suffering they are exposed to at the hands of the human species, matters in itself. In addition to the ethical animal-based arguments, some literature draws attention to reasons for addressing animal welfare concerns that impact society at large. These include that an acceptance of animal suffering can be responsible for desensitizing populations into reduced empathy; the ethical need to be consistent in values (Langford 1989) and for some religions and philosophies, a respect for the sanctity of life in all shapes and sizes (Szucs et al. 2012). Perhaps not as persuasive, but morally fueled, is that many people consider improving the welfare of animals to be ‘the right thing to do’. Other reasons exist for considering and improving animal welfare that are not based in ethics and philosophy. Two of these reasons are based in economy and trade relations. Farm animals (the most numerous contingent of non-human animals at the human-animal interface) are less productive, less safe to handle, and have poorer meat quality post mortem if they are stressed and suffering (Harley et al. 2012; Vetter et al. 2014) Furthermore, with the trade in animal products ever increasing, countries such as China, responsible for 39% of the animal agriculture in the world (FAOSTAT 2017c), are exporting to nations that have higher animal

19 welfare expectations. In this case, it is obvious to also see the issue of animal welfare as one of trade relations. The sudden shut down of a trade of live animals from Australia to Indonesia in 2011 reportedly cost the largest cattle producer in Australia $50 million in losses and damaged trade relations between the countries (Everingham & O'Brien 2014). This sudden move was motivated by a public outcry when details of poor welfare, including cruelty to the animals involved, were made public in Australia (Everingham & O'Brien 2014). While varied in focus, the reasons cited for improving animal welfare are numerous, and future sustainability in the face of increasing population food requirements make the risks of reduced welfare associated with further intensification an even more critical. The final reason for improving animal welfare standards discussed here is a legal one. The World Animal Health Organisation (OIE), which operates as the referral body of the United Nations (UN) for non-human animal related policy, has minimum animal welfare standards to which 181 countries have signed (OIE 2017). These codes are based on a scientific understanding of the animal’s experiences, and best practice standards for critical moments of welfare such as slaughter and transportation (OIE 2016). However, there is no implementation or enforcement of the standards by OIE and many of the countries that signed up to these standards are failing to implement them (Olavarria 2008). The question then moves from ‘if’ there is a need to address animal welfare internationally, to ‘how’ we can address it, and ‘who’ is best placed to drive that change. In relation to animal welfare, the primary stakeholder is the animal whose welfare is the topic of the question. While it is unmistakable that the animals are indeed the focus of this cause, seldom are they in a position to make changes to their welfare state themselves; i.e., they have little opportunity for choice. It is therefore suggested that the people making decisions for the welfare of those animals are indeed the key stakeholder in this issue. Accepting this is the case, very little focus, operationally or empirically, has been given to this ‘people’ element of animal welfare, in favour of ‘animal rescue’ and ‘animal-centric’ welfare science. Reflecting this, the field of animal welfare does not yet have best practice international initiative strategies, nor is there an effective strategy for understanding and engaging the key stakeholders. Accepting the importance of an effective international animal welfare strategy, the remainder of this literature review will explore theories and evidence from other industries and fields that may be relevant to animal welfare and not-for-profit strategy more broadly. It will also focus on who the stakeholders might be, and utilise a novel anthrozoological interdisciplinary approach to identifying gaps in research and therefore, applicable practice.

“We live in a small world with big problems; problems that can only be resolved if people with different national cultures learn to understand each other better than they do now”. (Hofstede 1984)

20 The importance of understanding and engaging the audience

As discussed, there is a strong argument for improving animal welfare in an international context. The field however, does not yet have best practice strategies for those initiatives, or indeed strategies for understanding and engaging the key stakeholders. Other fields though, have developed theory and strategy that may be applied to this purpose. Over the history of industrial development, independent fields have been progressing to a developed level of maturation. At maturation, it appears that many fields, such as those of economics and business design for example, begin to look for multidisciplinary approaches to the provision of continued innovation. One example of bringing a multidisciplinary approach, in the context of an animal field, is that of ‘zoobiquity’, which explores how human and non- human animal commonalities can be used to diagnose, treat, and heal patients of all (animal) species (Horowitz & Bowers 2012). New, innovative and successful programs and protocol have resulted from combining mutually beneficial information across the medical disciplines, such as improvements in cardiology procedures brought about by knowledge sharing between chimpanzee cardiologists and human cardiologists. Animal welfare has also been substantially growing, albeit mostly in isolation. To the credit of some pioneering animal welfare scientists around the world, animal welfare science has come a long way in a short period of time (Broom 2011). From the humble beginnings of the field, with the appointment of the world’s first Professor of Animal Welfare, Professor Donald Broom at Cambridge University in 1986, we now see exponential growth of the field, with a generous contingent of animal welfare scientists placed all over the world (Broom 2011). Due to this, we can now describe the experiences of other species, define categories which need to be satisfied to provide a ‘life worth living’, understand environments and situations that cause suffering to other species, and most importantly, have ways of learning about what we can change to ease suffering. What we do not know yet, is much about the people who have the power to implement these changes and, ultimately, what might motivate them to do so. Applying multidisciplinary approaches to animal welfare issues provides the opportunity to present innovating and novel ways of addressing the issues the field faces. One concept, borrowed from other fields (such as human resources, commerce, marketing, international business management, education and politics), that could be immediately applicable, is the importance of ‘engagement’. While it has many slightly varied definitions depending if it is used in the field of human resources, business, education, marketing or psychology; ‘engagement,’ as it is used here most closely refers to stakeholder engagement. That is, that companies engage their stakeholders in dialogue to find out what social and environmental issues matter most to them about their performance in order to improve decision-making and accountability (Vassallo 2016). Engagement here also refers to the encouragement of collaboration for the purpose of increasing ‘buy-in’. It refers to, in this review and the resulting study designs, the time after stakeholders have been motivated, and are now invested (or, have ‘bought-in’) to the cause of improving animal welfare. While limited work has been conducted around the people factors of animal welfare, many concepts such as ‘engagement theory’, ‘understanding target audience’ and ‘customer research’ exist in other disciplines (such as business) and can be discussed in an animal welfare context. Some relevant theories that could be included in a new direction or sub-stream of anthrozoology (as focused on animal welfare) are discussed here, with attention paid to the differences and gaps that may exist.

Profit and not-for-profit: lessons from other industries The critical resources for any organisation are the people inside it. In fact, in the contemporary business sphere it is argued that an organisation IS its people (Branson 2014).

21 Acknowledging this reality gave birth to the human resources industry, and under this notion, a vast amount of literature has been created around the ways to maximise this resource, to ‘get the most out of people’ (Harter et al. 2002). There is consensus in the literature, and amongst leaders in the field, that employee teams are most productive when they are ‘engaged’ in an organisation and with their purpose within that organisation. The correlation between engagement and achievement is frequently made across many fields such as education, human resources and marketing. Literature demonstrates higher levels of academic achievement with engaged students in education (Klem & Connell 2004), and higher levels of financial investment by customers engaged with a product or brand (Sashi 2012). Rather than seeing consumers as a passive receiver of messages, engagement marketers believe “the target audience should be actively involved in the production and co- creation of marketing programs, developing a relationship with the brand” (Linkedin 2017). Engagement, according to the field of psychology “refers to the state in which individuals express their entire self: physically, cognitively, and emotionally in their role” (Kahn 1990, pp. 692). Applied to the workplace, within the human resources literature, the definition is slightly transformed, with tangible action, to “employee engagement illustrates the commitment and energy that employees bring to work, and is a key indicator of their involvement and dedication to the organization” (HR Council Canada 2017). The benefits of having an engaged target audience are widely reported. Although not investigated, this theory could hold great relevance to stakeholders when it comes to a not- for-profit progression cause such as animal welfare. If the need to make improvements to animal welfare is accepted, it requires the efforts of people who have invested in the cause for whatever motivational reasons of importance to them, then engagement theory may be directly applicable. When considering engagement, the vast field of international development has applied some emphasis to application in not-for-profit endeavours. One marine ecosystem study highlights the newfound importance of engaging stakeholders, stating that many scientists and resource managers now agree that effectively engaging marine stakeholders is key for a successful ecosystem management regime (Pomeroy & Douvere 2008). Another international development study, focussed on global health, found that where community engagement did not exist, all research and application efforts were undermined (Tindana et al. 2007). In addition to the recognition of the importance of engagement in some disciplines of international development, one other area in which engagement has been seemingly applied with consistency in a not-for-profit sense is ‘donor engagement’. Some studies have not only outlined the importance of engaging donors to a not-for-profit cause, but have also outlined strategies for doing so (McLeish 2010). While this can assist not-for-profit causes by ‘making us money’, we do not yet know how to apply this theory to ‘make us better’. That is, how to engage people to the actual cause fundraised for. By this theory, and using the example of livestock stakeholders and animal welfare, livestock stakeholders may be more likely to initiate improvement to the welfare of the animals in their care if they are invested in the cause of improving animal welfare for reasons meaningful to them. In summary, enterprises benefit greatly when their audience is engaged with their cause. When considering that a not-for profit cause is like an organisation, in that it relies entirely on the people within it, parallels can be drawn between the need to engage people in for-profit and not-for-profit alike. Although there is no literature found on engagement theory in relation to not-for-profit stakeholders, the theory is transferable. Differences in ‘how to’ achieve engagement are likely to exist between profit and not-for-profit sectors; and the ways in which to elicit stakeholder engagement into not-for-profit initiatives need investigation.

22 “… effective stakeholder engagement is increasingly contributing to organisational resilience and flexibility, to learning and innovation, to the identification of new opportunities, and ultimately to the improvement of sustainable performance.” (Australian Government Department of Health 2017, pp. 1)

Understanding the audience In the realm of marketing for commercial endeavours, the value of engaging customers to a brand, and understanding the audience in order to do that through market research, is well acknowledged and considered vital (McQuarrie 2005; Andreasen & Kotler 2008). Professionals in the business world warn of the ‘one size fits all’ approach to luring customers to engage with their product and advocate having a complete understanding of the target audience. Cited in Forbes (Evans 2013), this includes understanding who influences decisions to engage with a product, their needs and problems, what they are trying to achieve, and how they can be successful. Market research is the method by which this is achieved. ‘Market research’, is defined as:

“The systematic gathering and interpretation of information about individuals or organizations using statistical and analytical methods and techniques of the applied social sciences to gain insight or support decision making.” (ICC/ESOMAR 2008, pp. 6)

Although understanding the audience is considered a key step to success in commercial endeavours, it has not always been the case. The iconic ‘admen’ (advertising professionals in New York during the 1950’s), with the rise of the grand commercial and the heyday for burgeoning advertising agencies, slowly began to see the advantage to their advertising campaigns of understanding their audiences on deeper psychological levels (Samuel 2013). Major advertising agencies began engaging the services of psychologists to gain valuable insights into their audiences, leading to the development of more successful advertising campaigns, which in turn translated into exponential sales increases (Samuel 2013). While there is a lack of empirical evidence for the benefits of market research, the concept is anecdotally well accepted and may be dismissed as too obvious to be the focus of current day studies. This may also be supported by the existence of vast amount of empirical literature that instead focuses on how to best conduct market research, and theories within market research. The numerous large companies that exist to conduct market research cite many benefits to investing in them. Some of these include: minimising required investment, identifying potential, discovering strengths and weaknesses of approaches, spotting trends, allowing business to stay ahead of competition, understanding customer needs and demands, industry analysis, evaluating success, and challenges to success (Market Analyst 2013). Top international marketing consulting firms recommend understanding the target audience then creating a product the target audience needs, rather than developing a product and then attempting to market it to an audience (Silver Egg Media 2016). Today, commercial psychology, more specifically, how best to influence people into buying a product or using your service, is well established and thriving. Not knowing your audience is considered the most basic of all errors in business (Evans 2013). The commercial marketing industry is not the only industry that has evolved to base their strategy around knowing their audience. Political parties have long attributed successes to understanding voters and tailoring their campaigns around the whims of their voters for political success (Popkin 1994). ‘Know your enemy’ has long provided inspiration for generals of war and business leaders alike (Tzu 5th century BC). Although understood across

23 industries, the concept has not been applied, in general, to not-for-profit endeavours and social progress initiatives. As with engaging audiences, literature for understanding audiences in relation to increasing donor giving exists, but very little exists in relation to the actual cause (White 1995). One exception in animal welfare is the important work completed in attempting to understand the motivations felt by people that engage in purposefully cruel acts against domestic animals, in some western countries. Ascione and Arkow (1999) identified ‘cycle of violence’ linkages that found that many people who committed cruel violence against animals had been treated violently themselves as a child. This area of literature also found that many violent crimes against people are committed by people who are likely to have started displaying their violent tendencies with animals as the victims. This has also been linked to a lack of empathy in general (McPhedran 2009). Examples of the importance of understanding the target audience for maximal engagement can also be found in the literature on best practice education (Entwistle & Ramsden 2015), including humane education (the promotion of prosocial behavior and empathy towards other species). Humane education aims to teach empathetic attitudes toward other species, to encourage people to take responsibility for their actions, to promote kindness to other species, and in doing so to other people, and to combat a perceived decline in moral values (Horsthemke 2009). An understanding of students’ existing attitudes to other animals is key to successful humane education, primarily because it offers direction as to what needs to be addressed in the program. A literature review of international development fields also shows some studies, such as those in ecosystem management and global health initiatives, that highlight the critical importance of identifying and understanding different stakeholders pertaining to their cause, including understanding their practices, expectations and interests (Pomeroy & Douvere 2008). While heartening and helpful in the progression of the cause, this level of research into understanding the target audience is not common in animal welfare, and may have only been investigated given the direct implications to human welfare, and strategies to avoid human- to-human violence. The literature about understanding consumer audiences is unanimous in agreement that if you understand your audience, you have a much better chance of eliciting engagement and buy in, which is integral for any product, whether it be one from a not-for- profit organisation or a commercial organization (Berry 2005). Although the principal of understanding audiences has not been widely applied to animal welfare endeavours, it should be directly applicable and, like other industries, is likely to see vastly improved strategy and success for doing so. Attempting to manage activities and enact initiatives across borders without local knowledge and tailoring, risks entire failure (Nasierowski & Mikula 1998). This can be confounded when adding the common presupposition of not-for-profit initiatives that a gap exists between what ‘should’ be occurring, for ethical and moral reasons, and what actually ‘is’ currently occurring in the country of attention. In this case, operating without local understanding and engagement may not only result in reduced success, but may also result in the organisation being perceived as dictatorial, patronizing, colonial or potentially racist. Understanding the audience in not-for-profit causes like animal welfare, could be achieved using similar research methodologies being used in other fields; quantitative data collection via surveys used to direct focus of qualitative data collection via focus groups and interviews (Kvale 2009; Charmaz 2014; Krueger 2014; Patton 2015). To begin this process, the target audience needs first to be identified.

Identifying the audience In the business world, ‘Stakeholder Theory’, acknowledges that those who are important to an organisation or process are not limited to its shareholders. Stakeholder theory is based on

24 the ‘principle of who really counts’ (Freeman & Edward 1984), and seeks to initiate careful consideration of who the relevant stakeholder may be in each situation. Although contested as to what specific groups count as ‘stakeholders’ (Miles 2011), the literature often extends the title, for the business world, to include employees, customers, suppliers, financiers, communities, governmental bodies and political groups. If this theory applies to not-for- profits, in addition to that of for-profit business, it then becomes important to identify who the stakeholders may be when creating strategy, just as it is a prerequisite to understanding your audience in the field of advertising marketing. In the field of marketing, the target audience are those to whom a business wishes to ‘sell’; those who are making the critical decisions around the marketed product or, if adapted to social progress projects, the cause (Kendall 2007). Specifically, to influence those whose behaviour you are hoping to impact for buy in. When the aim is to encourage product buy in and shape product buying behaviour, the direct target audience is not necessarily the end consumer, but the customer – the purchaser. This is not to suggest that other stakeholders are not important and helpful to understand in shaping strategy, however the direct stakeholder who is of the highest priority to understand, is the stakeholder making the actual critical choices at the time; for example, a mother purchasing a product for which her children are the consumers. The children as stakeholders (and end consumers) may assist as a motivator behind the choices a mother makes (say, based on taste preferences), but the mother ultimately makes the choice (Ahuja 1998). The information on what is driving and motivating her decisions and behaviour is therefore of critical importance when developing a strategy to change those decisions and behaviour. The same could be re-applied to the not- for-profit parallel, and in this case, livestock agriculture stakeholders making key decisions and behavioural choices that directly impact animal welfare during farming and during slaughter, rather than the end consumer. Another process that can be used to identify the target audience is a business theory called ‘market segmentation’. Market segmentation is the process by which businesses divide the target audience into segments, based on specific characteristics (such as demographics) to identify those groups, and to identify markets with potential for growth. This refers to groups of people that have the ability to deliver a desired effect; increased sales or, in the case of applying this theory to not-for-profits, progress in the area of the cause. Specifically considering the cause of improving animal welfare for livestock internationally, the segment that can deliver the greatest improvements could again be identified as the stakeholders making the welfare choices that affect the animals most directly. The demographic by which the market could be further segmented in this area is nationality. The reasons for this will be discussed in the coming section, 2.3 The relevance of cross-cultural research. The subset of stakeholders that constitute the focus of the upcoming studies—livestock stakeholders across Asia—have not been researched before in the context of animal welfare, outside of preliminary work completed by the author and colleagues. The possible reasons for this include the difficulty in gaining access to this target audience, a lack of priority given to animal welfare within these countries (reducing the chances of domestic researchers focusing attention on the area), the challenges of cross-cultural research for foreign researchers, and finally, as a result of the lack of previous focus on, or awareness of, the importance of the human aspects of animal welfare.

Motivators for change After identifying the relevant audience, a fundamental step to understanding their behavior is to investigate their motivations. Outlining key definitions of human motivation, this chapter section also discusses prominent theory literature pertaining to the generation of motivation. Reflecting the complexity of the process, a multitude of definitions exist for the phenomenon

25 of motivation (Kleinginna & Kleinginna 1981). One of the most all-inclusive definitions found is “Motive … refers to all forces, internal or external, involved in accounting for the instigation, direction, and termination of behavior” (Lefrancois 1980; Kleinginna & Kleinginna 1981, pp. 286) Broadly adapted to modern applied literature, motivation refers to “the forming of an intention” (Webb et al. 2010). The formulation of which comprises internal psychological processing, facilitated or mitigated by a variety of situational or environmental factors. What is clear is that motivation is an important precursor to engagement; humans do not tend to engage with a product, a business or an ideal, unless they are first motivated to do so. Here, this refers to motivation to engage with the concept of animal welfare, and in activities aimed at improving animal welfare. As a key focus in the field of psychology, how human behaviour change comes about is both complex and multifactorial (Michie et al. 2009). The Theory of Planned Behaviour outlines that behaviour intentions (motivations) are a function of attitudes (in this context, towards animals and animal welfare) and subjective norms (for example, the perceived importance of animal welfare to others) (Ajzen 1985). The Elaboration Likelihood Model outlines routes to message acceptance (in this context, animal welfare needs to be improved) with the aim being a change in reference values (for example, the importance of animals). The Protection Motivation Theory outlines that, with self-protection as the underlying goal, attitude, perceived risks and personal control are the predictors to intention (motivation) to act (Rogers 1975); and within the Social Cognitive Theory, intention (motivation) is viewed as an important determinant of future behaviour, with specific emphasis also placed on the role of self-efficacy and outcome expectancies (for example, am I likely to be able to improve animal welfare?) (Bandura 1977). The Hierarchy of Needs Model of human motivation outlines that people are motivated based on levels of their needs, and only move to be motivated towards other goals once the base levels have been satisfied (i.e. food and water, shelter, security, belongingness and on upwards) (Maslow 1943). Lastly, the Transtheoretical Model outlines that motivation takes different forms at different stages of the process of change; from the pre-contemplation stage (no change is even contemplated), all the way through to maintenance of the change, and termination (Prochaska & Levesque 2002). As with most areas of human psychology, no single model or theory is accepted as universally ‘correct’, and different models are applied in different situations, by different practitioners, with potentially different results. What is not debated though, is that the precursor to behaviour change is the impetus to do so; motivation, in some shape or form. Understanding the processes behind human behaviour is helpful, however when considering information with a practical application, understanding key motivators and barriers to changing behaviour may be more relevant when aiming for engagement with not-for-profit causes. Targeting the right audiences and discovering what might motivate them to improve animal welfare will allow targeted efforts with reduced resources, directed to the individuals that are most empowered to enact the changes. Fields such as criminology have researched motivation with the ultimate purpose of reducing reoffending behaviours. When focusing on sex offenders, after conducting a literature review on motivations, one study (Tierney & McCabe 2002) presented variables that were believed to impact motivation; cognitive variables such as beliefs and attitudes, cognitive dissonance and cognitive distortions, emotive variables, such as empathy with the victim and emotional reaction to the behaviour, and behavioural variables, such as the nature of treatment and their participation. The likelihood of reoffending (and/or behaviour change) was declared predictable based on those variables (Tierney & McCabe 2002). Researchers looking to improve public health and disease control have also given some attention to motivation. One study, focusing on the reduction of pathogenic risks where

26 unsafe water is used for irrigation in Ghana, discussed many reasons, variously weighted, why stakeholders may not be motivated to improve their behaviour, including tradition, family pressure, community norms, time pressure and inconvenience (Karg & Drechsel 2011). They note that any behaviour change campaign must first understand what the current perceptions are, and what internal and external motivators might trigger or hinder behaviour change. The researchers discovered situational motivators including education, socioeconomic conditions, scientific knowledge, practical knowledge and financial indicators to then underpin a locally-engaged strategy based on the pillars of social marketing, incentive systems, awareness creation/education and application of regulation to achieve their goals of improvement. Another study focused on bolstering the efforts of interventions for addictive behaviours by better understanding what might motivate healthier behaviours. They advocated in their findings that an application of a combination of the motivation-based behaviour change theories were most likely to succeed (Webb et al. 2010). Environmental researchers focused on climate change have also endeavoured to understand what might motivate environmentally friendly behaviours. One study that tracked communities in Australia as they transitioned to low carbon lifestyles, first looked at the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of existing behaviour, the barriers to behaviour change (willingness, habitual behaviours, norms, convenience, cost, psychological effects and lack of agency), empowerment and agency of the stakeholders, the need to change and the opportunities possible with social learning; all in regard to their roles in motivating change (Moloney et al. 2010). Despite the richness of literature on motivators for change in other fields, this has not yet been an area of extensive investigation in the context of animal welfare. Substantial attention has been afforded to the relationship between the attitude of stockpeople and their behaviour, and the resulting impact on the welfare of animals (Hemsworth et. al. 2011; Coleman et. al. 2014). The recent introduction of a ‘human behaviour change for animal welfare’ conference (held in 2016), along with professional workshops over the following years (Bell et. al, 2017) is also promising, however we are still yet to investigate and understand motivations in this context with any regularity, uniformity or best practice methodology. When considering motivation to improve animal welfare, some important literature on attitudes could be applicable. Studies in developed countries have demonstrated that pro- animal welfare attitudes are impacted by a variety of demographics (Cornish 2016), such as pet keeping as a child (Paul & Serpell 1993), religion, or rather, the extent to which one was religious (Furnham et al. 2003), personality (Plous 1993; Mathews & Herzog 1997), the species and its physical and neonatal or human-like phenotypical attributes (Westbury & Neumann 2008), the species perceived intelligence (Phillips et al. 2012), the individual’s gender (Herzog et al. 1991; Phillips et al. 2012), the extent of male dominance (Phillips et al. 2010), and socioeconomic status (Kellert 1980; Signal & Taylor 2006). However, when considering literature to support international animal welfare initiatives there remains a limited amount of research into the demographic most significant in strength—and notable given the topic of this thesis—their culture. For the sake of this body of work, I will not be focusing on the complex internal processing of motivation, rather, the extrinsic and intrinsic driving forces that can be readily quantified, understood and applied. This includes law, money, knowledge, religion, peers, company policy, tools and resources, personal value, and most importantly, culture (Sinclair et al. 2017a).

The relevance of cross-cultural research

27 “One of the reasons why so many solutions do not work or cannot be implemented is because differences in thinking among the partners have been ignored” (Hofstede et al. 2010, pp. 4). The literature to this point has ascertained who the stakeholders are, that they need to be engaged, and that to engage them we need to understand them. As this body of work sits in the context of international animal welfare, it is relevant to understand the extent of any impact of culture on the stakeholders and their thinking. The most prominent theory that advocates for cross-cultural research in international endeavours, and also offers empirical ways of measuring culture, is Hofstedes Cultural Dimension Theory (Hofstede 1984). According to this theory, culture is like “software for the brain” (Hofstede et al., 2010), and:

“The nature of management skills is such that they are culturally specific: a management technique or philosophy that is appropriate in one national culture is not necessarily appropriate in another” (Hofstede 1984, pp. 81).

The theory also contends that culture is measurable, and those measurements help direct strategy that is more likely to succeed in the respective countries. The four dimensions Hofstede originally presented for culture measurement include ‘individualism vs collectivism’ (the extent to which a culture focusses on the ‘I’ vs the ‘we’), ‘power distance’ (the extent to which a culture is comfortable with unequal power distribution and hierarchy), ‘uncertainty avoidance’ (the extent to which a culture makes efforts to avoid and plan against the unknown), and ‘masculinity vs femininity’ (the extent to which a culture prioritises achievement and assertiveness over relationships and nurturing) (Hofstede 1984). The literature on cross-cultural research, in the context of international business enterprise, has rigorously tested and challenged Hofstede’s Dimensions over the last 30 years (Hofstede 2011). A majority of these studies supported Hofstede’s work, and the studies that conflicted were commonly explicable when analysing potential crossover with Hofstede’s dimensions (Hofstede 2011). However, where new principles were presented in the literature that were not explainable under existing dimensions, they were accepted by Hofstede and added. These dimensions include long term vs short term orientation (the extent to which a culture forgoes immediate wins for longer term plans) after work by Michael Harris Bond in 1991, and indulgence vs restraint (the extent to which a culture supresses human desires in favour of self-discipline) after work by Michael Minkov in 2010 (Hofstede 2011). To further bolster the notion that culture is highly significant in understanding values and motivations behind human behaviour, is the existence of additional robust and replicable value models presented by other cross-cultural leaders, such as Inglehart (2005) and Schwartz (1992). After collecting vast amounts of data across the globe, both scholars also found that some parameters were significantly different for various cultures. Although most scholars and literature in the area tended to unanimously agree with the global significance of Hofstede’s ‘individualism vs collectivism’ dimension, the ultimate ‘global’ value scales along which each culture falls are mostly defined under different headlines. Nevertheless, each study shows that culture is highly significant (statistically and in an applicability sense) and, vitally, measurable. This is echoed in the small body of work so far completed in the field of international animal welfare, discussed here. This is also echoed by global health international development initiatives, which identify the importance of engaging local community members, and recommend the inclusion of cultural knowledge in research under mutually agreed terms, with the guidance of ‘knowledge holders’ in the community (Tindana et al. 2007). The limited available cross-cultural anthrozoological literature has consistently indicated a strong relationship between ‘nation’ or ‘nationality’, and attitudes to animal welfare;

28 respondents from within a country tending to answer attitudinal questions in a similar way that is representative of their wider national culture. One recent study measured attitudes to livestock slaughter and transport in Veterinary Science and Agricultural students in East and South East Asia and found key differences by nationality (Ling et al. 2016). For example, out of the respondents from the four Asian nations that were assessed, killing animals was least acceptable to Thai respondents. The study also found that animals experiencing pain and suffering during slaughter was significantly less acceptable to respondents from Malaysia compared to respondents from Vietnam and China (Ling et al. 2016). In addition, I led a survey of motivating principles behind key decisions and behavioural choices in respect to animal welfare in developing Asian countries, in which livestock stakeholders were asked if the extent of their focus on animal welfare was influenced by a variety of different motivating factors (Sinclair et al. 2017a). The highest motivating factor of ‘the law’ was shared across countries, however the strength of each other presented motivator, such as commercial opportunity, religious beliefs, company requirements and more, varied considerably between countries. This study showed that ‘country’, or ‘culture by socio-political region’ had the most significant relationship to attitudes and reported behaviour, and respondents within those demographic groupings tended to think in similar ways (Sinclair et al. 2017a). When further investigating the importance of culture and/or country within the context of animal welfare specifically, another study compared the demographics of university students across 12 widely geographically dispersed nations (European, Asian, Arabic) to attitudes to animals (Phillips et al. 2012). These included the importance placed on animal welfare and rights across a variety of issues (the killing of animals, animal use in experimentation, etc.). There were significant differences in attitudes of respondents from different nations but no significant differences in attitudes of respondents from different ethnic or religious groups. Respondents from some European nations expressed more concern for animal welfare than those from some Asian nations (Phillips et al. 2012). This echoes findings in relation to the power of culture in general that found ‘religion’ was not as strong of an influencer as that of ‘nation’ (Minkov & Hofstede 2014). Attitudes to using animals in research have also been found to differ significantly by country. The reported intensity of opposition to using animals in research varied from relatively low levels in countries such as Japan and the USA to much higher levels in European countries such as France, Belgium, and Great Britain (Pifer 1996). It seems relevant to note that these studies all utilised surveys, and while surveys as a tool have their own benefits, some drawback such as reporting biases have been described in the literature. This includes ‘social desirability bias’ (Randall 1991), ‘middle-point response bias’s and other biases that appear more prevalent in some cultures over others (Si 1998). Beyond these few studies and the recent Eurobarometer report (European Commission 2016), very little literature has addressed the effects of culture in the context of international animal welfare initiatives and attitudes. The effects of culture on social initiatives, a broader perspective, also seems to have been little studied. One cross-cultural study into antimicrobial resistance due to antibiotic overuse found a significant correlation with overuse and the cultural dimension of ‘power distance’, and some correlation with ‘uncertainty avoidance’ (Deschepper et al. 2008). This suggests that cultural attitudes to social issues in general may be impacted by culture in the same way as business, however investigation in this area is limited. In addition to the existence of literature that suggests that culture is a very strong influencer behind ways of thinking and behaving, another important reason for cross-cultural research is to test psychological behaviour and motivation theories accepted as mainstay in non-Anglo- Saxon nations. Most theories of motivating principles behind human behaviour are potentially not applicable to non ‘western’ nations, but they do not appear to have been

29 tested. One of these predominant theories is ‘Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs’(Maslow 1943), . Maslow proposed a pyramid model of human needs staged in importance, that are motivated to be satisfied at the base level, before moving on to focus behaviour on satisfying needs at higher levels. From bottom (and most important) to top, these needs, in ascending order, are physiological, safety, love/belonging, and self-esteem. “Self actualization”, the “need to become fully self-aware and purposefully fulfilled” sits at the top as the highest level need (Maslow 1943). While this theory is still widely renowned and fairly well accepted for western countries (McLeod 2007) culture presents a potential reshuffle of priorities. In essence, the theory could be broadly used to suggest that social progress and not-for-profit initiatives (seen here to correlate with ‘self actualisation’ as a ‘higher need’), would indeed be pursued after base needs such as food, water, protection and shelter have been met. This may offer a simplistic explanation for the additional challenge faced by not-for-profit initiatives when addressing non-human welfare issues in developing countries, however the relationship is more complex. When considering Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of ‘uncertainty avoidance’ and ‘masculinity’, it again becomes apparent that Maslow’s well embraced theory of motivation could only be applied with great caution to other cultures. Countries with high uncertainty avoidance may more highly value security, and countries ranking highly on the masculinity index may not be as concerned with ‘belongingness’ (Hofstede 1984). Despite our varied cultures, we all face the same problems with life on earth, problems that know no boundaries and problems that require working together to achieve outcomes.

“Coping with threats of nuclear warfare, global warming, organised crime, poverty, terrorism, ocean pollution, extinction of animals, AIDS, or a worldwide recession, demands cooperation of opinion leaders from many countries … (who) in turn need the support of broad groups of followers”. (Hofstede et al. 2010, pp. 4)

Therefore, understanding international audiences to allow for improved strategies that deliver greater success has never been more important. A dedication to better understanding and engaging with cross-cultural audiences may also help in allowing for improved relationships and reduction in damaging cultural misconceptions. In this regard, there is a need to appreciate and understand cultural difference before we can move forward.

“Cultural relativism affirms that one culture has no absolute criteria for judging the activities of another culture as ‘low’ or ‘noble’. However, every culture can and should apply such judgement to its own activities, because its members are actors as well as observers” (Levi- Strauss 1988, pp. 7)

Gaps identified and research needed

Research exists on the aspects of understanding a target audience for the benefit of commercial gain, political governance election initiatives, and even in not-for-profits around increasing donor generosity, but very limited amounts around social progression agendas, and in this case, improving animal welfare. In short, a plenitude of work has been conducted around how to make us money, but not how to make us better.

30 This literature review suggests that there is a need for work in animal welfare internationally (2.1). To do that, we need to engage stakeholders in the change (2.2), which requires understanding the audience (2.2.1), and who the audience is (2.2.2), and that we need to understand their motivations (2.2.3). Given that the focus is international, rather than domestic, it is important to understand the impact of culture (2.3). The theories readily used in other fields are underutilised and relatively unknown in the not-for-profit realm. Focused research—of which is currently limited—is required to achieve these outcomes. This chapter summarised some of these important gaps, leading into the research that is needed to move forward in this area. When considering approaches to animal welfare issues specifically, many gaps exist in the literature. The first of these is a lack of acknowledgement around the importance of the people-elements impacting on animal welfare. This is particularly the case with stakeholders in a position to enact improvement. As they are the key decision makers in animal welfare a greater understanding of this group of people may advise advancements to the effectiveness of animal welfare initiatives. Farm animals are the most numerous category of animal that is directly impacted by human society on a daily basis. Using one country as an example (Australia), an estimated 25 million animals are kept as companion animals (the second largest category of animals living in human society) (RSPCA Australia 2017), which is dwarfed by over 207 million ‘stock’ animals on Australian farms each year (FAOSTAT 2017a). Therefore, research focused specifically on livestock stakeholders could advise programs that offer alleviation to suffering on a significantly larger scale, positively impacting more lives. This stakeholder group has been scarcely researched in the past, particularly in non-western countries. This may be due to the challenge in gaining access to this group, or that they have not been seen as important. Although understood in marketing, human resources, education and politics, engagement and understanding target audiences are not principles that appear to have been readily applied to not-for-profit causes, beyond that of donor attraction. While some work has been conducted around the motivations of consumers; what drives consumer change, and with regards to donors, what drives donor generosity; very little work has been conducted in areas that do not make money i.e. that improve us personally and as a society. Within psychology, work has been conducted on linkages with the ‘cycle of violence’ in domestic animals and perpetrators are the key focus in trying to reduce domestic violence to animals. Very little exists in relation to farm animal welfare and the stakeholders responsible for creating or working to alleviate the great suffering experienced in the crucial moments pertaining to their welfare. After acknowledging the importance of research that aims to better understand a target audience, further investigating what motivates the choices and behaviour of this audience would be of great use when developing strategies around improving animal welfare. In addition, while human motivation theories exist, their relevance in a non-western’ setting is untested and therefore possibly less relevant. While very little literature exists in regard to understanding the change drivers in domestic or within-country animal welfare, even less literature exists across borders. The importance of understanding the influence of culture is empirically supported, with availability of vast literature surrounding rigorous models for assessment such as Hofstedes dimensions (Hofstede 1984), and other schools of thought around cultural measurement such as that by Schwartz (1992) and Inglehart (2005). Cross-culture research in animal welfare is very sparse. Any preliminary research conducted in this area by the current author and colleagues in this field has provided great use in the development and implementation of the animal welfare strategies (e.g within the Animal Welfare Standards Project), and further work made available could be of great benefit to any group seeking to develop animal welfare strategy.

31 Cross cultural research seeks to understand the motivations of the stakeholders who are in a position to make direct decisions about animal welfare. This understanding can then advise initiatives that aim to improve international animal welfare, to the likely point of increased success. New research in this area could guide the development of new theories and not-for- profit models of best practice that amalgamate multi-disciplinary findings and advise strategy. Figure 2 provides a summary of the findings from the literature, relevant to this thesis:

People drive change, and are the most important element and resource in business and in not-for-profit initiatives

Engaging people is of critical importance to business sucess; and potentially, not-for-profit sucess

Must identify and understand the target audience/key stakeholders

For international initiatives, this needs to be done by culture

Figure 2: Summary of literature findings

Research questions

This study is aimed at addressing the gaps in existing literature, and to primarily discover scientifically supported ways of furthering the cause of improving animal welfare through engaging and collaborating with relevant stakeholders. It also aims to investigate the importance of ‘target audience’ research in the not-for-profit social progression (‘other than donor’) landscape, to test methods of conducting that research, and suggest potential similarities in findings that may be applicable to not-for-profit causes beyond that of animal welfare. This research will look within the countries under investigation to understand the nature of the challenges, motivations and solutions faced by livestock welfare. It will also compare and contrast these areas cross-culturally to identify key areas of similarity and difference. As individuals, we cannot identify our culture until it is compared against others, through observing others first-hand, learning about their characteristics and researching their nuances and values. Focusing on the people aspect of animal welfare in an international context is a novel way of approaching animal welfare, and this research aims to provide information to progress the area. This body of research will utilise a rarely-used mixed methodology approach; interviews, focus groups and a survey. This is adopted with the aim of providing enriched information that is both broad and open to the introduction of new ideas and angles (such as qualitative allows), and targeted and statistically reliable information (such as quantitative allows). Specific information on materials and methods is presented in each chapter as individually relevant. The research overview below outlines the three specific research questions, and the planned studies and methodologies that aim to answer these questions.

Research questions

32 • What are the best ways to engage with and motivate livestock stakeholders to make positive improvements to the welfare of animals in a country?

• What are the ways in which stakeholders see they can make improvements in their country?

• What do stakeholders see as the impediments to making improvements in their country?

Flow of chapters

In response to the research questions, I designed and conducted three research studies that have resulted in seven published manuscripts. The following chapters (3-9) each represent one of these manuscripts. Each study and resulting manuscript is identified in figure 3.

33 Study one Study two Study three

Interviews with Surveys with Focus groups with livestock leaders in leaders of major Chinese swine China, India, Malaysia, international animal and poultry Vietnam, Thailand, welfare farmers Bangladesh organisations

Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 "The Benefits of Chapter 1 Chapter 5 "Attitudes of Chinese Improving Animal "Asian Livestock Industry "Motivations for industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the "International Animal "Livestock Stakeholder Welfare from the "Key tenets of successful swine and poultry farmers stakeholders in China, Importance of, and Protection Society Willingness to Embrace Perspective of to attributes of intensive Vietnam, Thailand and Solutions for, Animal international animal Leadership: The Right Preslaughter Stunning in Livestock and extensive farming Malaysia to improve Welfare Issues" welfare initatiatives" People for the right Key Asian Countries" systems and the welfare livestock welfare" Stakeholders issues" of animals" across Asia"

Figure 3: Overview of research publications and thesis chapters

3 Key tenets of successful international animal welfare initiatives

Citation: Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Key Tenets of Operational Success in International Animal Welfare Initiatives. Animals 2018, 8, 92.

Contribution: The PhD candidate (MS) secured funding, designed the experiment, invited participants, arranged the interviews, conducted the interviews, analysed the data, wrote the paper, submitted it for publication and addressed academic reviewer in revision. Supervisory support was offered (CJCP) for methodological oversight and editing the paper.

Abstract

Animal welfare is an increasingly global initiative, which makes the intricate business of operating across borders of particular relevance to the movement. There is, however, a distinct absence of literature dedicated to investigating operational strategies that are more likely to result in the success of international animal welfare initiatives. In addition to this, opportunities exist to investigate the human aspects of animal welfare, parallel to the growing field of animal-based science. This study aimed to begin addressing these gaps by conducting semi structured interviews with 15 leaders of some of the largest international animal welfare charities. Leaders were asked to describe their experiences of successful and unsuccessful initiatives within the animal welfare movement. Thematic analysis was then conducted to identify recurring concepts and extrapolate potentially applicable information. Engaging stakeholders and communities in locally-led and culturally respectful ways were discussed, as was the importance of knowledge, moderation, flexibility, and mutual benefits. The dangers of attacking personal and cultural identity are also highlighted and discussed. Key quotes and examples are presented, supplemented with mind maps as a tool to more readily apply the findings of the study in strategy development.

Introduction

Following the path of commercial enterprise, not-for-profit social initiatives are increasingly seeing the globe through a lens of borderless possibility. The growth of technology and issue awareness through social media, together with an increasingly affluent world, means opportunities exist that have not been seen before. Residents of countries with higher GDPs are increasingly seeking to share wealth and fortune for a better world (Charities Aid Foundation 2016), in causes such as reducing poverty, providing health care and education opportunities where they did not exist before, and addressing racial inequality, gender empowerment, environmental protection, and animal welfare. However, running international initiatives poses many risks; the risk that the issue will not progress, that resources will be lost, that the initiative will not be wholly successful, that relationships will be damaged, and perhaps worst of all, the risk that the initiative will evoke negative reactions and will set the issue backwards, rather than progressing it. While operating in a global landscape brings many potential rewards, it does not come without major challenges for not-

for-profits; primarily attributable to specific social progression issues being viewed differently in different areas of the globe, with differing associated importance levels. ‘Animal Welfare’ is one of those issues, only with the added challenge of being a social cause not centered around humans. This can be a particular challenge when considering projects run in lesser developed countries, by charities based in higher developed countries. Numerous psychological models suggest that people care about activities according to their personal level of need (Maslow 1943; McLeod 2007; Kenrick et al. 2010). Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs that required the lower levels to be satisfied (such as shelter, food, and water) before higher levels such as self actualisation and purpose. Although this conventional model has endured to become mainstream within psychology, Maslow later updated his pyramid to place ‘self- transcendence’ at the top; a motivation to look beyond the self, and to act in service of others and something bigger (Maslow 1969). More recently, others have updated the pyramid, such as the “updated hierarchy of fundamental human motives” (Kenrick et al. 2010), but in each case, base psychological needs outplay other needs and, in some instances, the ability to focus on social progression and advocate for others is only a motivational aspiration when all other needs are met. For some, the ability to focus on charitable causes is a luxury. Attempting to engage a mother who is struggling feed her baby, with investing in the care and wellbeing of animals, for example, may be fruitless. Likewise, pressuring government departments to act for animals where they are preoccupied with the safe sanitation of waterways, and fighting poverty, is less likely to result in the desired response. In total, 11% of humans are currently classified as ‘hungry’, with that number growing (FAO 2017). Clean water is a problem for 2.6 billion people (https://water.org/our- impact/water-crisis), residents of many countries are dealing with corrupt governing bodies (Transparency International 2017), and climate change is a crisis increasingly affecting all people (Patz et al. 2005). For these reasons, animal welfare often takes an international back seat where policy, funding, and attention are considered. However, if considering non-human animal lives from a utilitarian framework, and with associated value, the scale of suffering globally is highly significant. The planet now holds around three chickens to every human, with 9.2 animals per person being farmed for human consumption each year (FAOSTAT 2017b; worldometers 2018), often in ways considered by science to cause great suffering. While the numbers of domestic animals living within human societies continue to increase, it is now also argued that all species on earth, including those that are living naturally in the wild, are now impacted by human society (Sanderson et al. 2002). In addition to the scope for suffering amongst non-human animals, people are increasingly concerned about animal welfare. A recent study showed that ‘animal protection’ ranked highly when rated by importance, even against other social issues such as poverty, racial equality, and the death penalty (Sinclair & Phillips 2017). The animal welfare movement is growing, and has claimed major wins all over the world; the abolition of battery cages, sow stalls, veal crates, and animal cosmetic testing in some countries factor amongst the biggest. The ethical argument to actively address animal welfare issues is strong; however, when dealing with far less resources than human-based initiatives, and the added challenges to advocating for another species with whom many people struggle to relate, animal welfare charities need to be clever. The need to run international animal welfare initiatives carefully and with a knowledgeable strategy becomes of paramount importance. ‘For profit’ causes have been investing time and money into researching how best to do this within their sectors, developing best practices and methods that will work to see a goal to fruition. ‘Market research’, for example, is conducted to fully understand what products 36 will work, and the ways in which to present them for increased uptake. However, a distinct lack of literature and evidence exists to support the work of charities. This is particularly the case regarding animal welfare charities where the added challenges and dimensions of advocating for another species are perhaps not addressed in human welfare centric literature. Animal welfare initiatives are anecdotally too often trial and error and most charities have notoriously felt they have needed to operate in a competitive silo, rarely learning from the mistakes and successes of others. This does not mean that integral knowledge does not exist within the movement. Over decades, long term animal welfare leaders and bodies have inevitably become better through this process of trial and error. This strategic information, however, is rarely available to the animal welfare movement in general. Exceptions to this generalisation do, however, exist. Arranged networking forums such as international conferences, chance meetings between leaders, and the publication of a few industry-focused books by long term leaders operational in the field, aim to capacity-build the movement. In general, however, the literature focused on succeeding in an international environment is both extremely limited and lacks comparative analysis. This may represent an opportunity for improvement through a more coordinated approach within the animal welfare movement. Analysis of what works for different leaders may increase the chance of developing generic strategies which can be successfully employed by an increased number of other leaders. To this purpose, this study aims to begin to understand the key tenets of successful international animal welfare initiatives, as shared by international animal welfare leaders across organisations and regions. It aims to build themes based on the frequency of appearance when describing both successful and unsuccessful programs, and to further investigate some of the details of those themes. The overall purpose of this study is to provide information to animal welfare leaders seeking to operate successful initiatives across borders, and to aid in the creation of best practices for international animal welfare initiatives.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval for the study was provided by the University of Queensland Human Ethics Committee (approval number 2017000628). Relevant organisations were considered to be the major international animal welfare charities on the basis of three aspects of their activities: international, large scale, and a high level of brand recognition. In total, the leaders of 13 major international animal welfare organisations were approached in August 2017 for interviews in October or September of the same year. Leaders from 10 organisations accepted, one declined, and two did not reply to invitation. The reason for declining the invitation by one organization was a perceived lack of knowledge to comment on the subject. Participating organisations were Animals Asia, Humane Society International, Compassion in World Farming, International Animal Rescue, International Fund for Animal Welfare, World Animal Protection, Society for the Protection against Cruelty to Animals UK, Vets Beyond Borders, The Donkey Sanctuary, and People for the Protection of Animals. The leaders of the organisations were chosen by the researcher and representatives within the organisations themselves based on their role within the organization, which required them to be a Chief Executive Officer (CEO), operations managers, or high-level co-ordinators working in an international capacity. These leaders were approached via email and asked to take part in a 30 min 37 semi-structured interview via Skype to talk about their experiences regarding successful and unsuccessful projects in animal welfare. Prior to the interview, the leaders were given an information sheet to review, outlining the confidentiality of the interview, the voluntary nature of the interview, their right to withdraw at any time, and details in regards to the topic and interview logistics such as the time requirement and platform. Upon request, all leaders also gave verbal permission at the conclusion of the interview to use the name of their organisation as participating within the study. Fifteen leaders accepted this invitation to participate and a time was booked for interview. Two organisations, Animals Asia and Humane Society International, contributed interviews with more than one leader, each with varied portfolios (eg responsibility for different geographical regions of the world), and varied experiences to share. In the interview, leaders were asked: • To describe the most successful international animal welfare projects they have been involved in.

• To describe the least successful international animal welfare projects they have been

involved in.

• What made those projects successful/unsuccessful.

All interviews were recorded with a voice recorder after verbal permission from each leader at the onset of the interview, and complete transcripts were subsequently prepared verbatim. This study was approached in a familiar way to sociological research across fields (including that of other social progress initiatives such as environmental conservation), with the purpose of identifying and understanding evidence-based approaches as solutions for advancing the movement (Schenk et al. 2007; Reed 2008; Drury et al. 2011).

Data Analysis Thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo (QSR International, http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo-mac.aspx, Melbourne, Australia), and through manual inspection of source data, by the same researcher who conducted the interviews (MS). Best practice sociological research methods for approaching and analyzing qualitative data within thematic analysis and creating grounded theory were engaged with this dataset (Charmaz 2014). This included the use of NVivo to ‘manage’ data which can then be manually coded into key themes (Bazeley & Jackson 2013) using ‘text frequency’ functions within the program to identify the most commonly utilized words. ‘Word search’ functions were then used to display the text before and after the word to assist in further identifying the context in which the frequent words were being used. Coding themes were ultimately selected for deeper anlaysis after being identified using these text frequency and word search functions in NVivo, in addition to manual familiarisation with the data. Words were chosen for analysis based on the amount of times they appeared overall (through NVivo); however, joining words (such as ‘and’) were excluded, along with words that drew no relevance or usefulness to the node/theme or study (selected manually). By extracting the main themes that emerged from the analysis, including key pieces of connective information and direct quotations, mind maps were created to visualize the themes and their 38 relationship with each other. Data within each ‘node’ (Bazeley & Jackson 2013) (identified reoccurring theme) was then further analysed for more detail, including frequency of theme and importance.

Results

Figure 4 and Table 1 represent the most frequent words used by study respondents when describing successful initiatives.

Figure 4. Bar graph visually presenting the 20 most frequent words used by respondents when describing successful international initiatives. * Data points are colour coded depending on the context in which they are mostly found; nouns (who) are indicated by blue, instructive actions (how) by green, and outcomes (what) by orange.

39 Table 1. Frequency of nodes identified to themes and subthemes as a proportion of total participants (n = 15) and number of times the theme was mentioned, according to the attributed hierarchy.

Frequency of Frequency of Sub Frequency of Frequency of Theme, Number Key Theme References of Sub Theme Theme, Number of References to of Respondents out of 15 Theme Respondents out of 15 Sub Theme Cultural knowledge 12 43 Importance of local action 11 22 Mutual benefit 11 35 Reason and moderation 7 10 Trust 8 20 Working with industry 8 22 Livelihoods—people and animal welfare 7 16 Engaging link 15 276 people Attacking ‘rights’ or identity 9 19 Understanding the ‘perpetrators’ 6 10 Carrot over the stick 4 5 Credibility through professionalism 5 9 Education 7 11 Collaboration with other charities 5 7 Social media 4 7 Staying connected by being on the ground 3 5 Financial sustainability 2 3 Sustainability 11 20 Long term commitment 11 16 Knowledge 14 85 Importance of government 13 40 Focus 9 43 Strategy 6 9 Importance of holistic strategy 6 9 Identifying stakeholders 4 6 Global standards 3 3 * sources: number of interviewees out of 15 that mention this theme or idea. Reference frequency refers to the amount of times in the dataset that this theme or idea was mentioned. Key themes correlate with the coding function of parent nodes, and sub themes correlate with child nodes in NVivo. 40

As reflected in Table 1, sustainability, strategy, and engaging people were the base themes to success. The themes flowing from these indicate routes or notions of importance in support of the key themes (Figure 5). Research and the knowledge gained from this research are central to many successful themes, with ‘engaging people’ to find a mutual benefit (and opportunities to engage), leading to trust-building activities (bolstered by sustainable strategy) underpinning this model. Given the complexity and importance of ‘engaging people’ within this study, a further mind map was created to focus specifically on this theme and the themes that tie into it (Figure 6).

Figure 5. Mindmap 1: Tenets of successful international animal welfare initiatives. * Bold text indicates a frequent theme (appearing in more than 70% of interviews). A solid line indicates a strong relationship between themes, with dotted lines indicating a present relationship of significance of lower frequency (therefore strength).

Figure 6. Mindmap 2: Engaging people. * Bold text indicates a frequent theme (appearing in more than 50% of interviews). ‘Ground 0’ refers to stakeholders who are in a position to make direct choices (positive or negative) regarding the welfare of animals (i.e., farm workers, slaughtermen etc.).

Sustainability The key theme of sustainability appeared 69 times and in 11 out of 15 interviews (Table 1). Sustainability here mostly referred to the importance of achieving long term sustainability, and second to that, allocating sufficient finances to ensure that longevity is possible. This also included having plans that enabled the allocation of necessary resources. In relation to projects in Asia, one leader stated that “no one should be coming into this continent if they’re not prepared for a long, long slog”. Others commented that their major success was mainly due to ‘persistence’; another attributed their success to ‘trust built with governments because they have shown that they are in for the long haul’, contrasting this with an NGO that has ‘great plans, but only for 2 years’: “It’s not a quick fix, you cannot just walk into a country, have a couple of meetings and that’s it. It takes time, just like with everything, it takes time to develop that relationship and trust”. Three leaders cited 10–20 years as a time frame in which they have seen significant change. One leader stated that “the impact we are able to drive for animals today is essentially harvesting fruit from the trees that were planted 20–30 years ago; if we want systemic change tomorrow, we need to be planting the acorns, the thought seeds today, to get that big change”.

42 Table 2. Frequency of words associated with successful initiatives.

Word Count Similar Words Included * Animal 519 animal, animals, animals’ People 518 people, peoples Know 447 know, knowing, knows Think 380 think, thinking Works 380 work, worked, working, works Likes 346 like, liked, likely, likes Welfare 276 welfare, welfare’s Governments 194 governance, government, governments Country 193 countries, country China 193 china, china’s Need 192 need, needed, needing, needs Want 181 want, wanted, wanting, wants Change 165 change, changed, changes, changing Years 153 year, years Look 150 look, looked, looking, looks Differently 148 difference, differences, different, differently Now 148 Now Local 147 local, locally Right 142 right, rights Successful 141 success, successes, successful, successfully, successive Programs 141 program, programmed, programs Kinds 135 kind, kindness, kinds Help 134 help, helped, helpful, helping, helps Seeing 129 see, seeing, sees Time 129 time, timely, times, timing Understand 128 understand, understanding, understands Campaign 127 campaign, campaigners, campaigning, campaigns Make 127 make, makes, making Talk 113 talk, talked, talking, talks Trying 112 tried, tries, try, trying Saying 108 Saying Issue 106 issue, issues Company 96 companies, company Community 95 communities, community Problem 94 problem, problems Good 90 good, goodness Markets 87 market, markets Groups 86 group, groups Internationally 86 internal, international, internationally Cultural 84 cultural, culturally, culture, cultures Able 83 Able Giving 80 give, gives, giving Industry 80 industries, industry Important 77 importance, important Impact 76 impact, impacted, impacts Find 75 find, finding Projects 75 project, projects Terms 74 term, terms 43 Organisation 72 organisation, organisations, organise, organised, organising Engage 72 engage, engaged, engagement, engages, engaging Humans 71 human, humane, humans Policy 70 policies, policy Sustained 69 sustain, sustainability, sustainable, sustainably, sustained Involvement 66 involve, involved, involvement, involving Support 65 support, supported, supporters, supports Approach 63 approach, approached, approaches, approaching Development 62 develop, developed, developing, development * While further variations of words, and words with a similar meaning, exist, they were not presented in this table as they did not appear in the data with significance.

Strategy Although the word ‘strategy’ did not frequently appear in the interviews, many other themes emerged that can be classified as strategy building and/or important to building an effective strategy, particularly in the earlier stages of creating initiatives and campaigns. The importance of having a holistic strategy was raised by eight of the leaders while discussing reasons behind successful initiatives (Table 1), in comments such as “we realised our end goal was for (the) African elephant to be protected, but then we have to stop every (supply and demand) link on the chain”, and “the continuity of our work with government, with traditional medicine, with all the stakeholders actually … our consistent involvement, our sensitivity for the politics, for the culture, for the plight of the people involved in the industry as well”. Some leaders also referred to the lack of a holistic strategy in the context of failures: “(in) India, when I first started I tried to engage directly with the egg production industry, and we even found some people from some companies, brought them to the US for a tour of how cage free is done so they could learn—which is a training program we still run—but I just offered it with nothing else in place right … there was no pressure at that point from the government, there was no public policy pressure for them to change, the market wasn’t really asking for it”. Interviewees commonly cited the importance of having knowledge when creating a strategy (14/15 leaders); however, the specific knowledge that was required varied in nature. Firstly, knowledge required them to fully understand the issue they were looking at addressing (11/15 leaders), including the relevant political landscape and a knowledge of the key stakeholders (4/15 leaders). The dangers of not identifying the right stakeholders were emphasized: “sometimes when you go into a country it is hard to identify who is the right stakeholder to engage … (describes an involved initiative that aimed to demonstrate improve farm animal practices) … it was a waste of money … as ultimately they had no influence of policy, and no influence over the actual farmers”; and “As a movement, we need to become better at identifying who the stakeholders are”. It was also commonly perceived that there was a specific cultural and/or country knowledge (12/15 leaders, Table 2), which was strongly tied to engaging people and is explored in more detail in that theme. Lastly, when analysing the text associated with strategy, the word ‘focus’ was mentioned by over half the leaders, appearing 13 times (Table 2). The idea of focusing on a key mandate was present more frequently, with comments such as “I’ve learnt you should try to do a few things really well, instead of doing everything badly”. This suggests that excessive diversification can be a reason for a project being unsuccessful.

Engaging People All international leaders raised the importance of engaging people, including stakeholders, in initiatives (see Table 2), and the specific word (and word extensions) ‘engage’ was used 72 times (Table 2). It was the most prevalent theme (276 references, Table 1), and the theme attributed most to successes where engagement was achieved, and to failures when it was missed or not achieved. Although only eight of those leaders used the specific word ‘engagement’, all produced data that 44 was understood during interview and analysis stages to fit the definition of engagement as attributed to the act of being engaged, and defined as “the process of encouraging people to be interested in the work of an organization” (Cambridge Dictionary (English)).

Cultural Knowledge and Respect In the context of engaging people, key themes emerged as integral to this process. The most prevalent was ‘cultural understanding and respect’ (12/15 leaders, 43 references, Table 1), with the word ‘culture’ (and extensions such as ‘cultural’) used 84 times (Table 2). One leader explained the primary reason behind their successes as follows: “this team take root in the country and understand the society because we know China has his own characteristic”. Others expressed frustration over initiatives that appeared to have failed due to a lack of understanding of the culture and country, or in the case of a wanton application of a campaign element that had seen success in another country with a very different culture. Commenting specifically on the application of initiatives from western-based cultures into Eastern-based cultures, one said, “there are just political, economic, cultural, and social boundaries or environmental restrictions that means animal welfare projects in Asian countries may not meet the expectation or standard, whatever that standard is, (the standard) that western people think it should be; it needs to be mutual understanding, but also, let go”; and another stated, “If you train people you have to trust people to take the concept and interpret it in their way, (a way) that’s suitable for that culture and that political environment”. The need to understand culture was not limited to West and East, rather, there is a need to fully understand the culture across any borders: “It’s very easy to assume from here that Ireland is a bit like the UK isn’t it, but actually no, it’s very different culturally in terms of animal welfare ethics”. An important element of this theme was how language, and specifically the concept of animal welfare, translates in a culture of focus. It was reported that the Chinese word for ‘animal’ is a ‘moving object’, making discussing the welfare of ‘moving objects’ decidedly more difficult. In addition, another leader stated, “when you’re translating ‘animal welfare’ it doesn’t translate (easily) into Vietnamese; it translates very badly”. Attitudes that concerned some leaders included ‘what about my welfare, my welfare (needs) haven’t been met’. One leader stated, “how can we talk about animal welfare (when) people see welfare as a luxury, that you give, and most people don’t have—or felt that they don’t have”. In response to this attitude, one leader began by changing the language: “so we changed IFAW’s name, when I translate (the new name) back it is ‘International Fund for Love and Care of Animals’, so, by doing that, we basically put the responsibility to people to provide the very basic needs for animals, so, welfare changed in peoples’ minds from a luxury thing to something that’s basic”.

Attacking Cultural Identify and Perceived Rights In contrast to this, in describing failed initiatives, a similar but new theme emerged. Although rarely directly acknowledged as such in the data, we consider that it should be labelled ‘attacking perceived rights and cultural identity’ of stakeholders (9/15 leaders, 19 references, Table 1). Examples were failed initiatives to stop cultural festivals and activities involving animals (bull- taming and cock fighting festivals were specifically mentioned). Interviewees also reported the described stakeholders’ responses to the variety of external pressures that were applied, and indicated that their defensiveness solidified cultural identity. One example, the level of dog meat consumption in Korea, achieved the direct opposite to the goal the campaign had intended. Further comments emphasized the issue of personal rights: “it comes down to the fact that it’s very much a campaign of attacking someone’s personal beliefs and someone’s personal rights … people are always going to be more concerned about how they’re being attacked and their belief is being attacked over welfare of animals”. Other comments included “it doesn’t benefit from international condemnation”, “people are very protective of their culture”, “I think we somehow presume that because we find something horrible, that everyone else should find it horrible, and not understanding that there is a fairly strong cultural identity”, and “I think a lot of people who are

45 sitting on the fence would then say ‘you don’t come into a country and tell us what to do, now we‘re going to be on the side of the people who are carrying out this practice, even if we don’t agree with it”, thereby consolidating this theme. One Asian leader drew a passionate parallel by stating, “boycotting doesn’t work, pointing that finger from the outside doesn’t work; who likes being told what to do? Who would like a bunch of Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese coming into the UK and saying you shouldn’t be badger baiting … It’s a very dangerous circumstance to be that imperialistic and arrogant to tell another country what to do”. One leader stated that they were careful what they publish on one specific country; China, as “every time China has, you know, an animal cruelty story, the western media jump on it and use it as a China bashing tool”, the consistent sentiment being that this was counterproductive, as are the repercussions: “you come in with a western dictating attitude you will be shut out by the government, and it is very easy to shut you out”. The examples of negative outcomes when attacking identity were again not limited to West and East. One leader spoke about Canada, in relation to the seal hunt: “It seems like the most horrible thing, like, (a) baby seal clubbed to death. As in, who would possibly think that it is defendable anyhow? However, that particular fishing tribe in Canada might see that their identity is under attack, and now they’re being portrayed as a villain, and they kind of want to attack back by saying what we’re doing is right, and there again there is no scope for collaboration because the person does not want to speak at all. I’m not saying you collaborate to the point that you lose your identity as an animal welfare organisation, I’m just saying that just being a little more thoughtful before we launch a campaign against a community, especially if this is done by a certain set of people, one needs to be really, really careful”. One solution proposed was to find a positive way forward, by first understanding the reasons for the practice, and how people feel about it: “it has been their culturally accepted practice over the years, you can’t go there and shout at them what they’re doing is wrong, you’ve got to first understand why they’re doing it, and once you understand it you need to be articulate and be very very sympathetic on how you present your point”. Responses suggest that this must be underpinned by a strong cultural knowledge and respect, and that we should look to alternative languages such as mathematics (budget gains) and science (credibility via professionalism) instead of emotion and cultural attacks, particularly when approaching governments and industry. Then, initiatives have a chance to be led “from the inside out”.

Importance of Being Locally Led Tied with the themes of ‘cultural knowledge and respect’, and as a counter theme to ‘attacking cultural identity’, is the notion of having initiatives ‘from the inside out’: “you have to start at a local level and work up”. ‘Local’ (and its extension ‘locally’) appeared 147 times (Table 2), with the theme being raised by 11/15 leaders (Table 1). One leader cited the need to represent issues in a ‘locally inspired way’ as the key motivator behind setting up the charity they lead: “I just felt that these issues needed to be represented from a local perspective rather than an international perspective; myself and local Chinese founders decided we wanted to move ahead and address the issues from the people who really understood living and working in Asia, rather than the outside in. We wanted it inside out”. Another leader judged the success of a program by the amount of local groups that get involved in the cause or campaign, and another described “the successful ones are actually (the ones that) allow the local animal lovers, or local people, to take ownership of the project and not just not create the term animal welfare, but not create so much boundaries … give them the basic understand then let them use their creativity”. In one example, a leader described a successful primate rescue initiative that was set up in a way that it was not only entirely locally run, but also engaged the entire community into the centre as primate babysitters, crop growers, security, and cleaning; people that were originally hunting the primates. Supporting programs to be locally led through capacity building appeared a few times through the interviews as successful measures to enable local action: “they help all the local people and show them as they’re working to up-skill them, and that’s been a huge success for us”. Tied to

46 being locally led and supporting from ‘behind the scenes’ is capacity building to help to build local ownership. One leader remarked on the importance of not being too protective about ownership and taking credit when working beyond borders. This may seem counterintuitive to the usual charitable model, which often relies on the ready acceptance of credit to justify asking for donor support. However, it may allow for greater success of the animal welfare initiatives on the ground, across the movement: “We just sat back and said ‘well done, oh what a good idea you’ve had’ … it did help embed things more clearly with them and promote ownership … the other thing that helps enormously is not to be too precious about ownership and credit”. Lastly, in addition to engaging and collaborating with local people, some leaders attributed a big part of their successful campaigns to ensuring their staff are all local: “you know, this whole idea of stakeholder involvement, you really can’t get anything done in a country like Indonesia, without being totally immersed in it, and that means employing people”. Another, when describing reasons for allocating success to an initiative, stated that “the leadership of that office from top to bottom, they’re staffed by people in that country”; “You have to have local people engaged and buying in to what you’re doing and then be the spokespeople for it”; and “I don’t hire anyone except Filipino for Philippines, Bangladeshis for Bangladesh, Nepalis in Nepal, I have, you know, the organisation believes capacity building and empowering local communities is the only way you will make your programs sustainable”.

Mutual Benefit The second most common identified sub-theme under the topic of engaging people in improving animal welfare, is the importance and benefit of finding mutual benefits (11/15 leaders, 35 mentions, Table 1). While some explicitly stated that a program will fail if ‘mutual ground’ or ‘mutual benefits’ are not identified, others referred to it indirectly. Leaders made comments such as “you can’t go in asking for something, you have to go in giving something, and that’s the only way you’re going to get (what you want)”; “I think again that comes down to trying to find a benefit for those people in … the campaign”; “Real sustainable change comes from changing hearts and minds and … identifying a common interest/ solution is by far the most effective way to do this”; and “Come up with an incentive … don’t persuade them to do something they don’t want to do, offer them something”. The potential mutual benefits raised included commercial opportunity (farming, eco-tourism), job opportunity, improved public image or brand, financial reward, improved productivity, national pride, and even entertainment. One leader discussed engaging a village community by providing a pedal-powered cinema that would play movies, interspersed with conservation messages that would feed into their bigger picture of animal rescue goals: “It’s a novel way of getting their interest … the parents love their children on the bikes peddling like mad, the kids love it, they all queue up”. In another program that effectively ended the practice of dancing bears in India, career-changing education and training was given in direct exchange for relinquishing bears that would dance for income: “These people were depending on this bear for a livelihood, so how on earth could we just take that bear away and remove that livelihood?” … “in the end they weren’t even getting enough money to feed themselves, let alone their bear or their family, so I think we hit it at the right time”. Another leader described a successful campaign that found unique mutual benefit through morals, with consumers of animal entertainment; offering enlightenment around the suffering of the animals when involved in the industry. The success of the campaign was attributed to finding a mutual ground of love for the animals that the consumers were being entertained by. One leader outlined novel thinking in regards to finding mutual benefits and collaborating with other charitable causes, outside animal welfare, to broaden the bigger picture impact of the animal welfare movements. Discussing an animal rescue project being conducted in developing areas of Africa, they stated, “by partnering with people who may be concerned about water, they may be concerned about livelihoods, they may be concerned about gender issues, all of these things would

47 help us find partners that are trying to achieve one or the other or usually multiply the sustainable development goals”. Benefit for governments to become involved in improving animal welfare was raised by a few leaders, particularly through budget-saving initiatives and improved human health and disease control. A leader described a successful approach to government: “all I asked was ‘show me your budget that you’ve spent for the last five years on culling’ … they showed me and I said ‘what if for a quarter of this I’m able to show you better results in the next five years and I guarantee there will be no more dog bites than you had in the past five years because I know it works that way”.

Importance of Working with Governments and Industry Nearly all of the leaders (13/15, Table 1) mentioned the importance of working with governments, either as a key component of a successful initiative, or as the primary reason an initiative failed or had great troubles. The word government (and its extensions ‘governance’ and ‘governments’ etc.) appeared within the top ten most used words (194, Table 2): “I think the major thing is … you need to be working with local government and local authorities … Because the government has so many powers in this country … they could launch policy … they could launch new laws to make people to (sic) do this, do that”. A few leaders stated that government engagement itself was a strong indicator of the success of an initiative, with one stating that it was ‘the end game’: “To have the government standing up and inviting (us) to be their partners in bringing it (bear bile farming) to an end in the next five years”. Another leader attributed one of their most successful initiatives, the rabies vaccination and spay of 70% (also referred to as community saturation) of animals across an entire country, to their partnership and long-term collaboration with the royal government of the country. Others indicated a failure to work with the government as the key reason behind the overall failure of an initiative … “I guess they failed because they were not able to adapt to a political environment, or because they couldn’t come to an agreement or understanding of each other”. Partnering with the government to offer workshops was flagged as a sustainable option, where it fit the initiatives: “If you encourage the government and give them advice and give them successful experience and also other examples, they could learn from it, and they could do a lot of good things”. In addition to working with the government, many of the leaders also described success in which they worked with industry, not against it: “Our consistent involvement, our sensitivity for the politics, for the culture, for the plight of the people involved in the industry as well … I think, just recognising you’re not working with an enemy here”. Another leader stated that “our other most successful program has been our corporate engagement work, where over the last ten years we have worked with more than 800 companies in European Union, USA, South America and Australia, that work has been focused on driving commitment to game changing alterations to company product lines and supply chains; more than 1.1 billion farm animals are now set to benefit as a result of those interventions”. More than one leader described identifying commercial champions, or ‘insider champions’, for animal welfare improvement initiatives, who lead a corporate trend, as others fear ‘being left behind’: “Leadership was now with the companies and that this was a trend and it was gathering strength all the time”. One leader suggested that in some cases, where governments are now failing to act, that industry themselves can take leadership, with great success: “It’s the corporate agenda where we’ve been getting more change”. During analysis of the text, collaborative approaches rather than taking confrontational attitudes (Table 1) appeared as a theme across the board, but particularly when discussing working with industry (8/15 leaders, 22 citations, Table 1): “We’ve never ever shut the door with talking to adversaries … It’s not like these poultry industry leaders wake up in the morning and say ‘let’s be cruel’ right? It is something that has become natural because of what the business is, and I feel we (must) start making some business sense to them”. One leader summed up the sentiments of collaboration by stating, “even though people are performing acts one sees as egregiously cruel and wrong, ethically wrong, you cannot classify them as the enemy, and working to understand how we can reverse their practices with the help of the government so that everyone wins, you know, bears, 48 stakeholders in the industry, and the government too, so no one loses face in this continent where face is everything”.

Trust and the Language of Reason and Moderation Another frequently reoccurring theme within the interviews was that of trust (8/15 leaders, 20 word appearances, Table 1 and 2): “I think in terms of stakeholders, trust is just the most important issue … (and) I think that looks different depending on, you know, what you’re doing”. Another stated, “just trying to work with people to tell them you’re an ally not an enemy would be really important, no matter at what level you’re operating”. In describing their most successful program, a community horse care program, one leader reflected on where they began: “in the beginning I think they were largely mistrusting of the help … so, just sustained efforts (were made) to ensure we were trusted by the community, ensure that people know us there”. To the purpose of extracting practical information that may be useful to this study and its application, this theme was intuitively followed and the data was then analysed for methods by which trust was being built by successful leaders. Again, themes emerged. These themes centered around building trust with the two most frequently mentioned stakeholders; industry and governments. As these are arguably the most powerful stakeholders, the consensus on engaging them appeared to be around creating credibility through professionalism, which included meeting them on their level and speaking in a discourse they understand: “We were the first international agency that agreed to put in our money as well as theirs, so I think there was a lot of trust built and that somehow I would put trust between each of us as partners as the number one factor, and the fact is of course that we never said no to anything that was expected and they reciprocated when times were tough for us, they reciprocated with certain requests that we had”. The importance of carefully-selected language—that of reason and moderation, appears emphatically in the interviews from a few key leaders when describing successful trust building relationships with governments. A scientific and business approach, based on knowledge, was advocated instead of a purely emotional approach: “When you’re talking to governments, they don’t expect or won’t deal with people who are ‘puppy-huggers’ you know?”. Another stated, “how we presented ourselves was (as a) scientific, professional unit, who knew what we had to offer with very proper protocols of monitoring and carrying out impact assessment … there were meetings being held, reports submitted, graphs being prepared, surveys being carried out; so a lot of activities which were unconventional to what an animal welfare organisation usually does”. Another leader stated, “I think what’s worked with us is we have used the global language of mathematics; we don’t speak in English or any local language, we let statistics, we let science and we let published information of the impact we’ve had to do the talking, and that’s why we’re successful”. In discussing reasons for a particular success, another leader stated, “I think … a key factor (was) being able to present ourselves as a capable, professional unit which actually knew what we were talking about, and we could display and prove what we were offering was actually going to be true”. Anecdotally, emotionally fueled lobby is often used by communities and the general public when reporting concerns to governments. With governments also in a position to be concerned with the difficulties that change may present for industry in greater recognition of the animals’ needs, opportunity exists for animal welfare professionals to support governments in moving forward by presenting scientific measurement and alternative but useful information and solutions. Emotional responses may be useful in engaging the general public to be interested in a cause, and indeed, generating donor generosity; however, caution is recommended when using emotion as a lone language even in this context of general public engagement. Emotional responses can be measured scientifically, e.g., to video footage of livestock slaughter (Tiplady et al. 2012) and their degree of representativeness investigated. Humans naturally empathasize with animals with poor welfare, and this response can be measured and informative (Aaltola 2013). In this respect, opportunity exists to present measured emotion as scientific evidence to audiences in which this language is more successful, such as governments and industry, as suggested in this study. However, it is also 49 important that we have scientific validation around public concern about animal welfare, because the public may not be sufficiently knowledgeable about animal management (Erian & Phillips 2017). When considering the themes of reason and logic, speaking about discourse with government on dog culling one leader stated “I give the example of how countries got rid of polio; (it is) not by killing the children who were born, but by vaccinating the children who are born … it’s the same way you can get rid of rabies in your country, by vaccinating the dogs and not killing the dogs, otherwise the logic is the same. Every animal that is born will have rabies, every child that is born will have polio … you kill the disease, you don’t kill the vector. Logic sets in well”. Regarding the ability to present with reason and logic, two leaders also made special mention of ensuring that animal welfare initiatives have enough professional expertise to meet stakeholders at their level and to speak their language: “Companies are hiring the best scientific, economic business minds; how are we going to rise up to them if we don’t do the same thing?” In addition to reason as a language of trust, moderation; the ability to be flexible, compromise, and reciprocate, was raised a few times in the interviews. This was particularly in the context of unsuccessful initiatives, due to an inability to be moderate. After probing some leaders to reflect on why campaigns to end dog meat have been so unsuccessful in some Asian countries (after they had raised the issue), these reasons centered on the inflexibility of the campaign, the defensiveness it generates in cultural identity (discussed in ‘attacking cultural identity), and the unsteady philosophical ground it finds itself on when compared to eating other species domestically and internationally (e.g. the response of “but we eat pigs”) (Piazza & Loughnan 2016). Instead of taking the more extreme ground of ending dog meat consumption, perhaps this campaign requires a more moderate approach, to begin to see difference: “Let’s improve standards, you know, let’s look towards, creating better conditions for animals that we raise to eat”. Rather than taking extremist angles that are harder to support, and ignite defensiveness to identity, it is suggested that a “focus, and evidence-based common sense approach to achieving the goal” is preferred. One leader, who had made a transition from a more aggressive ‘animal rights’ organisation, to a more moderate ‘animal welfare’ organisation, discussed the increased success that the change had made in relation to the actual impact on animals. Although vegan, this leader stated, “in relation to food sovereignty, I think the reason we have been successful has been … positioning ourselves in the centre, not leaning either to the right or to the left of the food sector”. The leader also discussed how more ‘moderate’ groups are able to collaborate with important stakeholders to bring about change, where more ‘extreme’ groups may not, and how the position of adversarial groups is often demonstrated in the war-like language; “When groups put out press releases saying it’s a ‘victory’, ‘we did this’ … the moment someone announces a victory there is a loser right? And nobody likes to be loser right? So they rise up to bring your victory down. So to me it seems like having press releases that don’t use the word ‘victory’ are a key, and collaborating and having conversation with adversaries so that it’s a win for them, a win for us and a win for the animals”. The primary themes that appeared within the context of ‘engaging people’ in animal welfare initiatives are presented in Figure 6, commencing with identifying stakeholders (a product of research as indicated in Figure 5), and finding opportunity through identifying mutual benefits, which itself relies on understanding and investigating how the animal welfare issue is related to people and their welfare. ‘Education’ around the intrinsic importance of the issue (i.e., ethical positions etc.), separate to how it is linked to people, is offered as an alternative to finding the link; however, education of this nature is a long term endeavour. Having identified the stakeholders and the opportunities through mutual benefit, initiatives should be collaborative, which relies on trust and local ownership. Trust can be built on individual and organisational credibility, which includes a deep cultural knowledge, and integrally, respect. In the case of attacking cultural identity (outlined in the above section, and placed in Figure 7), trust is dissolved and success is unlikely. In regards to engaging people, although the data suggest an approach almost entirely positively focused on ‘the carrot’ strategy, some argument for ‘the stick’ was present (Figure 7). Deeper analysis of the data was conducted in an attempt to understand in what context this approach may 50 be useful. As demonstrated in Figure 7, the data tends to suggest that the positive approach is almost entirely the best practice; however, where mutual benefits do not exist or cannot be identified, pressure can be placed (through a variety of routes) to offer leverage and thus create opportunity. This opportunity can then be leveraged to identify mutual benefits and continue in a positively focused collaboration, rather than adversarial initiatives. Other ‘carrots’ may exist, such as better meat quality from animals with higher welfare; however, these are not individually listed as they are considered as a mutual benefit. Figure 7. Mindmap 3: The case of the carrot vs the stick. * Asterisks highlights ‘the stick’ as an outlying strategy presented in the data, but one that was suggested to have use in specific circumstances, presented below.

Discussion

Applications The predominant themes and recurring discussion items centered around ‘people’ words (‘people’ being the second most used word throughout, Table 2), and in specific relation to engagement, notions such as knowledge and respect; that is, knowledge of the issue and, even more so, knowledge of the people the issue concerns. In this context of international animal welfare project management, cultural knowledge and respect were of particular importance. When deconstructed, people drive the change that not-for-profit initiatives wish to see but, within the context of animal welfare, the focus is overwhelmingly placed on the animals: “It’s the people that we need to convince, the animals have no role to play in this”. There has often been a lack of people that understand the human perspective in the animal welfare movement, and a potentially misguided passion for animal welfare that without the ‘people’ focus, runs the risk of lacking the ability to bring about change—or worse—being detrimental to the movement. In many cases, sentiments and 51 themes found in this study support conventional wisdom; however, not-for-profit organisations (focused here on animal welfare) are also susceptible to underusing the cross-disciplinary knowledge that is available in the sciences, business, marketing, psychology, international business management, and cross-cultural research. This may be for a number of reasons, including a mistrust of science, the cost of accessing and appraising the information, and a lack of experience and skills in this area (Ross & Phillips 2018). However, this common pitfall also represents an opportunity to improve the animal welfare movement. By utilising and applying knowledge gained by other fields, and by learning lessons from the successes and failures of long established leaders in the field, the efficacy of international animal welfare initiatives can only improve (Britton 1998). This study aimed to illuminate the latter, by consulting leaders on strategy, identifying themes behind success and failure, and considering the major beliefs behind these. Using this information, and the way the themes are tied together in the data, logical mind maps have been created and presented throughout the results to assist the digestion of this information and increase the application of findings. These mind maps may aid in constructing an improved international animal welfare strategy, as a checklist to ensure the comprehensiveness of a created strategy, and may aid in the diagnosis of an unsuccessful strategy.

Limitations and Further Research While this study aimed to commence research on best practice approaches to international animal welfare initiatives, further research is needed. This study was limited to the leaders of the major international animal welfare charities, which meant a sample size of just 15. While the data offered by these leaders is rich in experience and detail, further research could focus in more detail on country specific information. Opportunities also exist to analyse existing projects objectively for the presence of these themes, and to add themes and operational strategies where appropriate. Opportunities also exist to apply this information in case studies, and to measure their success to validate and elaborate on these themes. As noted by one of the interviewees in this study, “I think that another need in the region is to just have more research on just how to engage, and also on the cultural aspects of animal welfare”.

Conclusion

Within this study, leaders of the world’s largest international animal welfare not-for profit organisations were interviewed with respect to strategic initiatives they considered successes and failures. The key tenets behind these initiatives where investigated for themes and solutions, and approaches developed through mind maps for application to international animal welfare initiatives in the future. There may be a tendency in animal welfare charities to fail to utilise research and methods tried and tested by other industries to improve operational efficiency. The animal welfare movement could benefit from an increasingly strategic focus, and a focus on people as the stakeholders able to bring about change. How best to engage people, particularly in an international context, was investigated in this study. The information within this study will prove useful in the creation of international animal welfare initiatives with improved efficacy, and provide a base for, or contribution to, the generation of best practices built through further research. Learning from successes and failures across the animal welfare movement can only aid in collectively furthering the movement; through the focus on people, to the benefit of animals.

52 4 International Animal Protection Society Leadership: The Right People for the Right Issues

Citation: Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. International Animal Protection Society Leadership: The Right People for the Right Issues. Animals 2018, 8, 89.

Contribution: The PhD candidate (MS) secured funding, designed the experiment, invited participants, arranged the interviews, conducted the interviews, analysed the data, wrote the paper, submitted it for publication and addressed academic reviewer in revision. Supervisory support was offered (CJCP) for methodological oversight, and editing of the paper.

Abstract

As the increasing body of scientific information about the experiences of other species and their ability to suffer becomes available to those working within the field of animal welfare, the amount of potential issues to address also increases. Carefully choosing issues to address, and indeed leaders to drive the cause forward, has the potential to significantly increase the efficacy of the international animal welfare movement. Within this study 15 leaders of major international animal welfare organizations were interviewed about their experiences, thoughts and strategies, which have been primarily acquired through long-term exposure to the movement, and endeavors of trial and error. After thematic analysis, key themes are presented, along with strategies and cautions that may be beneficial to the animal welfare movement. Animal welfare leaders suggested a focus on issues that fitted well with their organizations’ remit and were not too broad, to avoid spreading resources and expertise too thin. A utilitarian framework was also considered important, aiming to improve the lives of as many animals as possible for the resources deployed. Good leaders were believed to have passion for their cause, not just for animals, and an ability to build and lead good teams, hence good interpersonal human skills were also perceived as essential. The conclusion is drawn that establishing what makes a good animal welfare leader could offer useful direction for future engagement of successful leaders in this field. The specific findings of this chapter are intended to be of use to animal welfare not-for-profits in the strategic development of their workforce.

Introduction

As a modern movement and field of science, animal welfare has exponentially grown over recent decades to achieve global recognition. Measured in terms of social media attention (public support) rather than the traditional terms of net worth (donor generosity), animal-based charitable causes now occupy three of the top 20 globally ranked positions for supporters, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which has 5.4 million supporters on Facebook (Top Nonprofits ; Top Nonprofits ; Facebook.com 2018). US domestic animal welfare charity Humane Society US has 2.6 million supporters on Facebook, where Amnesty International Global has only 2 million, Save the Children 1.8 million, and World Vision Global 92 thousand (Facebook.com 2018). Despite not making the top ten richest causes, reserved for long established social movements managing poverty, housing, healthcare, education and emergency relief aid for humans (Funds for NGOs 2018), these statistics show a growing movement support base of significant proportions. The animal welfare movement has advanced significantly in western countries in the last 30 years (Wilson 2015). The work of Rene Descartes (popularized in the nineteenth century) that maintained that non-human animals were nothing more than machines, to which pain is insignificant, is now mostly a figment of past scientific misjudgements (Hatfield 2008). The birth of animal welfare

53 science, and the simultaneous growing awareness and scientific understanding of animal suffering has seen a focus placed on a growing number of species. First, the factory farming of vertebrates (Broom 2011), and the sentience of cetaceans for example (Broom 2007), and after proving fish have the ability to feel pain and to suffer, animal welfare science has a major focus on fish welfare, with widespread implications (Braithwaite & Boulcott. 2007). It seems, the more scientific knowledge develops, the more animal welfare issues exist for the movement to focus on. With so many potential issues, and so much work to do to bring animal welfare standards in line with public expectations in some regions, how do leaders in the animal welfare advocacy movement choose which issues to focus on? This study aims to investigate this question, by interviewing current international animal welfare leaders to identify factors that drive their decisions.

“The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails.” (Maxwell 2017)

As with any organization, social movement organizations are only as good as the people working and living within them, so the vision and ability of the people leading them becomes paramount to success. In fact, leading within a non-profit environment brings with it additional challenges. “The role of leadership in social movements goes well beyond that of the stereotypical charismatic public persona with whom they are often identified” (Ganz 2010, pp. 2). This is due to the nature of social organizations as “voluntary, decentralized, and self-governing; they are volatile, dynamic, and interactive; participants are motivated by moral claims, but results depend on strategic creativity; and their capacity to make things happen depends on their ability to mobilize broad levels of commitment” (Ganz 2010, pp. 35). Leading an animal welfare organization brings with it further challenges, both external and internal, by its very purpose: advocating for other species. There is little doubt that it requires a variety of competencies and mix of traits in order to be most successful. For this purpose, effective human resources practices—recruiting and succession planning to ensure the right people are in the right place at the right time—underpins the success of non-profit initiatives. Recruiting the best possible leaders into these roles could be assisted by knowledge from current successful leaders. In addition to identifying animal welfare issues to pursue, this study aims to investigate effective human resources practices by interviewing international animal welfare leaders about their experiences and their opinions on effective leadership in the movement. This knowledge could assist in the early identification of potential future leaders, in the development plans of those leaders, and ultimately aid in the success of the organizations that they lead. The overall aim of this research is to assist in capacity building the international animal welfare movement to enable it to be more people focused. Just as people are the ultimate target of all animal welfare campaigns, they are also leading them.

Materials and methods

Ethical approval for the study was provided by the University of Queensland Human Ethics Committee (approval number 2017000628). Relevant organizations were considered to be the major international animal welfare charities on the basis of three aspects of their activities; international, large scale, and a high level of brand recognition. In total, leaders of 13 major international animal welfare organizations were approached, a total of 15 leaders from ten organizations accepted, one declined, and two did not reply to the invitation. The reason for one organization declining was a their perceived lack of knowledge to comment on the subject. Participating organizations were Animals Asia, Humane Society International, Compassion in World Farming, International Animal Rescue, International Fund for Animal Welfare, World Animal Protection, Royal Society for the Protection against Cruelty to Animals UK, Vets Beyond Borders, The Donkey Sanctuary and People for the Protection of Animals.

54 The leaders of the organizations were chosen by the lead researcher (MS) and the organizations themselves, based on their assessment of individual’s role within the organization, which required them to be a CEO, operations managers or high-level coordinators working in an international capacity. These leaders were approached via email and requested to take part in a 30 min semi- structured interview via Skype to talk about their experiences regarding successful and unsuccessful projects in animal welfare. Prior to the interview, the leaders were given an information sheet to review, outlining the confidentiality of the interview, its voluntary nature, their right to withdraw at any time, and details regarding the topic and interview logistics, such as time requirement and platform. Upon request, all leaders gave recorded verbal permission at conclusion of the interview to use the name of their organization as participating within the study. Fifteen leaders accepted this invitation to participate and a time was booked for interview. In the interview, leaders were asked:

• How long they have been in animal welfare?

• What drew them to animal welfare?

• What makes a good international animal welfare leader?

All interviews were recorded with a voice recorder after verbal permission from each leader at the onset of the interview, and complete transcripts were subsequently prepared verbatim. This study was approached in a familiar way to sociological research across fields (including that of other social progress initiatives such as environmental conservation), with the purpose of identifying and understanding evidence-based approaches as solutions for advancing the animal welfare movement (Schenk et al. 2007; Reed 2008; Drury et al. 2011).

Data Analysis Thematic analysis was aided by appropriate software (QSR International 2018) and through manual inspection of source data by the same researcher who conducted the interviews (MS). Coding themes were identified using text frequency and word search functions in NVivo, in addition to manual familiarization with the data. Words were chosen for analysis based on the amount of times they appeared overall; however, joining words (such as “and”) were excluded, along with words that had no relevance or usefulness to the node/theme, or to the study. By extracting the main themes that emerged from the analysis, including key pieces of connective information, mind maps were created to easily visualize the themes and their relationship with each other. Data within each node (identified reoccurring theme) was then further analyzed for detail, including frequency of each theme.

Results

Part one: Choice of Animal Welfare Issues to Pursue

When leaders were asked to outline how they chose an issue to pursue, seven themes were identified (table 3) and will be discussed.

Table 3. Summary and frequency of nodes (identified reoccurring theme). Theme Sources, out of 15 References within the Sources

Fit within organizational mandate 7 9

“Best for the most” 5 7

55 Opportunity for collaboration or leverage 4 8

Duration and intensity of suffering 4 5

Ability to contribute 4 4

Fit within targeted “focus” 3 4

“Biggest difference” and “widest impact” 3 3

Fit to Organizational Mandate, and Focus The most common response was that primarily an issue must fit the specific mandate established by the institutional strategy, often by boards and committees (Table 3). Five leaders specifically mentioned the need to “keep it very tight within those program areas”, and that potential animal welfare activities need to fulfil this mandate. A few also suggested that this mandate was best if it was specific, as “it is better to do a few things really well, than everything really badly”. This related to the theme of “targeted focus”, where comments such as “we need to stay focused on specific issues, otherwise we just get stretched too thin”, were emphasized by three of the 15 leaders (Table 3). Two leaders stated that the potential activities are also evaluated on their ability to enhance other programs they are currently running, and how they will strengthen the global program. Five of the 15 leaders referred to the clarity of their mandate, making the decision to be involved in a potential animal welfare activity very simple. One leader referred to the overwhelming amount of potential animal welfare issues to pursue and stated that this was more reason to stay focused on one issue only. One leader stated that, “It’s easy to dilute when you venture out into new topics, but that doesn’t really give justice to your core programs. Focus on the core issues with which you start, and don‘t divert from it too much.”

Best for the Most and Scope of Suffering The second most common theme identified in choosing issues to pursue was utilitarian; selecting the issues that will affect the most number of animals followed by the scope of suffering (duration and intensity). A third of leaders interviewed made comments such as, “I think it’s easy when you think what affects the greatest number of animals”, “it’s best for the most”, and “we only pick issues with the maximum animal suffering, and there is of course a maximum reduction of suffering for dollars spent, and hence battery cages, animal testing, wildlife trade, puppy mills, cruelty response—these are the areas we pick”. In addition to the amount of animals suffering, the same leaders also stated that they assess the length of time an animal suffers, and intensity of the suffering. A few leaders stated that they chose to focus on battery cages for hens because, “it is lifelong, and is complete immobilization”. Another leaders stated the same rationalse for focusing efforts onto the farming of bears for bile. While two thirds of leaders did not cite pragmatic or utilitarian reasons for choosing their animal welfare issues to pursue, three did mention that they made choices based on the wider notion of “impact”; however, that was not further defined.

Opportunity for Collaboration or Leverage Four of the 15 leaders made mention of specific opportunities that led them to choose certain activities on their portfolio (Table 3). These opportunities mostly centered around opportunity to collaborate with a government, or a key industry or commerce. Half of these leaders discussed their vigilance for opportunities to tie their causes to other issues of social concern, such as climate change, gender empowerment, and food security, which in turn creates wider possibilities and more opportunities for impact and sustainability.

Ability to Contribute 56 Four of the 15 leaders noted that their ability to bring something meaningful and useful to the issue was an important criterion when deciding if to pursue the issue (Table 3). In one instance this also included consideration of who else was working in the area, and if they would have the ability to bring something new. One leader stated, “Do we really have an opportunity for change here or are we going to bang our head against the wall?”, while another summed up the sentiments by stating, “There are some areas that have severe animal welfare problems, but our ability to change it is minimal, and therefore if we have minimal resources, limited resources rather, then we ought to focus on problems that we can fix, at least at this stage. Doesn’t mean you don’t try to address some of those issues long term so you can get it to a stage when you eventually could tackle them, but in the end that’s the key thing.”

Part two: International Animal Welfare Leadership

Attraction to animal welfare leadership Fourteen leaders answered the question about what drew them to animal welfare and all but three of these were passionate about animal welfare. Most stated an affinity with non-human species, and others that they felt strongly about the cause of animal welfare, and uncomfortable with the injustice of poor animal treatment. Six stated that they had witnessed something that affected them, five stated they felt they could add something to the cause, and one had an academic history in animal welfare. The remaining two leaders were recruited into the cause on the basis of specific skills they brought to the organisation.

Time in the Industry Nearly all leaders in this study (13 of 15) had volunteered or worked within the animal welfare industry long term, for over ten years. Five of these leaders had been leading the same organization they were integral in founding and claim a minimum of 20 years working in animal welfare. Four of the leaders were volunteering or engaged with animal welfare causes from a young age, and a few stated that it was an industry that they would be dedicated to into the future.

Part three: International Animal Welfare Leadership Traits

When leaders were asked to outline the traits that built a good leader in animal welfare, 12 themes were identified (table 4) and will be discussed.

Table 4. Themes and words cited in relation to the question “What makes a good international animal welfare leader?”

Sources References Frequent Theme out of within the References Word * 15 Sources Passion 8 9 “Passion” [12] Understand the issue and 7 9 “Understand” [17] society Ability to build an engaged and competent 6 8 “Team” [7] team Bigger picture 5 7 Collaborative 5 6 “Engage” [7] Flexible (reason and 4 5 moderation) Focus 3 6 “Focus” [7] Communicator 3 6 Driven 3 5 “Driven” [5] 57 Involved 3 4 “Involved” [5] Compassion and 3 4 empathy Persistence and 2 3 determination * words found within the top 100 most frequently used words leaders used in response to “what makes a good animal welfare leader?”

Passion Passion was the most commonly referred to trait, with nearly two thirds of respondents raising it as important (Table 4). “I think having leaders who are hardworking and undoubtedly passionate to the cause is really the most important thing.” Another leader stated “You’ve got to have passion. You have to want to make this happen, there are so many reasons why it can’t.” Some leaders cautioned that while passion is of paramount importance, it is dangerous when unaccompanied by focus. “They’re so passionate and they want to take on every issue in the farm animal movement; that’s not being effective.” Another leader directly stated that passion can also bring about demise when not coupled with the right ‘sense for it’. “I’ve seen a lot of passionate people burn out, very soon, very very fast; because we see so much suffering on our field trips on a daily basis you know.” Another cautioned that the passion of a good leader should not only be for animal welfare causes, but also for people. With enthusiasm, “you should be able to inspire people around you”, which is hard to do without a passion for people and potential team achievements.

Understand the Issue and Society Approximately half of the leaders interviewed stated a need to “understand” the issue they are leading, and the environment and culture in which they are leading it (Table 4). “I think maybe I have repeated it many times, (but they need to) understand the society; understand the policy—the local policy; and understand the country. It is very important.” Another stated that a great leader will, “understand the great variances there are in cultural differences, because that’s huge”, while another stated, “you need to know the region that you’re working in really well, that’s the first thing”. By “understanding”, another leader elaborated that a great leader “need(s) to really understand the local custom or culture, and in equal part, that person needs to understand the perception of the ordinary people on animal welfare issues, or even on animal issues”. One leader made a point of stating that a good leader does not just understand their animal welfare issues and the society, but also where the issue fits in a broader context of wider issues. “I think it’s the ability to drive change through understanding the context that makes a more successful animal welfare leader.” After stating that a leader needs to become a regional specialist, one leader added a caveat to caution leaders against overstating their understanding levels and overextending beyond their ability. Another leader stated the ability of a good leader to identify and hire good teams with the required knowledge and understanding to support them.

Ability to Build a Capable and Engaged Team “Obviously a good animal welfare leader does not need to be a technical expert, but needs technical expertise behind them, I guess, to have that in terms of the organization.” “You’ve got to have really good people in every position that are able to take up the challenge … I think you need to have an all-encompassing view, but to enable people to do things … I have no problem delegating, I have too much to do anyway”. Three leaders stated the importance of empowering their team and leading from behind. “Rather than, kind of, be the person sort of spearheading it publicly, actually passing on my knowledge and skills to the people that I work with and kind of building them up to a point where they can actually

58 do the actual one on one negotiations”. Another leader stated “that is down to excessive non-stop communication with every member of your team really … it is exhausting; it is so easy to want to concentrate on the program, the animals and the issue—but you need to focus on the people leading those areas … ultimately it is communication and empathy for your staff”. Delving deeper into the data, it emerged that a key to building an engaged and capable team is the ability to relinquish control of key strategic aspects of the business, and to be able to relinquish personal credit or accolades following successes with campaigns. “I think a (good) leader (is someone) who doesn’t control branding, who lets the local staff or the volunteers take the best decision and one who guides.” “I think that animal welfare today has become ‘eminence-based’ animal welfare rather than evidence-based animal welfare … the people themselves become larger than life, and I feel that a good leader has to put himself or herself behind, and change the movement from an eminence-based movement to an evidence-based movement … I feel like whoever understands and does that is a leader who should lead in animal welfare movements.” “Animals don’t have time for one charismatic person.”

Bigger Picture Ambition Another theme trait of good animal welfare leaders is bigger picture vision, and with that, ambition (Table 4). “I’ve seen too many models where people have either been willing to plod on and not change the world, and frankly as far as I’m concerned if we were not in it to change the world we shouldn’t be here.” This includes a purposeful contentment in being behind the scene. “Even if I didn’t touch an animal for the next 10 years and I only talked to 100 people a day and asked them to be kind to animals, I’d bring about more change than going to animals directly.” Another leader stated “look at the root cause of the problem, you may run a shelter and spend all your money and all your life taking care of 40 dogs, unless you stop the overpopulation of the dogs on the streets and where they’re coming from, you waste your time and your money and your resources … so these are the things that I think make a very good animal welfare leader”.

59 Collaborative The ability to be collaborative, both internally within the organization, and externally to the organization was also identified as an important trait of a successful animal welfare leader (Table 4). One leader stated that “being collaborative and being able to make those connections with other organizations, other stakeholders outside, and also to bring their own organization along”, were key hallmarks of a successful leader, while three leaders highlighted the importance of also being able to network and collaborate with other charities, and “not being insular, working with other charities, opening up”. Another stated the importance of the collaborative abilities of a good animal welfare leader by stating they “have to deal with ministers and diplomats, bureaucrats, their community, the groups that hate animals, the groups that love animals, (and) get them all at a table, talk some sense to them, listen to them, and find strategies, (and) make them feel committed … so I think that’s the number one take away for me”. This includes the ability to collaborate with the stakeholders they’re trying to change. Another stated the required ability to “work towards … finding something where we have some common ground and then engaging that person … (to) that point where we can actually sit down with (them) and have that dialogue, and then come up with that compromise”. One leader explicitly stated “a good animal welfare leader needs to be a people person. I hear a lot of people say, ‘I love animals, but I hate humans’, and I think that’s something we can do away with … we don’t need those people in front of people, we need a people-loving person, because the root cause of all animal suffering is human behavior”. For this leader, this begins by recruiting “people-people”. “If I have to hire someone for a country, I take them out for a beer with a large group of people and I see how they interact with them.”

Flexibility, Reason and Moderation Through collaboration, it may sometimes be necessary to arrive at flexible outcomes and compromises and, as such, flexibility appeared as another theme associated with good leaders in international animal welfare. “Accepting that … we might not be able to get everything that we want but … gradually we might be able to actually … get at least a working relationship with that person and see how things go.” Within the data, flexibility was most commonly associated with cultural and societal differences. Where flexibility was raised there seemed consensus that, where operating internationally, this trait was required of a good leader. “(They) need to be able to be flexible and also accommodating of differences in people, in culture and society”, “they need to be someone who is flexible, someone who can walk into a situation in a country and listen, and then assess the situation, but understand the great variances there are in cultural differences … because that’s huge … you have to be able to address that in a commonsense way so that you can give a grounded reaction and a grounded assessment of what’s going on”. The importance of listening was sometimes used in the context of understanding, tied to flexibility, reason and moderation. A good animal welfare leader is “someone who is flexible, who … can listen, rather than going in and saying it’s got to be done this way’ because it’ll never work … and someone who is prepared to think about it and make a rational decision that is best for the animals”. Lastly, one leader responded directly to the themes of reason and moderation, more so, a leader’s ability to use reason and moderation by referring to science. “Within our means, I think we can do a good and much better job of letting science play its part in animal welfare, and accepting that, rather than fighting that.”

Focus, Drive, Persistence and Determination The four themes of focus, drive, persistence and determination were pooled together as they are contextually very similar throughout the data and were used interchangeably. When asked what constitutes a good leader in animal welfare, one leader stated “I think we just crack on a bit, we’re driven. You do have to be driven … and driven by outcome rather than personally. I don’t think you achieve much if you’re ego driven.” Another stated “I would say the people who are most effective are people who can just focus, say ‘ok, this is what we’re doing’, people who are focused in that 60 way.” Another stated “very driven, hungry for success, willing to do what it takes … within reason … within reason is in concert with the organization identity”. The focus and drive mostly referred to a focus on an achievable strategy and outcome, rather than on the issue they were addressing. A good leader is someone “who has a very clear aim and strategy for achieving that is realistic”. Another stated that an individual can be a great leader and make a great impact, despite limited resources available to animal welfare organizations, “by being very outcome focused, and being able to marshal all the resources that an animal welfare organization can bring, you can have that impact and inspire people to believe that … I think if you do that, you can have a large impact. It’s often a misconception among the general populace that animal welfare groups are huge and we get loads of money, compared to the big NGOs let alone the big agencies, we’re tiny”. Another leader addressed the theme of focusing on tangible outcomes as something that is commonly missing from leaders of animal welfare organization, to the detriment of their cause, “I think often a common flaw with the over-ambition, comes a lack of focus on outcome and I see it more often in campaigning organizations. There’s a lot of cred’ing (credit seeking); ‘we got x number of newspaper headlines, we’ve done this we’ve done that’, but actually if you look at the issue things haven’t changed. They might be higher profile, but animals are still suffering”. Lastly, one leader states that passion, backed by focus and determination, is the key tenet of a good animal welfare leader, and that in discussing determination, the word “no” drives them. “What do I mean by determination? Never ever take no for an answer … if I go to a corporation and the guy on the other side of the table says ‘no , we’re not going to do that’, my mind immediately switches to ‘oh, why do you say that?’, because I’m then looking for feedback, I’m looking for them to give me all of the answers of what I should do to make that person change their mind, because they will, and they do, it’s just a matter of time.”

Discussion

When choosing animal welfare issues to pursue, animal welfare leaders overwhelmingly stated that above all, the issue must fit the strategic mandate and remit of the organization. By having a clear focus and organizational purpose, criteria can be developed that ensure proposed issues are in line with that mandate. Focusing on a few key issues core to the organization also ensures that resources (including expertise) are specific to the issue, and that attention and limited resources are not stretched too thin. While it may be tempting for animal welfare organizations to expand their focus to ever more issues, particularly for increasing donor pool and donor generosity, it may not be helpful to the causes being represented. In addition, successfully promoted victories in more narrow and focused fields may also bring about increased donor generosity. Strategically focusing on key areas in which an organization does well is a sentiment also reflected in product marketing strategy (Cahill 1997). Likewise, business strategy often warns against growing beyond capacity and over diversification (Biggadike 1989). Second to this, many leaders stated a pragmatic and utilitarian- based approach of “best for the most”, also considering intensity of suffering, as an important criterion. In an industry that affects the lives of approximately 29 billion animals (chickens, ducks, cattle, pigs, sheep, turkey and buffalo) around the world at any given time (Food and Agricultural Organisation 2019), it is of little surprise that this often entailed factory farming programs to reduce the suffering of poultry, fish, and pigs. Identifying programs with the greatest impact to the most lives could be considered, in business sense, a good investment return. That is, for the same amount of investment, more lives could be positively impacted. This is not to suggest that the animal welfare movement should turn away from other causes with fewer animals, such as captive wild animals, or companion animal welfare, as some species could serve as charismatic ambassadors for attitude change towards animal species and could themselves bring about positive change. In some instances also, focusing on other species and issues may deliver more readily achieved positive outcomes. It is then suggested that core programs be chosen based on utilitarian criteria; however, opportunities to advocate for other causes when the socio- political environment allows should be considered. “Opportunity” was the third highest criteria that 61 leaders used to decide if their organization would pursue an animal welfare issue. When considering cost benefit, if a positive outcome for the movement can be achieved, or an important government collaboration can be forged with reduced effort due to a presented opportunity, it is also recommended to be considered with high regard. In the absence of opportunities being directly presented to an organization, opportunities may be proactively identified by having intimate knowledge of the issues, and the socio-political environment in which the issue sits. In international animal welfare this also means a significant and well-founded insight into the country (Sinclair et al. 2017a) culture and key stakeholders that surround the issue. When identifying ideal leaders for the movement, a variety of traits were repeated by numerous leaders. Most notably, there was passion. While non-profit organizations vary when it comes to passion for their charitable philosophy, passion in their purpose may not be unique to non-profits. Some leadership researchers state that “human passion”, along with inspiration and vision of leaders directly drive corporate success (Zaleznik 2004). Further to this, when investigating leadership styles in a post-recession environment, passionate leaders were found to be more successful in attracting funding and creating jobs, in particular within complex and challenging environments (Patel et al. 2015). Patel et al. (2015) suggest this leadership passion is attributable to project success being tied to the personal identity of the leader. The “passion” referred to by leaders in this study was not as simple as just “passion for animal welfare”. Passion for animal welfare alone was not considered enough and, in fact, detrimental when not coupled with other key traits, such as focus and determination. Passion, as highlighted in this study, needs to encompass a broad brand of passion that strives to see outcomes, supported by focus, drive, determination, and sense. As one leader stated “just to wrap that in three words; passion, focus and determination”. Other than the ability to apply themselves in intimately understanding the issue and society in which their programs are focused, the third most common trait of an effective leader in animal welfare was the ability to build an engaged and competent team. This is echoed in leadership literature in other fields (Zaleznik 2004; Ganz 2010). A repeating theme within this was the ability to lead the team from behind, utilizing evidence to move the cause forward and focusing on achieving outcomes instead of building up personal credentials. For this purpose, the traits make a full circle back to passion; passion for the cause, and passion for the outcomes … rather than passion for personal recognition. This should drive the selection of future leaders in the animal welfare movement. Non-profit leaders have decades of leadership literature and advice to draw upon from other fields; however, it is potentially underutilized. Inherent differences and challenges exist when leading non- profit organizations are compared to leading for-profit organizations; however, knowledge of basic human nature, psychology and cultural studies can be utilized across both. One leader stated, “I don’t really see it different from being a leader in any other … except you know, I think just by its nature we are people who love animals”. While this draws attention to the ability to learn “leadership lessons” from other fields, the unique differences and required skill mix, still suggests a need to better understand what makes successful leaders in international animal welfare. It is hoped that the findings of this study may assist to advise animal welfare organizations in the identification, recruitment and succession planning of ultimately successful leaders, along with strategic planning and identification of development opportunities within the movement.

Conclusion

Leaders most commonly identified animal welfare issues to pursue to success based on their fit with specific organizational remit and criteria. The purpose of this was to avoid stretching attention and resources too thin, to the point that each campaign loses efficacy. Additionally, animal welfare issues were also chosen using a “best for the most” utilitarian framework, along with considering environmental and political opportunities that may arise (or are proactively discovered), to deliver positive outcomes for the movement. Passion, not only for the cause, was the number one trait 62 identified with “good animal welfare leaders” within this study; however, caution was issued against recruiting for “passion for the cause” alone. The passion for the cause must also be echoed with a passion for delivering outcomes and for engaging people. This passion must be backed by a focus, drive and determination to persist in the face of challenges and setback, to remain positive to people and the possibilities of collaboration. Creating an empowered team with the appropriate skills and knowledge and leading them from behind, instead of focusing on their own eminence in the field, are also key, along with an ability and interest in intimately understanding and respecting the culture in which the issue is presented. This study is an early start to better understanding the strategic ways of people and issues in the animal welfare movement. Further, more in-depth, research is recommended to allow the development of best practices within the industry.

63 5 Attitudes of Pig and Poultry Industry Stakeholders in China to the Welfare of Animals and Farming Systems.

Citation: Sinclair, M.; Yan, W.; Phillips, C.J.C. Attitudes of Pig and Poultry Industry Stakeholders in Guangdong Province, China, to Animal Welfare and Farming Systems. Animals 2019, 9, 11.

Contribution: The PhD candidate (MS) secured funding, designed the experiment (refining a survey tool previously validated in her MSc research), prepared and analysed the data, and wrote the paper and addressed academic reviewer revision. Supervisory support was offered (CJCP) for methodological oversight, assistance redefining the survey tool, statistical advice and support. CJCP also conducted analysis, contributed to writing the paper, and submitted it for publication. The final co-author, Dr Wang Yan, coordinated survey distribution and data collection in China.

Abstract

Although the People’s Republic of China produces more animals for consumption than any other country, very little is known about the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industries to animal welfare in farming systems. This study investigated the attitudes of stakeholders in pig and poultry farming in south China towards animal welfare in different farming systems, pig and poultry behaviour, and the inherent value of the animals themselves. Respondents thought welfare was important, particularly if they had worked in the industry a long time, and they intended to make improvements, even though they also believed it to be generally satisfactory. Outdoor systems were perceived to be better for welfare, but indoor systems better for food safety, particularly among respondents who gained their knowledge from multiple sources. Respondents believed pigs and chickens have equally important needs, despite the fact that pigs were considered more intelligent than chickens. Pig farmers with outdoor systems had a more positive attitude to making welfare improvements compared with those operating intensive indoor systems. For chicken farmers, an absence of enrichment for the chickens increased respondents’ intentions to make improvements, but these were more likely to occur on small chicken farms. Veterinarians and government officials were more likely to perceive welfare as unsatisfactory or to want change it compared to those working directly with animals. City residents were more likely to support and express confidence that they could improve animal welfare, compared to rural residents. In conclusion, stakeholders in China’s pig and poultry production industries recognised a need to improve welfare, although they saw a conflict with production of safe food. Farmers involved in intensive production systems were less likely to perceive a capacity to improve welfare than those operating more extensive systems. This may suggest a dichotomisation of the industry into those in small and outdoor farms that could and were improving welfare, and those in indoor intensive farms who did not envisage this happening.

Introduction

The People’s Republic of China (henceforth China) is the largest producer of meat from terrestrial livestock in the world, with approximately 14 billion animals raised and slaughtered in 2017. The scale of livestock agricultural output in China exceeds that of the world’s second largest producing country (United States of America) by over 36%, and over 57% more than the third (Brazil), with the United Kingdom, France and Germany producing less than 10% of China (Food and Agricultural Organisation 2019). The scale and global importance of China’s livestock industry is not limited to terrestrial animals, with the nation currently producing a majority of the world’s farmed fish (63 million tonnes), approximately four times the output of the second largest producer,

64 Indonesia (World Atlas 2019). With over 1.4 billion citizens (World Population Review 2019a) and continued domestic growth, China also has the world’s largest food consumption by volume (Zhangyue Zhou et al. 2012). Considering these details, China’s potential influence on global animal welfare is undeniable. Despite the size and status of China, and its dominance in global agriculture, Chinese animal welfare laws do not yet exist, and very little is known about the Chinese livestock industry outside of China, and even less about Chinese farmers. Subject to a farming environment that differs both within the country and with that in other countries, cultural differences provide another impediment to a deeper understanding of Chinese livestock communities. The difference between measurable cultural dimensions is particularly large when comparing China with countries with which it has major economic relationships, such as the European Union, Australia and the United States. These differences are primarily on the dimensions of ‘power distance’ (the extent to which less powerful members of society expect and accept inequality in power distribution) in which China ranks high while US, UK and Australia rank low; ‘individualism’ (the extent to which community members take care of themselves independently [the ‘I’] rather than for a wider collectivist group [the ‘we’], on which China ranks low, with US, UK and Australia ranking high; ‘long term orientation’, in which China ranks high, with US, UK and Australia ranking low, and lastly, ‘indulgence’, the extent to which people indulge their impulses rather than show restraint, on which China ranks low, with US, UK and Australia ranking high (see figure 1) (Hofstede Insights 2019). This has important implications for international agricultural trade relationships, and for proponents of international animal welfare initiatives. Given the possibility of miscommunication and misunderstanding resulting from these key cultural differences, the need to better understand agricultural trading partners is paramount, particularly concerning the growing issue of animal welfare. Research presented in chapter three shows a need to engage livestock stakeholders in international animal welfare initiatives, through the identification of mutual benefits, and emphasises the role of local knowledge, understanding and respect in success (Sinclair & Phillips 2018b). To do this, the farmers themselves needs to be consulted, and their position, environment, and attitudes adequately understood. A study with French pig farmers found that their understanding of animal welfare correlated with their levels of involvement in consumer quality assurance programs (Kling-Eveillard et al. 2007); farmers participating in stringent quality assurance schemes defined animal welfare in terms of providing environments in which the animals can perform their natural behaviours, with farmers in less stringent systems defining animal welfare as simply the physiological health of the animals. A correlation of farmers’ attitudes with the level of regulation and comprehensiveness of animal welfare requirement was also evident in a literature review incorporating several studies in neighbouring European countries (Bock & Van Huik 2007). Another study found that Dutch pig farmers’ general attitudes towards animal welfare was tied to their understanding of good farming practices, which were primarily influenced by the market segment they were targeting (van Hiuk & Bock 2007). Likewise, in a study of German pig farmers, attitudes towards animal welfare, and their willingness to participate in animal welfare programs, was most prominently tied to economic factors and the ability to increase profit, and a framework for an incentive scheme was suggested (von Hardenberg & Heinke 2018). Another European study found a relative consensus between the expectations of industry stakeholders and consumers on the elements that are required to satisfy animal welfare from 72 attributes of the farming process [11]. However, it was only achieved if welfare was included into the broader concept of quality, and managed by assurance and sustainability schemes (Verbeke 2009). Most investigation of farmers’ attitudes has so far been conducted in Europeans countries, with very little research of this nature conducted in an Asian context. In China, although little research has been conducted with farmers and other livestock stakeholders, studies have investigated citizens’ attitudes to animal welfare. One found that only two thirds of respondents had heard of ‘animal welfare’, but when they knew what it was 73% were in favour of improving it for human food safety reasons, with 66% agreeing to some extent that animal welfare legislation should exist in 65 China, where it currently doesn’t (You et al. 2014). This work shows that animal welfare may be a concept of influence in China, at least amongst Chinese citizens. Likewise, when ‘animal protection’ was measured against twelve other world social issues, such as poverty, gender inequality and racism, it was rated by university students in China as the most important issue, alongside environmental protection and sustainable development (Sinclair & Phillips 2017). Additional studies, presented in this thesis in chapter eight, began to investigate attitudes in focus groups of Chinese industry stakeholders, in which the importance of economic factors, mutual benefits and financial incentives connected to welfare, such as improved animal productivity, food safety, and above all, quality, were demonstrated (Sinclair et al. 2019a). Chinese stakeholders have indicated that the law, governance, the availability of tools and resources, and knowledge are important drivers behind their attitudes to animal welfare, and the workplace hierarchy and the extent to which animal welfare improvements were approved of within the workplace was perceived as highly influential in regarding ability to improve welfare in China (Sinclair et al. 2017a). This confirms the importance of the ‘power distance’ cultural dimension in Chinese society. A quantitative survey has investigated stakeholders’ perceptions of important animal welfare concerns during transport and slaughter (Li et al. 2018) with the absence of stunning pre-slaughter being considered the most serious threat to animal welfare. This study aims to build on an earlier survey study that focussed on attitudes to animal welfare of stakeholders involved in slaughter and transport (Sinclair et al. 2017a), by focusing on stakeholders in the farming systems, including investigation of their attitudes to the animals. Poultry and pork producing farm were the focus, given the significance of these species in China, which is home to half of the global population of pigs (FAOSTAT 2017c), and the largest chicken production industry in the world, double that of their closest competitors (Indonesia and the United States) (FAOSTAT 2017b).

Figure 8. The relationship between law, and financial benefit as motivators to improve animal welfare in the Asian livestock industry. Data and graph from ‘Hofstedes Insights’, www.hofstede-insights.com

Materials and methods

Under the auspices of the Animal Welfare Standards Project (AWSP) (www.animalwelfarestandards.org), 16 workshops on improving animal welfare on farms were held in southern China from June to September 2018, within which 178 farmer participants completed a survey. The locations of the workshops were all within Guangdong province in south-east China, 66 including Guangzhou (n=32 farmers), Huizhou (n=34), Jiangmen (n=34), Maoming (n=21), Shenzhen (n=34), and Yunfu (n=23). This province hosts some of the largest pig farming enterprises in the world (People’s Republic of China 2010). Workshops were organised by 16 facilitators, who were senior livestock leaders within the localities of the workshops. Facilitators were selected by academic staff in the South China Agricultural University (SCAU), Guangzhou, Guandong Province, and had to have enough knowledge and experience to train effectively and to be sufficiently senior within the pig or poultry farming industry to encourage attendance at the workshops they hosted. They had to have previously attended a four-day training workshop series at SCAU in March of the same year, delivered by international and Chinese animal welfare experts. Facilitators were provided with the present survey and administered it before commencement of each workshop. Because of potential difficulties in translating the term ‘animal welfare’ into Chinese, at the start of the survey respondents were provided with a definition of animal welfare, modified from that provided by the OIE: ‘The term animal welfare refers to how well an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal has good welfare if its needs are being met and hence it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express important behaviour and not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress’(OIE 2016). The survey was based on a previously tested survey tool that aimed to investigate attitudes to animal welfare, along with motivations and barriers to improving animal welfare, and had been used by the same researchers in previous studies (Sinclair et al. 2017a; Sinclair et al. 2017b; Sinclair et al. 2018b). Some targeted attitude questions were added that sought to identify farmers’ attitudes to various welfare-related components of pig and poultry farming systems, whichever was relevant, and to the animals themselves (see survey items in appendix). The survey was translated into Mandarin and back translated by the team at SCAU to ensure accuracy. Facilitators were provided with a USB drive containing the translated survey for printing and paper- based distribution within the workshops, along with translated training resources for use within the workshops to follow. Workshop participants were invited by the facilitators based on a set of selection criteria that included current employment within the poultry and pig farming industry and being aged over 18. The survey instrument was reviewed by social scientists, as well as having been mostly validated in earlier studies (Sinclair et al. 2017a; Sinclair et al. 2017b), with the novel animal and farming systems based questions refined to ensure comprehension, relevance and accuracy. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the University of Queensland Human Ethics Committee (Project Identification Code: 2017000628).

Statistical analysis The data were initially collated and quality controls used to remove obviously erroneous data points. Data were all then imported into Minitab for analysis. Initial descriptive statistics were obtained, with means, for each of the general attitude questions, in addition to the attitudes to farming systems and the attitudes to the pig and chickens. Attitude responses were used in a general linear model (GLM), with Fisher’s tests used to discriminate between means that differed significantly according to the GLM. Ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to assess the significance of the relationships between respondent demographics (the categorical independent variables) and the distribution of the Likert scale responses for each of the attitude questions (the continuous dependent variable). The model used an iterative-reweighted least squares algorithm with a logit link function. All models achieved convergence. All probability values were considered significant at p <0.05, and highly significant at <0.01.

Results

Demographics 67 Male stakeholders represented 59% of the respondents, female 41% (Table 1), which indicates over-representation of males compared with national data (approximately 53% male, 47% female) (World Population Review 2019a). Most lived in urban (60%) or rural (40%) zones, the former being similar to the national distribution of urban-zoned residents (59.2%) (Central Intelligency Agency 2018). The majority (71%) were aged 26-45, whereas this age group represents only 50% of the population of China, which overall is older (Central Intelligency Agency 2018). The most common work was directly with animals, although a significant proportion were business owners or managers. The farming systems represented were mainly intensive indoor pig farming, most commonly with over 3000 pigs, and about one third were also involved in indoor chicken production, many keeping just small numbers of birds, but also some with large flocks of over 10,000 birds. Most said that they had gained their knowledge form employment in agriculture or through formal qualifications, and to a lesser extent personal interest. Nearly half had been involved in the industry for less than one year, with only a small proportion (20%) having ten years or more experience in the industry.

Table 5. Description of respondent demographics

Demographic Variable N %

Gender Male 105 58.99

Female 73 41.01

Residential Rural 71 39.89

zone Town 23 12.92

Suburban 19 10.67

City Centre 65 36.52

Age Under 18 4 2.25

18-25 33 18.54

26-35 68 38.20

36-45 58 32.58

46-55 12 6.74

56-65 2 1.12

Over 65 1 0.56

Role in Working directly with 44 24.72

industry animals

Team leader 5 2.81

Business owner or manager 26 14.61

Livestock veterinarian 10 5.62

Government representative 13 7.30

68 Other 80 44.94

Farming Intensive indoor 116 65.2 system used Indoor/outdoor 20 11.2

(pig) Outdoor sties 14 7.9

Outdoor free range 24 13.5

Not involved in pig farming 4 2.2

Size of farm 1-10 21 12.50

(no. pigs) 10-50 8 4.76

50-100 18 10.71

100-500 30 17.86

500-3,000 11 6.55

3,000+ 80 47.62

Farming Indoor enriched 45 25.28 system used Indoor intensive 21 11.80

(chicken) Outdoor coup 11 6.18

Outdoor free range 9 5.06

Outdoor day/coup night 13 7.30

Not involved in chicken 79 44.38

farming

Size of farm 1-50 46 31.51

(no. chickens) 50-200 14 9.59

200-1,000 16 10.96

1,000-10,000 22 15.07

10,000+ 48 32.88

How Formal qualifications in 72 26.37 knowledge agriculture gained* Hands-on farm employment 88 32.23

Personal interest (internet, 57 20.87

journals, newspaper,

television)

69 Peers 33 12.08

All of the above 23 8.42

Length of time <1 year 77 43.26

in industry 2-3 years 25 14.04

3-5 years 22 12.36

5-9 years 34 19.10

10-15 years 13 7.30

>15 years 7 3.93

*This demographic criteria was open to multiple responses, therefore the total count is greater than the number of respondents.

Attitudes to pigs and chickens in farming systems There were differences in the level of agreement with the different questions about respondents’ attitudes to animals (pooled SEM 0.0553, P < 0.001) (Table 2). Respondents were most in agreement that welfare of animals was important to them and that they intended to make improvements to animal welfare. There was slightly less agreement that they had tried in the past or that they could make improvements, and still less that important others would approve of them making improvements. There was least agreement that welfare was satisfactory in their workplace. Concerning respondents’ attitudes to different types of pig and chicken production systems and their impact on welfare, respondents mostly agreed that outdoor pig and chicken production systems, where the animals were in groups and able to roam, were better for the welfare of the animals (Table 3). There was no differentiation between the two species. There was less agreement that indoor intensive systems were better for food safety, and that individual stall housing was better for sows and that it is desirable to house pigs in groups. Respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that indoor intensive systems are better for the welfare of pigs and chickens.

70

Table 6. Responses to general attitude questions about animal welfare, with differences between mean responses

Likert scale response Mean Strongly Disagree Neither disagree nor Agree Strongly response1 disagree agree agree

The welfare of animals is important to me 1 2 33 90 40 3.92a I intend to make improvements to the welfare of the animals in my care 0 2 55 98 23 3.79ab In the past I have tried to make improvements to the welfare of the animals 0 3 58 99 18 3.74bc in my care I am confident that I can make improvements to the welfare of animals 1 8 53 95 21 3.71bc Most people who are important to me would approve of me making 0 8 68 82 20 3.64c improvements to the welfare of the animals in my care The welfare of farm animals is satisfactory in my workplace 3 18 81 63 13 3.36d 1 Mean responses with different superscripts represent significant (P<0.05) differences when analysed using Fishers statistical model.

Table 7. Responses to attitude questions about the impact of type of pig and chicken farming system on animal welfare, with differences between mean responses

Likert scale response Mean response1

Strongly Disagree Neither disagree nor Agree Strongly agree disagree agree

PIG FARMING SYSTEMS I believe indoor intensive farming of pigs is better for food 9 23 67 67 12 3.28c safety

I believe indoor intensive farming systems are better for the 8 42 75 39 14 3.05d welfare of the pigs

I believe outdoor farming systems where pigs are in groups 4 7 34 105 28 3.82a and able to roam are better for the welfare of the pig I believe housing sows in individual stalls is better for the 3 22 56 75 22 3.51b welfare of the sow I believe it is desirable to house pigs in a group situation 4 17 65 75 17 3.47b CHICKEN FARMING SYSTEMS

I believe indoor intensive farming of meat chickens is better 10 27 57 68 16 3.29b for food safety

I believe indoor intensive farming systems are better for the 11 46 66 44 11 2.98c welfare of the chicken I believe outdoor farming systems where chickens are in 1 6 47 98 26 3.79a groups and able to roam are better for the welfare of the chicken 1 Mean responses with different superscripts represent significant (P<0.05) differences when analysed using Fishers statistical model.

Table 8. Attitude towards pigs and their behaviour, with differences between mean responses

Likert response Mean response1 Strongly Disagree Neither disagree or agree Agree Strongly agree disagree It is important that pigs are physically healthy 0 4 29 107 38 4.00a It is important that the pigs are happy 1 4 39 102 32 3.89ab Pigs are intelligent animals 0 4 42 99 32 3.88abc I believe pigs feel pain 1 9 44 99 25 3.77bcd Pigs are social animals 0 8 56 93 21 3.71cd I believe pigs can suffer 1 8 62 87 20 3.65d Sows should be allowed to make a nest before they 0 13 51 95 19 3.67d give birth Pigs should be allowed to forage for food and root in 3 20 59 85 11 3.45e the ground Pigs are aggressive animals 7 33 62 68 8 3.20f It is normal for pigs to display mouthing behaviours 19 42 55 55 7 2.93g such as biting bars and chewing (without food) repetitively Pigs do not understand much about their environment 26 75 44 29 4 2.49h 72 Piglets do not mind if their tails are docked and teeth 27 78 42 27 4 2.45h clipped Pigs are unfriendly animals and do not like to interact 23 85 47 19 4 2.41h with other pigs 1 Mean responses with different superscripts represent significant (P<0.05) differences when analysed using Fishers statistical model.

Table 9. Attitude towards chickens and their behaviour, with differences between mean responses

Likert scale response Mean Strongly Disagree Neither disagree nor Agree Strongly response1 disagree agree agree It is important that chickens are physically healthy 0 2 28 113 35 4.01a It is important that the chickens are happy 2 2 35 106 33 3.93ab Chickens should be allowed to perch 1 2 37 113 25 3.89ab Chickens should be allowed to stretch and preen 0 4 38 108 28 3.89ab I believe chickens feel pain 0 5 36 112 25 3.88ab Chickens should be allowed to flap their wings 1 6 36 114 21 3.83bc Hens should be allowed to make a nest to lay their eggs in 1 8 38 112 19 3.78bc Chickens are social animals 1 6 62 88 21 3.68cd Chickens should be allowed to peck the dirt to forage for food 1 14 45 99 19 3.67cd Chickens are intelligent animals 1 8 54 99 16 3.67cd Chickens should be allowed to bathe in dust or dirt 2 18 52 87 19 3.57cd I believe chickens can suffer 0 19 64 75 20 3.53d It is normal for chickens to attack each other 18 43 51 57 9 2.97e It is normal behaviour for chickens to peck each other’s feathers out 21 50 44 54 9 2.88e Chickens do not care much about their environment 28 67 54 24 5 2.50f Chickens are not friendly and do not like to interact with other chickens 23 86 46 19 4 2.41f 1 Superscript represents the extent to which means differed, analysed using Fisher’s test

73

When considering respondents’ attitudes towards pigs and their behaviour (Table 4), respondents most readily agreed that the physical health of pigs is important, that it is also important that they are happy, and that they are intelligent animals. There was also general agreement, but less so, that they are social animals, feel pain, can suffer and should be allowed to make a nest before parturition. There was some but not overwhelming agreement that they should be allowed to forage for food and root in the ground, and even less that they are aggressive animals. Respondents tended towards disagreement that it is normal for pigs to display mouthing behaviours such as biting bars and chewing (without food) repetitively, and generally disagreed that they do not understand much about their environment, that they don’t mind if their tails are docked and teeth clipped and that they are unfriendly animals and do not like to interact with other pigs. When considering respondents’ attitudes towards chickens and their behaviour (Table 5), respondents most readily agreed that they should be physically healthy and happy and allowed to perch, stretch and preen, as well as agreement that they can feel pain. There was some but not overwhelming agreement that they were social animals and that they should be allowed to flap their wings and make a nest, bathe in dust or dirt, and that they are intelligent animals or that they could suffer. Respondents tended to disagree that it was normal for them to attack each other or peck each other’s feathers out, and some agreement that chickens did care about their environment and that they are friendly and like to interact with other chickens. Comparing responses for pigs and chickens, there were no differences between mean responses in relation to whether intensive farming is better for food safety (3.28, 3.30, SEM 0.074, P = 0.87), indoor intensive systems are better for welfare (3.05, 3.00, SEM 0.074, P = 0.56), outdoor systems are better for welfare (3.82, 3.80, SEM 0.059, P = 0.79), they can suffer (3.66, 3.53, SEM 0.060, P = 0.66), feel pain (3.78, 3.88, SEM 0.54, P = 0.16), should be happy (3.90, 3.93, SEM, P = 0.66), physically healthy (4.01, 4.02, SEM 0.049, P = 0.87), it is normal for mouthing/ chewing repetitively (pigs) or pecking each others’ feathers out (chickens) to occur (2.94 and 2.89, respectively, SEM = 0.082, P = 0.66) and whether pigs or chickens are more social (3.71 and 3.69, SEM 0.055, P = 0.72). However, respondents were more likely to agree that pigs (3.89) are intelligent than to agree that chickens are intelligent (3.68, SEM 0.082, P = 0.007).

Demographic influences Role in industry More government officials thought the welfare of animals was very important to them (38%) than those working directly with animals (11%, OR 0.06, CI 0.01-0.34, P = 0.001). Fewer veterinarians were likely to agree that the welfare of farm animals was satisfactory in their workplace (20%), compared to those working directly with animals (40%, OR 5.86, CI 1.1-31.8, P = 0.04), but fewer veterinarians were also likely to agree (10%) that important others would approve of them making welfare improvements, compared to those working directly with animals (57%, OR 6.47, CI 1.1- 38.3, P = 0.04). Type of farming system More pig farmers whose pigs were kept in either mixed indoor/outdoor systems (25%) or outdoor in paddocks (25%) agreed that important others would approve of them making welfare improvements compared to those working directly with animals (6%, OR 0.20 and 0.21, CI 0.06-0l.63 and 0.07- 0.63, P = 0.006 and 0.006, respectively). More pig farmers whose animals were outdoor in paddocks (25%) were also likely to agree that they intended to make welfare improvements than those whose pigs were in intensive housing systems (9%, OR 0.28, CI 0.09-0.88, P = 0.03). More pig producers operating indoor/outdoor systems (30%) and those with fully outdoor systems with paddocks (29%) strongly agreed that they were confident that they could make welfare improvements than those operating intensive indoor systems (6%, OR 0.24 and 0.18, CI 0.07-0.81 and 0.05-0.57, P = 0.02 and 0.004, respectively). More pig producers operating fully outdoor systems with paddocks (21%) strongly agreed that they were confident that they had in the past made welfare improvements than those operating intensive indoor systems (6%, OR 0.19, CI 0.06- 0.62, P = 0.006).

More chicken producers operating intensive systems without enrichment (86%) agreed or strongly agreed that they intended to make welfare improvements than those with enrichment (53%, OR 0.25, CI 0.07-0.84, P = 0.02). Fewer (46%) of the very large farmers (>10,000 birds) agreed or strongly agreed that they intended to make welfare improvements than farmers with < 1000 chickens (88%, OR 1.53, CI 1.09-2.15, P = 0.01). Time in industry The longer the time stakeholders had spent in industry, the more likely they were to say that the welfare of the animals is important (OR 2.27, CI 1.23-4.19, P = 0.009), but less likely to have tried to make changes (OR 0.41, CI 0.18-0.91, P = 0.03), and also less likely to agree that it is normal for pigs to display stereotypical mouthing behaviours (OR 0.37, CI 0.22-0.63, P <0.001). Residential zone Residential zone was the most frequently significant demographic influence in this study, with stakeholders living in city centres more likely to strongly agree that animal welfare is important to them (41.5% of city residents), as compared to those living rurally (11.3% of rural residents) (OR 0.27, CI 0.13-0.58, P = 0.001). City residents were also more likely to strongly agree that they were confident they could improve animal welfare (21.5% of city residents), compared with rural residents who were far more likely to ‘agree’ (52.1% rural residents) than ‘strongly agree’ (7.0%)(OR 0.18, CI 0.07-0.49, P = 0.001). Rural residents were more likely to ‘agree’ (49.3% of rural residents) that it is desirable to house pigs in a group situation, compared to city residents who were most likely to ‘neither agree or disagree’(OR 02.50, CI 1.42-4.40, P = 0.002). City residents were more likely to ‘strongly agree’ (27.7% of city residents) that it is important that chickens are happy, compared to rural residents (15.5% of rural residents), most of whom were only likely to ‘agree’ (69.0%), as did suburban residents (84.2%)(OR 5.05, CI 1.52-16.8, P = 0.008). City residents were more likely to ‘strongly agree’ (20.0% city residents) than rural residents (7.0%) that chickens should be allowed to make a nest to lay eggs, however most of the stakeholders in both residential zones ‘agreed’ in general (OR 0.22, CI 0.07-0.68, P = 0.009). Likewise, when asked if chickens should be allowed to flap their wings, city residents again ‘strongly agreed’ (24.6%) as compared to rural residents (5.63%), again stakeholders from both residential zones were most likely to ‘agree’ (56.9% and 61.9%, respectively) (OR 0.12, CI 0.03-0.42, P = 0.001). Route of industry knowledge How stakeholders gained their existing knowledge also had highly significant relationships with attitudes to pigs and chickens. Stakeholders who had gained most of their knowledge from all the suggested routes (qualifications, experience, personal interest, friends and acquaintances) were more than twice as likely to ’agree’ that intensive indoor raising of pigs is better for food safety (47.4%), compared to those who only had either a formal qualification (20.0%), and those who only learnt through experience on farm (19.4%). Those with a mixture of formal qualifications and experience were almost as likely to ‘agree’ as those who gained their experience by all routes (42.1%) (OR 0.35, CI 0.22-0.55, P < 0.001). The same question for chickens showed a similar trend, with those with knowledge gained from all suggested routes being more likely to ‘agree’ that intensive indoor raising of chickens was better for food safety (39.5%) as compared to those who learnt through a formal qualification (20.0%), however, those who learnt on farm were even more likely to agree with this statement (45.2%) (OR 0.48, CI 0.32-0.71, P < 0.001).

Discussion

Demographics The over-representation of males in this survey compared with national data may reflect a gender difference in senior roles within the livestock industry. Nevertheless, there are more women (19% of all women in China) than men (14% of all men in China) working in agriculture (World Bank 2019). The younger age of our sample compared with national data may reflect an attraction of younger stakeholders to our training and educational workshops.

75 Perception of pigs and poultry in farming systems Stakeholders involved in pig and poultry farming generally agreed that the welfare of the animals is important to them. In a recent survey in our selected region stakeholders in livestock transport and slaughter perceived that others would approve of them making improvements to welfare more than our stakeholders did (3.88 Vs 3.64) (Sinclair et al. 2017a). This could be reflective of a greater recognition of welfare issues in transport and slaughter than at the farm. Beliefs that animal welfare is satisfactory in the workplace in which they operate and that they intended to make improvements were both slightly higher for stakeholders in this study than in the previous study (means welfare satisfactory 3.36 Vs 3.18, intentions 3.79 Vs 3.58). A failure to intend to make changes may be because during slaughter a disconnection, or ‘de-animalisation’ and ‘compartmentalisation’ towards the animals as individuals with a welfare status is required in order to maintain the mental wellness of the stakeholders (Hamilton & McCabe 2016). It could also be reflective of the limited time which slaughter stakeholders spend with individual animals, as opposed to those involved in farming, who are by nature of their goals invested in the physical wellbeing of their animals over a longer period of time. Stakeholders most strongly agreed that ‘it is important that pigs are physically healthy’, and likewise for chickens. This probably reflects the loss of animal productivity that can occur if the animals are not physically health. It may also relate to a focus on food safety, on which there is a strategic focus by the Chinese government and the World Health Organisation (Genchev 2018). A recent survey of Chinese nationals found that ‘food safety’ was the number one concern they would like the government to attend to (Batmanian 2014), and focus groups studies with Chinese stakeholders have found that improved food safety, along with product quality, are the most important perceived benefits of addressing animal welfare (Sinclair et al. 2019a). The concern for the ‘happiness’ of the animals was only slightly less than concern for their physical health, and they exhibited preference for natural behaviour expression, both suggesting that the fundamental and practical notions that underlie animal welfare are well grasped by Chinese stakeholders, even if the ‘concept’ or term ‘animal welfare’ as it is known in western countries may not be (Sinclair & Phillips 2018b). While intensive systems were advocated for food safety reasons in our study, some of the highest levels of agreement appeared in response to the ‘happiness’ of the animals, and that outdoor roaming farming systems that allow social interaction were better for the welfare of the animals. It was believed that some natural behaviours, such as stretching, preening, perching and wing flapping should be allowed in the farming of chickens, and likewise, that pigs are intelligent animals who should be allowed to make a nest, and forage for food. This may be reflective of the preference for natural and fresh produce, in a country where knowledge of product characteristics is important to discerning Chinese consumers, where some animals are still purchased live, or freshly killed in markets, and freshness and quality can be assured (Knight et al. 2008; Ma et al. 2017). This is in contrast with consumers in western cultures that more often purchase processed and packaged meat products that allow cognitive dissonance, placing a mental distance between the animal and the resulting product. This characteristic of Chinese consumers represents an opportunity to promote animal welfare (Sinclair & Phillips 2019). Stakeholders rated pigs as more intelligent than chickens, demonstrating that they associate intelligence with traits in humans and other mammals, such as a neo-natal appearance and in particular relatively large eyes (Eddy et al. 1993).

Demographic effects In regards to the demographic effects, the residential zone in which the stakeholders lives was frequently significantly related to their attitudes, with city centre residents more likely to have clearer opinions on animal welfare, and to ‘strongly agree’ that animal welfare is important, that they have tried to make changes, and they are confident they can do so. This finding was not reflected in the previous study (Sinclair et al. 2017a), however this may be due to a change in the nature of the questions to be more animal focussed, rather than on the driving factors of attitudes. That is, rural residents may have more regular contact with the animals, and therefore be more 76 desensitised to animal welfare. The other explanation may be that rural residents associate with the farming environment and culture more, may have an appreciation for the complexity of farming systems and are therefore more hesitant to take a negative positions towards the welfare of animals in farming systems. Stakeholders working within indoor intensive systems were less likely to have confidence in their ability to improve animal welfare, while the larger farms were more associated with this confidence. Systems that are highly intensive often have limited opportunity to improve welfare, in the domains of space and natural behaviour specifically, however it may be considered unexpected that size of farm had the opposite effect. Despite conventional beliefs that large farms have poor animal welfare, a scientific literature review has shown that the relationship is not simple in western farms, and that larger farms often have opportunities to improve animal welfare that smaller farms may not (Robbins et al. 2016). This may also be the case in China. Larger farms may represent larger businesses, within which stakeholders feel they have more scope and power to influence positive animal welfare change in general. Despite this stakeholders involved with very large farms were less likely to agree or strongly agree that they intended to make welfare improvements. Alternatively, this result may be reflective of confidence to improve animal welfare as there are perceived to be more animal welfare challenges to address and little economic imperative to do so.

Limitations of the study Stakeholders within this study responded to many questions with neutral responses, with strong agreement in only a few questions, and only subtle disagreement where it existed. This may indicate that responses were approached with caution and moderation, which is believed to reflect a cultural tendency to take less extreme positions and preference for the middle ground, where this may vary substantially in other cultures (Harzing 2006; Sinclair et al. 2017a). It can then be inferred that where noticeable and consistent agreement or disagreement exists, the finding is significant.

Conclusion

This study shows that stakeholders in the Chinese pig and poultry industries tended to agree that animal welfare is important to them, but that the recognition and intention to improve it was stronger in stakeholders in small and outdoor farms than in intensive indoor farms.

77 6 Motivations for industry stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia to improve livestock welfare.

Citation: Sinclair, M.; Idrus, Z.; Nhiem, D.; Katawatin, S.; Todd, B.; Burns, G.L.; Phillips, C.J.C. Motivations for Industry Stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia to Improve Livestock Welfare. Animals 2019, 9, 416.

Contribution: The PhD candidate (MS) secured funding, designed the focus group content and activities, sought partnership agreement with local academic collaborators, coordination of the focus groups in partnership with local collaborators, facilitated the focus group sessions, prepared transcripts, analysed the data, developed themes, constructed theory, wrote the paper, drew the figures, submitted the paper and attended to revisions as required from academic reviewers for publication. Supervisory support was provided (CJCP and GLB) for methodological oversight and editing the paper. Assistance was received from the project Research Assistant (CF) in the preparation of comprehensive field notes during the facilitation of the focus group session, which were key in the construction of the transcripts. Brendon Todd assisted in editing the paper and ensuring clarity and consistency. Voluntary on-the-ground assistance was provided by academic collaborators in each country (all additional co-authors), in the preparing and hosting of the focus group sessions, and the supplying of verbal translation where required.

Abstract

Understanding what might motivate livestock stakeholders to improve animal welfare is useful information when developing initiatives that benefit from stakeholder engagement. This study was designed to assess the strength of motivating drivers in the development of attitudes to animal welfare, and the factors that impacted their ability to improve animal welfare. Building on an earlier quantitative survey with livestock stakeholders in Malaysia, China, Vietnam and Thailand published by the authors in 2017, the present study consisted of a series of qualitative focus group sessions with livestock leaders across the same countries. Within these focus groups livestock leaders (n=39) were presented with the most significant results for their country from the earlier study, and data were collected pertaining to the meaning and applicability of these results. Thematic data analysis was conducted to identify salient and repeated motivating factors and meanings. This process revealed a complex picture of relationships between motivators and the contexts that drive them. Figures are presented to begin illustrating these relationships. Some strong motivators were uncovered that were previously rated low in the survey (i.e. financial benefit) or not included at all (e.g., food safety). This paper also presents the opportunity to better understand the strength and relationship of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational forces behind animal welfare improvement.

Introduction

Animal protection, along with environmental protection and sustainable development are world social issues rated as being of the highest importance by citizens across vastly diverse cultures, from China, to Iran, to Norway (Sinclair & Phillips 2017). Still, wide gaps exist between practices as recommended by a scientific understanding of animal welfare (Botreau et al. 2007); the expectations and understanding of society at large (Vanhonacker et al. 2008); and the realities within livestock industries across the world. The reasons for this are as numerous as they are challenging to overcome, however, understanding what might motivate key stakeholders to make improvements could form a base from which to begin (Marciano 2010).

78 The study of motivation has been described as an inquiry into the factors that give impetus to action (Weiner 2013). Many theories to understand human motivation exist. Two of the most prominent are Maslow’s theory, which is based on a hierarchy of needs that begins with physiological needs and progresses to self-actualisation as each level is attained (Maslow 1943), and basic drive theory that focusses on instinctual need driving behaviour through disturbances to homeostasis (Seward 1956). Other popular theories include expectancy-value theory, which ascertains that the best predictor of motivation (and therefore behaviour) is a mixture of expectation in an outcome and/or confidence to deliver an outcome, and the values and beliefs around the importance of the behavior (Eccles 1983). ‘Attribution theory’ also prominently appears in motivation theory, and proposes that people attempt to understand the behaviours of others by attributing intentions, beliefs and feelings to them (Kassin et al. 2010). How accurate the judgement of one individual regarding the motivations of another might be, is unclear. Although dominant theories in western countries, such as Maslow’s Hierarchy (McLeod 2007), point to the importance of understanding motivation in predicting human behaviour, they do not consider society in non-Anglo-Saxon cultures. When introducing cross-cultural dimensions such as ‘masculinity’, and ‘uncertainty avoidance’, as developed by Hofstede and colleagues (Hofstede et al. 2010), it is clear that assumptions cannot be made that the motivational forces are the same across regional border lines. It also becomes clear when reviewing the very significant literature on motivation theory that motivational factors vary not only with country, but also by situation, role and individual. One way to understand motivations in the context of agricultural animal welfare is to ask livestock industry professionals themselves, in order to find themes that can be applied across this specific sub-set of the population. Understanding what motivates stakeholders to act may assist in engaging them in animal welfare initiatives (Sinclair et al. 2017b). As established in chapter three, the need for engagement and isolation of a ‘mutual benefit’ for animal industry stakeholders is key to successful international animal welfare initiatives (Sinclair & Phillips 2018b). In terms of animal agriculture, no region is more presently significant than Asia. China alone is responsible for nearly 40% of the global animal agriculture output (FAOSTAT 2017c), along with being the biggest producer of fish, pig and duck; and second biggest producer of chicken after the United States (Food and Agricultural Organisation 2019). Further to that, China and India host more consumers than the rest of the world combined, with 1.4 billion and 1.3 billion respectively (World Population Review 2019b, 2019a). As an extremely important region for animal agriculture, a region diverse with sub-cultures and a region often poorly understood by the western world, the need for relevant and practical information that can underpin the animal welfare movement in Asia is great. When considering the international relevance of animal welfare and protection, both as a growing social interest (Sinclair & Phillips 2017) and from the perspective of global trade relations (Veissier et al. 2008; Verbeke W 2010), it is important to acknowledge the major impact culture plays on attitudes and practices. National culture is the most significant demographic influencing animal welfare attitude (Hofstede et al. 2010; Phillips et al. 2012; Ling et al. 2016; Sinclair et al. 2017a), and therefore an understanding of perspective by country is essential for effecting positive change. In addition to their individual economic importance in the agriculture sector in Australasia, the countries chosen within the study also serve to highlight key cultural differences within the Asian region. For example, while China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia all share the common Asian cultural characteristic of being highly collectivist nations (focused on the interests of the ‘we’, or group, rather than the individual, or ‘I’), along with other similar trends, the countries still substantially differ from each other in terms of general culture and way of life (Hofstede et al. 2010). While Vietnam shares some geopolitical history with China, Vietnamese culture tends to be far less long-term orientated than that of China; despite the strong Chinese influence in Malaysia (including a quarter of Malaysians identifying as Chinese), Malaysians are far more likely to engage in indulgence than Chinese nationals, and the Thai are far less likely to prefer and find comfort in hierarchy than their immediate neighbours in Malaysia (Hofstede 2011; Hofstede Insights 2019). 79 A background study, conducted in 2017, investigated motivators of Asian livestock holders in the context of animal welfare in a questionnaire of over 1,000 livestock industry stakeholders in China, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam (Sinclair et al. 2017a). This research found a significant correlation between country and the strength of different motivating forces. For example, the strength of religion as a motivator was particularly strong in Malaysia, where 62% of the population are Muslim (Department of statistics Malaysia 2010; PEW Research Centre 2011); and the strength of ‘peer opinion’ was particularly strong in community-based Thailand. Motivators such as ‘law’, ‘personal knowledge’ and ‘company approval’ were significantly important in all the countries surveyed. While this study can be considered to have illuminated a novel area of research, the quantitative nature of the survey did not provide information into what respondents were thinking, and why they ranked the motivators in the way they did. Advised by the significant results of this earlier study, the current qualitative study was undertaken with the aim of developing a deeper understanding of the positions and attitudes of stakeholders. Specifically, we aimed to gain insight into motivational forces for improving animal welfare by country; and to understand how the motivators interact with each other. Further information gained through the current study aims to understand the deeper motivations of livestock stakeholders towards animal welfare in an applicable way that will be useful in the development of international animal welfare initiatives, therefore increasing ability to engage livestock stakeholders in animal welfare improvements. Results are presented by key motivators, under which key themes have been identified and quantified; further qualitatively supported by participant quotes that best illustrate the attitudes and opinions that are represented in the data.

Materials and methods

Eleven focus group sessions were held in Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and China (see table 10). These countries were chosen due to their diverse cultures within the Asian region, the scale and importance of their agriculture industries, in particular those of importance to Australia (the country in which this study originates). Examples of this include the size of industry in China (pigs, chickens and fish in particular), the scale of the chicken product trade in Thailand, and the live trade (particularly cattle) relationships Australia has historically held with both Vietnam and Malaysia. These countries also presented ideal focus within this study, given the previous data collected for these countries, and therefore the ability to conduct more targeted research. Locations were geographically dispersed locations in different areas of each country (i.e. south, north, central, capital and regional), in an effort to capture potentially varied sentiments between domestic regions. Advised by an earlier survey conducted with livestock industry stakeholders (Department of statistics Malaysia 2010; PEW Research Centre 2011), industry leaders were invited as representatives of the livestock industry to discuss the significant motivators in a semi-structured format. Participants were invited through country-based collaborators utilising selection criteria that included: they were leaders in the agricultural sector, working for an organisation with a maximum of five government vets, and have the ability to implement change into private businesses. The majority were private industry leaders (e.g. pig or poultry slaughterhouse or production managers or owners). In some focus groups, certain participants were known to each other as professional colleagues. Although plans were made for five to seven participants in each session, the actual number of participants present on the day varied from three to 14, due to cancellations at the lower extreme and heightened interest at the other. Sessions with more participants often ran past the scheduled 3.5 hrs in order to allow all participants adequate opportunity to contribute. After presentation of the five highest ranked motivators and factors impacting on ability to improve animal welfare (table 11)—that had been determined in a previous study (Sinclair et al. 2017a)— stakeholders were invited, as participants, to discuss these results. The lead researcher facilitated all groups by prompting participants to discuss the following: their level of agreement with the results, 80 what survey respondents may have specifically meant, the reasons they may have for answering in this way, and any other thoughts regarding the results they wish to share. This activity comprised approximately one third of the total focus group content during each session, lasting approximately 1.25 hrs depending on location. The remainder of the content focussed on specific animal welfare issues, benefits to improving welfare and solutions, and willingness to embrace pre-slaughter stunning, which will be presented in subsequent manuscripts. Dialogue was voice recorded during the sessions and additional field notes were taken by a research assistant. Both data sets were used to create abridged transcripts of each session. As participation was subject to verbal translation during the sessions in most instances (except for some Malaysian and Thai participants who spoke English), verbatim transcripts were not possible. Transcripts were uploaded into NVivo software for Mac 11.4.3 for analysis.

Analysis Thematic analysis was utilised, in line with a Grounded Theory approach. The top five motivators were classified as themes and coded as nodes in NVivo. Data were then divided into relevant logical sub-themes where they were present, and identified both through manual familiarisation with the data, and using software tools such as ‘word frequency’ within each theme. Additional themes (motivators) were identified along with those presented to the participants and are presented in results as ‘other: financial benefit’, and ‘other: food safety’. At the completion of analysis and coding of themes and sub-themes, no new themes emerged from the data, suggesting data saturation. The same lead researcher that conducted the focus groups also coded all themes/nodes and conducted the analysis. The initial intention during the focus group sessions was to separate responses to ‘encouragement to improve animal welfare’, and ‘ability to improve animal welfare’. However, the difference between these two concepts may not have been clearly comprehended by the participants during translation in the focus groups. Instead, when the theme was presented in the context of ‘encouragement’ or ‘ability’ this was noted in the results. To avoid presenting misleading data, linguistics and tone are not reported, as all data were translated, abbreviated, and summarised through verbal translators during the sessions, from four different languages to English. For this reason, rather than focusing on word usage, more attention was paid to careful analysis of the key themes (motivators), the frequency of their appearance across countries, the general context and interpretation of their meanings, and their interrelationships. However, word frequency functions in NVivo were still utilised in identification of sub-themes and are reported accordingly in results. This study was granted human ethics approval by the University of Queensland Ethics Committee, approval number: 2017000628.

Table 10. Location of focus groups and abbreviation codes used in quote citations. Country Region Abbreviated code Vietnam Hanoi V_HN Ban Me Thuot V_BT Ho Chi Minh City V_HC Malaysia Negeri Sembilan M_NS Kuala Lumpur Selangor M_KL Thailand Bangkok T_BK Khon Kaen T_KK Chiang Mai T_CM China Guangzhou C_GZ Zhengzhou C_ZZ 81 Beijing C_BJ

Table 11. Summary of top five rankings factors influencing attitudes to animal welfare, from most important (top) to least important (bottom) by Chinese (n = 381), Thai (n = 307), Malaysian (n = 124) and Vietnamese (n = 210) respondents, as presented in Sinclair et al in 2017a. China Thailand Malaysia Viet Nam ‘The following Lawsa Co-workersa Lawsa Religious beliefsa Lawsa factors influence my Knowledgeab Religious beliefsab Workplaceb Knowledgea personal evaluation Workplaceab More Knowledgeabc Knowledgeb Lawsb Workplaceb of animal welfare pressing concernsbc Workplacebc Co-workersb Co-workersb during slaughter and Co-workerscd More pressing transport’ concernsc

‘The following Lawsa Lawsa Religious beliefsa Lawsa factors impact my Tools and Company Lawsab Knowledgeab ability to make resourcesab approvalab Knowledgeab Co-workersab improvements to Company Co-workersab Tools and Company welfare during approvalabc Tools and resourcesab approvalabc slaughter’ Knowledgebcd resourcesab Co-workersab Tools and Workcde Workspaceab resourcesbcd

Sources of Lawa Personal valuea Lawa Lawa encouragement to Personal valuea Lawab Workplaceab Personal valueab Personal valuea make improvements Local governmentb Local organisationbc Local governmentab Policeb to animal welfare Policebc Personal monetary Workplaceabc Local governmentb Workplacebcd gainbcd Local Workplaceb Local Local organisationbc organisationcde governmentbcde Supervisorcd

Means that do not share a letter are significantly (P<0.05) different by Fisher LSD test Subscripts represent significance as per Fishers model of statistical analysis.

Results and discussion

The following section presents the results of the data and discussion in sections dedicated to each key motivator as measured in the study, and discusses additional motivators that were persistently raised as important in multiple sessions. In relation to each motivator, identified key themes are quantified, summarised (see table 12), and participant quotes are presented to better illustrate the attitudes and opinions that were collected in the data. The 11 focus group sessions included a total of 83 participants spread fairly evenly across the four countries: 20 from Vietnam, 21 from Malaysia, 19 from Thailand and 23 from China (see table 13). Across the countries the participants comprised 15 veterinarians, 40 business representatives from animal industries, 17 government representatives and 11 senior agricultural academics, such as professors and lecturers.

82 Table 12. Motivators (themes) and subthemes. Theme Sessions Referrals Subtheme Sessions (out of 11) (out of 11)/References Law 11 97 Need for standards 9/19 Company size and structure 9/29 Awareness of law 5/16 Power and impact of law (strength and gaps) 10/30 Personal knowledge 11 185 General public knowledge of animal welfare 8/34 Knowledge of benefits 10/16 Stakeholders technical ability 7/25 Other – financial gain 10 71 Personal value 10 43 Tools and resources 10 31 Workplace approval 7 21 Other – food safety 6 14 Religious beliefs 3 33

Notes: ‘Themes’ indicate key motivators that were discussed within the sessions, with those commenced with ‘other’ indicating a motivator that was raised by the stakeholder participants, rather than as a product of previous results (table 11). ‘Subthemes’ indicate a theme of ideas that were reflected with consistency in the context of each theme. ’Sessions’ quantifies the amount of stakeholder sessions (out of 11) that the theme or subtheme was presented with significance. ‘References’ quantifies the number of times the theme or subtheme was referred to in the data.

Table 13. Number of participants in each stakeholder group. Country Region Stakeholder group Total Industry veterinarian Industry business Government Academic Vietnam Hanoi 4 1 2 0 7 Ban Me Thuot 3 1 1 0 5 Ho Chi Minh City 0 2 6 0 8 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 2 9 2 1 14 Selangor Negeri Sembilan 2 1 3 1 7 Thailand Bangkok 4 5 1 0 10 Khon Kaen 0 2 1 0 3 Chiang Mai 0 4 0 2 6 China Guangzhou 0 2 0 5 7 Zhengzhou 0 5 1 1 7 Beijing 0 8 0 1 9 15 40 17 11 83

83 Motivators

Law The participants reported wide agreement with the importance of law as an extrinsic motivator, with respondents in all countries (11/11) agreeing with its highest ranking as a motivator to improve animal welfare standards. However, the position of law as the sole highest motivator is also dependent on enforcement, the ability to draw from prescriptive standards to meet legal requirements with knowledge and is closely related to that of company approval (discussed below). Indeed, some participants referred to law when they meant corporate policy (particularly in China). Contextually, the participants mostly referred to farming laws (‘farm’ being the most common associated word, secondary to ‘law’ and ‘animal’) in this theme. All sources contain the notion of ‘need’ in relation to law, and the power of the law was a sentiment that was shared across participants in all countries.

Need for standards ‘Standards’ was the most common word within statements concerning animal welfare law, and mostly in relation to the need to have formalised standards in existence, in addition to law. In places, ‘standards’ was used interchangeably with ‘law’. ‘Standards’ were also discussed from government mandate and company driven perspectives. Where standards were discussed as ‘needed’, in addition to the law, it was for their prescriptive utility, making available clear direction. ‘So far only one article in Vietnam (Legal Article 21) exists, and there is not much detail in the description’ , ‘law should be more detailed and better, we need more guidelines and documentation, procedure and protocols’. After introducing a ‘baseline’ of law, standards (sometimes company led) were viewed as the conduit to implementing the law in a practical way, ‘The government issues laws, but that law is only the baseline’ . While some suggest that companies themselves are in the best position to create workable standards (discussed in more detail in ‘company size and structure’ below), many considered that standards should be government devised and generic, ‘a set of farming and slaughtering standards should be made’ . To many participants, government was in the best position to create these standards, and industry was in the best position to lead the implementation; ‘As I am an animal farmer and livestock producer, I think we should apply and follow all guidelines of the competent authorities about animal welfare, and we as farmers, we should be the leaders in this area’ . Participants of one session in China, and one session in Thailand considered that standards and laws that were specifically locally devised, researched, and relevant to the local region were necessary. On recounting a recent conference speech delivered by the Agriculture Minister for China, one participant stated ‘we cannot just have standards towards animal welfare that are not realistic in the Chinese situation, they must be based on our own situation, and not the situation of other countries’ . Lastly, standards were also discussed in a frustrated context of not knowing which standards to follow, particularly in regard to export where the laws and standards of multiple countries may apply ‘we have talked already about many different kinds of law . . . different countries will be slightly different, so which law should we follow?’ .

Company size and structure

84 ‘Company’ was the second most used word within the data concerning animal welfare law, specifically in relation to the factors that impact on the efficacy of the law and the strength of law as a motivator. While ‘company approval’ was amongst the top motivators to improve animal welfare (discussed in ‘company approval’ below), it is unsurprising that the role of ‘company’ appeared so frequently in relation to law. Many participants saw an opportunity for companies to drive higher standards. It was suggested by one participant, with fellow participant support, that company standards could be much higher. ‘In my company I think that the workplace has a higher order than law. If standard of the workplace is stronger, then the workplace policy and procedures will be stronger than the law’ . The power to implement standards within industry were viewed as particularly strong with bigger companies. A focus group participant from a large poultry production company stated, ‘as a contract farm, they should know that if they are going to set up the farm there are some standard protocols they have to follow. As a big company, they have to look after that and tell them more, but they know that, and they will follow those protocols if given by business . . . as a farm they have a standard, they have to follow them.’. This sentiment was shared in most focus groups, with stakeholders drawing attention to a large disparity between the impact of law between larger and smaller scale businesses, with some sharing that larger businesses may be in a position to motivate improved standards by setting protocols/standards and enforcing them throughout the supply chain. Regardless of commercial size and structure, participants believed law was the ultimate extrinsic motivator, particularly in the face of animal welfare improvements that are not perceived to yield substantial economic return. ‘It’s important to level the playing field, otherwise someone is doing it and the other people can’t survive, the law is fair as everyone is doing the same thing’ . ‘Everyone is (the) same, when you talk about business (it) must be profit . . . should be win-win but doing good things for the animals should not be bad for business, so if that is the scenario, then law must be set in’ .

Awareness of law In almost half of the sessions, participants drew attention to awareness of the law, as a caveat on the strength of law as a motivator. They suggested that stakeholders need to know what the technical standards are and how to essentially comply with the law, but also that laws exist (Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia). It is suggested that the knowledge of the simple existence of a law (which is thought to be lacking in many cases), may be enough to motivate a workforce to take animal welfare more seriously. ‘So, first law and monitoring can influence the techniques and knowledge and these can influence the common people/farmers and this will lead to the improving of a person’s knowledge and then to of improving animal welfare’ , ‘maybe law can be used as a way to communicate.’ , and, when it comes to enforcement, ‘I ask the police for procedures under the law and that encourages my staff’ . When speaking of awareness of the law as a motivator to improve animal welfare, participants suggested that government bodies should be responsible at all levels, ‘law at different levels . . . law and regulation should be spread more and more widely, and governments should be involved at all levels’ . Furthermore, creating a law was not sufficient in itself, ‘government has (the) responsibility to make law and also publicise and make everyone know about the law’ . Discussion again included the relationship between size of operation in relation to likelihood of law awareness, ‘I receive documents including information on law from vet authorities and local government, I am running intensive farms and so find out and know legal and technical documents, but I don’t think the other small-scale farmers get the same information’ .

Power and impact of law When discussing the motivational value of animal welfare law, the power and impact of the law was discussed in every session in some way, mostly in regard to agreement in the highest strength of law as a motivator, but also in regard to some of the gaps where the efficacy of law as a

85 motivator may be jeopardised. In regard to the power of the law, comments such as, ‘laws control society and (the) community’ , ‘laws control society’ , ‘all activities in society are controlled by law, law governs everything’ , ‘everyone agrees law should be top, everyone’s afraid of the law’ , were commonplace in all groups, particularly in Vietnam. ‘Because most people have low awareness and knowledge of animal welfare, we need law; attitude is very poor’ . In addition to a complete absence of law or a lack of awareness of the existence of laws across the countries, the biggest perceived vulnerability in the efficacy of law was in its enforceability. ‘We need law, and when we need law we need enforcement; local government and police are very important’ , ‘If it’s not necessary people won’t do it, because for business rules and regulations, for every change we make, (it) accrues more costs, but as for profit coming out, who can guarantee that? It’s always profit and loss . . . so unless law is enforced, they are less inclined to make changes’ . When discussing the broad and less prescriptive nature of Vietnam’s first animal welfare law, Article 21, one participant stated ‘also we have law, but a very common problem in developing countries is enforcement of law is very difficult. Breaches are only criticised, not penalised or punished, it’s not serious or strict. Some farmers violate the law and they should be penalised, but they (the authorities) aren’t strict with them’ . In Malaysia, animal welfare laws have been gazetted, but are not necessarily enforced at the time of writing of this paper, awaiting the production of prescriptive standards that may be enforceable. Standards may also address gaps in the efficacy of law in cases where more detail is needed, or an operation is not covered by law; ‘law for poultry only applies if you have more than 500, otherwise (it’s) not binding’ . While the strength of established and enforced law seemed reinforced in all groups, some discussed the difficulty of getting to the stage of making law. This sentiment was particularly prevalent in the China, Zhengzhou focus group . Commenting on the requirements of any new law, one participant stated that ‘the issuing of the law should be (firstly) based on what society wants, second the country has the need to trade with other countries so that needs to be considered, and thirdly public demand; if public demands there will be law’ . The strength of law as a perceived motivator for increasing animal welfare was shared across countries in the initial study and this was, not surprisingly, echoed in the current study. The close relationship between law and company approval, and the role law plays when a perceived lack of financial benefit exists, did not emerge in the first study. The challenges faced by relying on the law as a motivator included lack of enforcement, lack of standards, gaps in law, lack of prescription in law, and the difficulty of passing law where it is not already enacted. Although the law was agreed to be the most important motivator in most cases (except where there may be financial benefit), when other motivators mimic law and become an external pressure or obligation, such as religion or company policy, their power begins to equal or even rival that of law. The degree to which this occurs may be most impacted by the seniority of the stakeholder within the industry and company. From the results, law emerged as an external fail safe for animal welfare improvement, in the absence of perceived value, and knowledge.

Workplace approval Approval of the company, or workplace, to make animal welfare improvements appeared throughout the data as an extrinsic mitigator of ability. That is, participants generally discussed workplace approval in the context of other motivators being potentially more important to drive the improvements; however, without workplace approval the improvements became impossible. ‘Company approval relationship; law is the most important motivator, but company approval is the most practical’ . ‘I think even though we have law, the enforcement and monitoring bodies (police) cannot go in to inspect every day . . . in my opinion I think company approval is more important, as if the company agree or allow to do that, they can monitor it every day, so (it’s) better than law’ . 86 The strength of workplace approval when it comes to stakeholders perceived ability to improve welfare is likely to vary depending on the role the stakeholder holds within the industry, and how senior or able to enact change that stakeholder is. ‘If you are working directly with animals, then your work depends entirely on what your manager says’ .

How to encourage a workplace to give approval for improved animal welfare? The question was posed in each group, ‘how then do we motivate companies to give their approval?’, and the answers saw little variation between countries. The answer unwaveringly focused on profit. ‘As a company they are doing business, if you want the company to approve, they have to get some benefits back . . . even though they know this is good for animal welfare, if it doesn’t gain back money, they don’t do it’ . ‘Companies want to make money, so when animal welfare can improve their benefits, they will incorporate that notion’ . ‘As the perspective of the company, they will stand at point of improving profits so they will consider if pig feel cold, they use warmth and when they feel hot, they will use air con or fans to reduce temperature, so they stand at point of improving profits first’ . ‘I think cost/benefit is more important . . . so (they are) more likely to improve if (there is) financial benefit’ . Some participants drew attention to the nature of the relationship between law and company approval as a source of encouragement. When summarising discussion with the Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Selangor focus group, it was asked by the facilitator if participants believed that companies would only improve animal welfare if required to by law, or if assured of financial benefit, and there was participant consensus. In China, the relationship was again explored. ‘From the company perspective, it is firstly about the efficiency and economic benefits, if certain law can be issued to regulate then yes, they must do it, but from a very shallow level; not from their heart. But if they find out there is benefit, they will do it for themselves’ ’. This returns to the need for knowledge around the benefits of improving animal welfare (discussed above in ‘personal knowledge’). ‘Company needs to know the benefits to the company . . . the company will need to know the advantage of doing animal welfare, and under the advantage can be benefits either in terms of financial benefit, or that it’s better for farmers’ . Companies, once engaged and giving their approval to changes, are believed to be in a position to drive animal welfare standards higher than the law. ‘In my company I think that the workplace has a higher order than law . . . the standard of the workplace is stronger, as the workplace policy and procedures will be stronger than the law . . . if the law says you need to do these three things, the workplace policy will be four or five things’ . ‘To set up the policy you base it on law, then make it better than what the law wants; example of space . . . if law says 0.4 the company policy will be more than 0.4 to 0.5’ . The China, Zhengzhou focus group believed that this may be less so for China, where confusion around the differentiation between law/government and company policy exists. This may be tied to the close relationship the Chinese government has with businesses in China, the influence of the law in China, and business risks associated with deviating from legalised standards.

Personal knowledge Personal knowledge was frequently discussed in the context of being both an intrinsic motivator and a barrier. In each session, statements were made which indicated that relevant general knowledge about animals’ needs was at a low level, and where knowledge was improved in certain areas, it was likely to result in a desire to improve animal welfare. ‘Animal welfare is very new, even among vet officers, very few have much knowledge at all. Even with vet authorities, it takes a very long time to spread (the) concept to lower levels’ . However, there was often perceived to be a relationship between knowledge and standards, in that it was commonly believed that a ‘lack of knowledge’ was directly linked to lower standards of animal welfare. Further analysis to identify subthemes was conducted, to ascertain what knowledge was considered lacking. In regard to who required the knowledge, participants mostly referred to industry stakeholders (56%) and the public 87 (39%), frequently focussed on children, but also commonly government bodies (5%). The following sub-sections present key sub-themes found in the data concerning personal knowledge. In this case, they present the nature of personal knowledge that is needed, to aid animal welfare improvement.

Stakeholder technical ability When prompted to discuss what personal knowledge was needed, most emphasis was placed on industry stakeholders (56%), specifically focussed on technical ability to improve animal welfare, but inclusive of general knowledge of animal welfare, law (discussed above), and awareness of the benefits for addressing animal welfare (both discussed below). ‘Training is the first priority for stakeholders who directly work with animals’ . ‘To improve animal welfare, I think we need to educate farmers on what is animal welfare and how to do it’ . Such education includes improved knowledge of animal-welfare-friendly practices, and how to use available tools and equipment. ‘I think that the loading process is quite important and depends on the workers; if they have good experience and know about the behaviour of animals they can do it easily and the animal will feel better, they won’t suffer from (the) loading process . . . however if the worker has no skill . . . (he, she) will use rough handling or use electric goads . ‘Stakeholders need knowledge of how to achieve the aim of animal welfare . . . how to do animal welfare . . . like one example is for sows: they use the pens in which they cannot move, but now they make the space larger according to the size of the sows’ . ‘Emphasis is more on the right procedure . . . has to be clearer and be informed to the workers, owner . . . so they know exactly how to do it . In addition to the correct management of animal welfare friendly protocols and use of tools and equipment, participants also spoke of a need to improve handling skills, often tied to the motivator of ‘personal value’ (discussed further in ‘link to personal value’ and ‘personal value’ below), and in particular where the associated value of animal welfare might be reduced. ‘Workers maybe come from a different awareness and different background and in the beginning, they are probably quite rough with the animals . . . so we need to educate them and teach them to think more about animals’ feelings and become more gentle’ . ‘The way I teach farmers is I tell him to use himself, and encourage the feeling of the farmers to consider “in that condition how do you feel? . . . if you feel good, the animals will feel good also . . . if you feel not so comfortable, the animal will probably not feel so good either . . . so if you feel too hot, the animal will feel too hot also”’ . Thus, some participants advocated that an anthropomorphic approach to evaluating animal welfare may be useful for stakeholders. Participants also suggested that training of stakeholders could impact on the value attributed to animal welfare and improved processes; ‘at the beginning we need to closely supervise them and then after that they will learn and it will become normal practice for them . . . it had probably not entered into their perspective . . . but if you tell them to do (something) and closely supervise every day, it will become inside that person, and after that, we won’t need to monitor closely anymore’ . In addition, knowledge of the animals and their behaviour was also raised as an area requiring improvement, ‘first we need to understand the animals so we can improve their (the person’s) behaviour’ . One group in Thailand expressed frustration that despite seeking animal welfare knowledge, it was not clear what farming and slaughter systems were recommended. ‘What is the best for slaughter of chickens? In the beginning they say electrical or gas stunning, now they say atmospheric; so how will this end . . . once we implement it costs millions and millions, then once we implement someone says, “oh this (is) not welfare”. We have experience buying a machine from France and they sent a certificate saying (it) is approved by animal welfare . . . then the British people come and say no . . . so we bought the machine and haven’t even used (it) and we had to buy another one . . . and then we get confused’ . Finally, the remark was made on five occasions that government, or ‘competent authorities’ also require an increase in animal welfare knowledge. ‘I think the problem is the government section that don’t know much about animal welfare . . . this is quite a problem, because under law this 88 government officer is the one who is monitoring and enforcing, but they don’t know much about welfare’ .

Public general knowledge Although the statements regarding knowledge were most often directed towards industry stakeholders, a larger emphasis than expected was also placed on the general knowledge of the public. The public general knowledge that was expressed as being needed was centred on animal agriculture, and animal welfare. This suggests that the ranking of ‘personal knowledge’ as a motivator by the stakeholder respondents in the original questionnaire study may have at least in part been in reference to the knowledge of those around them (peers and public), rather than their own. ‘Stakeholder knowledge is more important, but the general knowledge of the public should improve too’ . ‘Everyone needs the knowledge; stakeholders and (the) general public’ . This sentiment was often clarified to be in regard to consumers, but also in the context of general animal welfare value building within a society that will probably be influencing stakeholders’ base values and knowledge. In particular, it will be influencing peoples’ expectations of what may be acceptable treatment of the animals before entering the industry. Children, rather than consumers in general, were the main subset of the general public deemed most in need of animal welfare education. This was consistent across the four countries, as participants believed that children were an investment in the future. ‘All children should be educated for animal welfare knowledge and then as they grow up it grows . . . it is not lack of care, just the knowledge is poor … stakeholders, farm owners, slaughterhouse owners, slaughterhouse workers; children are the future (and) education for children is for the future . . . specific education for stakeholders is for short term’ . The knowledge required for the children can be classified into three categories; basic knowledge about the animal species, what animal welfare is, and to value the life with empathy (with the exception of Thailand, where Buddhist roots place great focus on empathy for life). ‘the public doesn’t really know what’s going on . . . some children in Singapore don’t even know where milk comes from . . . (my) cousin’s child sees a cow when he visits at KL and says, “wow look at the dog”’ . ‘You’d be surprised, in a room of professionals, engineers for example, they still ask, “how can a hen lay eggs, when no mate/partner?” . . . those questions are being asked by intelligent people, knowledge is very low’ . ‘Children also need to be taught about agriculture, where eggs and milk come from for example, doctors, accountants, lawyers . . . (they have) no idea about where anything comes from . . . then the next step is to talk about animal welfare. Then you don’t have to force them through law’ . When one group in Malaysia was asked if this general animal-based knowledge would make it easier to then discuss animal welfare with industry stakeholders, the participants were unanimous in agreement.

Knowledge of benefits The third area of personal knowledge believed to be lacking, was that related to the benefits of improving animal welfare. ‘I think, train and tell workers at my farms what is animal welfare and what are the benefits of animal welfare. . . if you provide good conditions to animals it will improve the productivity and quality of products’ . ‘Who should be responsible for promoting the notion of animal welfare first, is industry stakeholders, (they) need to maximise their benefits, so they (advocates) need to make the benefits known to them’ . ‘The people should know what the benefits are’ . ‘Benefits you can get from animal wellness . . . educate all stakeholders’ . ‘Everyone is (the) same, when you talk about business (it) must be profit . . . so (it) must be education about business benefits’ . In relation to knowledge of benefits, a sentiment of ambiguity regarding financial benefit to improving animal welfare was present in some groups, in particular in China (discussed in ‘financial benefits’ below), and in some cases, a caution for consumers; ‘If you want to educate

89 children about buying premium product, we can tell them the benefits but (you) must weigh up with (the) cost of living . . . at this point the benefits are negligible’ .

Link with personal values As is the case throughout this dataset, none of the assessed motivation stands alone, yet rather forms a part of a broader picture. This is the case with personal knowledge, and a link to personal values. In many cases, but in Thailand specifically, it was believed that personal values towards animals existed (regarding a value for their life and reduction of suffering), but the required knowledge to deliver improved animal welfare was often lacking. ‘As an example, it’s quite common for Thai people, when they see stray dogs, they try to give them some food or take to their house, but they think that if you offer them food and water it’s good enough, but the welfare of the dogs on the street is probably not great’. The presence of statements linking the two in the data suggested a connection between ‘knowledge’ and ‘personal values’ and suggested that they can influence each other (particularly knowledge influencing values), and that one of these motivators without the other may lose overall motivational efficacy. ‘I think for slaughterhouse or abattoir (values) perspective, (it) depends on the person’s knowledge and awareness .

Tools and resources Most of the data coded to the theme tools and resources was related firstly to knowledge (as above); that is, knowledge of which tools and resources to use specifically, and then how to use these tools and resources. Secondly, often prompted by the researcher, participants discussed what they believed survey respondents meant by ‘tools and resources’. The China, Beijing focus group session discussed ‘tools and resources’ as referring to ‘scientific information’, while other groups tended to focus on physical aspects, specifically farming husbandry equipment for low stress handling such as ‘pig boards and noise makers’ , and equipment for pre-slaughter stunning. ‘Some specific tools that are needed in slaughterhouses are good lairage, handling equipment and stunning equipment’ . ‘Stunning, if it’s a big company, it’s no problem as they already have all the equipment, but if small farmers, they don’t have the stunning equipment’ . In Vietnam, participants discussed different province regulations about stunning equipment, which is legally prohibited in many places. ‘Stun gun (captive bolt) is legal in some areas, but people think it is a weapon . . . they think it’s a gun only for military and police . . . my company still uses stunning equipment, but it’s difficult as sometimes I have had a problem with the use of the cartridge . . . the problem is with explosives or mortar’ . Participants also commonly drew reference to physical space as a resource that impacted their ability to improve animal welfare. ‘The tools are mainly in reference to facilities provided by pig farms like size of pens’ . ‘If the farm is small, they cram them in more … so size of farm impacts ability’ . In addition to the physical tools and resources, two groups discussed the lack of staff as a missing resource, and the lack of money to make improvements. ‘Many things are needed but mainly enough money and human resources . . . enough people’ . ‘Resources also refers to the money’ .

Personal value Personal value as a motivator was intended in the initial questionnaire to be in reference to intrinsic value of animal life and is presented as such in this section. However, the term has been broadened as a result of this study, in light of the understanding of stakeholder participants, to also include extrinsic value, and is presented as such in figure 1. Personal value as a motivator was particularly relevant in Thailand, with initial questionnaire results suggesting it was the single most important motivator for the Thai respondents, in considering improving animal welfare (see table 12). Personal value was tied to a need for knowledge (as 90 discussed above), and the results suggested that intrinsic value was inherent in many Thai farmers. ‘ . . . all or most of Thai farmers already have their personal value towards animals, however if you’re going to make it more, I think if we educate farmers to know if they do animal welfare, it will increase the benefit for the farmers, and then they will feel it’s a must to do that’ . ‘They think that as farmers they don’t know what animal welfare is, in terms of definition or phrase, but when we take care of animals, we want our animals to be comfortable; to be healthy. And all these farmers will do these kinds of things to make sure their animals are well. Some things that they do will be collectively good for animal welfare, but they don’t know it as such as they don’t know the phrase. Some things they do by good intention, though may not be good for animal welfare’ . ‘as Thai people we are so kind especially for the animals that we take care of by ourselves. We will be more gentle to those kinds of animals. Because of our kindness, our culture and related to our religion (Buddhism). Even when he goes to do a service for the farmers to give injections, he (veterinarian) has to be very kind, or the owners are not happy’ . ‘Thai people take personal value as the most important’ . ‘Thai people are very kind to the animals and have a very close relationship with the animals we take care of; and some religion is involved in this; mainly Buddhism’ . The value of animal life is not an outward or conscious effort or motivator in this case, it simply exists as a cultural value or norm. This was attributed to roots in Buddhism for Thailand (discussed in ‘religion’ below), ‘I think personal value may be related to our Buddhism as, as a Buddhist, first rule is be kind to animals, to the living things; even though we are in the business of animal production we still try to be so kind’ . In the survey, ‘religion’ was rated low as a motivator in Thailand, which could indicate a lack of belief in higher power; however, through this study it became clear that a spiritual belief is paramount as a motivator in animal welfare. Because Buddhism is viewed as a ’philosophy’, or ‘way of life’ intrinsic to Thai Buddhists, it was not apparent when Thai stakeholders responded to the motivational strength of ‘religion’, which they see as extrinsic, and not in line with their Buddhist beliefs. It is clear through this study that the strength of spirituality in Thai Buddhism was classified within the survey as strength of ‘value’. ‘If you say it is related to religion, the religion is like an external law, to tell you to do this and that . . . but it also influences us, as we have grown up under the Buddhist ideals, and somehow (it) is like inside yourself . . . that’s why they choose personal value, not religious’ . This influence seems to have crossed the border into some areas of Vietnam; ‘most people affected by Buddhism believe if you do bad things to animals and other animals you have bad karma’ . The data showed that value was of particular motivation in Thailand; however, participants in all countries (10/11 sessions) made statements to suggest that personal value was an important motivator to animal welfare improvement even though they were not specifically questioned about it. In Malaysia, it was noted that value was tied to religion (mostly Islam), and that the associated value of the life of species was directly related to religion (discussed further in ‘religion’ below). It was believed that for this reason religion had been rated the highest motivator in Malaysia, rather than ‘value’. ‘Because of (the) beliefs and values people hold personally for livestock, it will affect what stand they take; we are generally religious people’ . When discussing what knowledge to share to improve animal welfare in Malaysia, one participant with wide support from the remainder of the group stated that they need to ‘realise that animals are creatures of God, created by God, and we should appreciate them . . . it is tied with religion and social values’ . In some sessions, participants noted that the value associated with animal life (and therefore the motivational strength to improve animal welfare) was likely to vary not only in cultural contexts but also in the context of different species. ‘I have observed that the tendency of people is to be more and more caring about dogs and cats, and if we can do something to encourage people to expand that attitude from domestic to other animals, from pack animals to farm animals, it would be better’ . ‘I think it is different between the companion animals and livestock animals, the

91 concerns about animal welfare will be different because of the close relationship between companion animals and humans’ . Some supporting statements were made in relation to the general societal improvement of the associated value of animals and their welfare; ‘of course now we can see personal values among public are getting higher, particularly with social media for example, things get full support from people, so when you look at the general public we may see awareness increasing’ , however the caveat of financial motivator (discussed below in ‘financial benefits’) frequently ended these statements; ‘but when we talk about implementing animal welfare and incurring costs, they become more and more reluctant because they need to fork out something . . . if you ask them who supports (animal welfare), they all do, but when you talk about implementing/committing, it’s not easy’ . ‘I still agree with (the motivational strength of) personal values, I believe they already have that, but also there’re other factors that may influence personal value, like money income’ .

Religion Although religion was briefly discussed in the Thailand sessions, in the context of Buddhism being a ‘personal value’ rather than ‘religion’, it was only otherwise discussed in Malaysia, where ‘religion’ had been previously ranked as the primary motivator in the survey. Malaysians are ‘generally religious people’ , with approximately 62% identifying as Muslim (Sinclair et al. 2017a), and government and societal regulations formulated in line with these beliefs. However, on questioning participants about the influence of religion on improving animal welfare it became clear that survey respondents may have been referring to the religious beliefs of their customers rather than their own beliefs, and to beliefs that are specifically about regulation and requirement. ‘It is more in regard to requirement, rather than belief, specifically in Malaysia . . . many top players (in agriculture) are not Muslim, but halal is state requirement’ . In this context, religion has become more akin to law, commanding a similar level of motivation. ‘Local government doesn’t just cover veterinary authorities, but also religious slaughter compliance . . . they can cease operations if (they) find you are not complying’ . ‘Instead of religious beliefs, I think it’s religious requirements. If you’re not required to do something you don’t’ . When asked if this was the case, and that ‘religion’ here almost refers to ‘law’, the participants in the Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur focus group agreed. This is logical; in Malaysia, religion, state and government are one, with the enactment of Sharia Law (Islamic Tourism Centre of Malaysia 2018). For this reason, religion is seen within this study as an extrinsic motivator and is presented as such in figure 9.

92 Other: financial benefit Financial benefit appeared as a consistent theme, with great emphasis placed on it by stakeholders in each of the four countries. This result is of particular extrinsic significance, as it was not rated highly in the previous survey study, and therefore was not specifically raised in any detail by the researcher in this focus group study. However, it was autonomously raised by participants throughout the sessions. As discussed in ‘company approval’ and ‘law’, the relationship of the financial gain as a motivator alongside law is clear. The law is perceived as being needed in the absence of company approval, which is given if financial benefit is perceived. If there is no law or monitoring in the market, the market will put more focus on production performance . . . and as we have also talked about, we do not have specific data to prove there is a positive connection between improvement of animal welfare and production performances we can give farmers’ . ‘As a businessman I must be honest, when you have stakeholders to answer to, and talk about profit and loss at the same time as animal welfare, that’s why I ask, “what are the actual benefits?” When somebody wants to implement something new, you are answerable to expenses incurred. If you can’t justify that, you are in deep trouble’ . Financial benefit primarily concerned consumer markets (domestic or export markets), drawing attention to the lack of consumer demand for higher welfare products in Asia. ‘I think that the customer may be more important than law, in (the) sense of the swine slaughterhouse’ . ‘The industry is the driving force of the promotion of animal welfare, and this comes from the demand of consumers and so that they can absorb demand of consumers and produce higher quality products’ . ‘If customers pay more, companies will provide’ . While there was a belief that export customers will pay more for higher welfare products ‘because the export customers demand higher welfare’ , the feeling was not necessarily similar when discussing domestic market opportunities. This was raised as a problem when international importers are demanding higher welfare animal products, for no increase in operating costs. ‘They want higher welfare standards but pay normal rate’ . The conflict of higher production and welfare was also raised, ‘Incentives to get more money if you get more production from the layer chickens . A price increase tied to the cost of improving animal welfare was also raised for the domestic market. ‘Sometimes if we have very small investment for better animal welfare, that means the customer is burdened with three or four times the price and it’s not fair’ . Financial benefit in China was perceived specifically in regard to offering consumers higher quality meat products, rather than higher welfare products. However, scepticism was expressed about whether the benefits of improved meat quality existed. ‘From a commercial perspective, I think the better way is to think of a plan to persuade customers good quality has come from better animal welfare . . . but I still think the quality of the meat is mainly decided by the breeds and nutrition’ . At the core of the feedback from participants regarding financial benefit, was that animal agriculture was ultimately a business. ‘Cost factor needs to be considered as well. When additional cost (is) involved, companies need to review the cost; is it worth putting in the cost to get back the benefits?’ . ‘It’s a business at the end of the day. If a business doesn’t make the margin they need to, they don’t exist’ . The importance of financial benefit as a motivator was not reflected highly in the initial questionnaire study, probably because of the social bias tendency to underreport the importance of money as a motivator for action (Rynes et al. 2004), and to report responses that are perceived to be more socially desirable. However, the focus group sessions allowed the facilitator to probe this further, and collect broader information, revealing that ‘financial benefit’ was of extreme importance as a motivator within the animal welfare landscape. In fact, money could be a stronger motivator than law and, importantly, potentially the strongest motivator where there is no law. Supported by appropriate knowledge, law and financial benefit are likely to result in action to improve animal welfare (see figure 10). This revelation may have also been possible due to the

93 focus group dynamic in which participants were able to deflect to ‘other’ stakeholders within the industry that they represent, rather than supply purely personal views, which were provided in the foundation survey study (PEW Research Centre 2011).

Other: food safety A further motivating factor that appeared in the data, despite not being asked in either the previous survey study or the current focus group study, was the need to provide safe food to consumers. Food safety was presented to the researcher as a concept that was well understood with good support, unlike animal welfare, and was suggested to provide opportunities for improving animal welfare standards uptake in all four of the countries, with particular focus on China. ‘I heard about how we (should) treat animals, but this is very new . . . we mostly do everything based on our habits/traditional methods, I heard about how to treat animals, but other issues are more important . . . food safety and disease control is more important’ . When one stakeholder in China stated, ‘the government is focused on food safety, so when improving food safety the animal welfare is being improved; there are no special funds from government on improving animal welfare, but could be tied to food safety . . . stakeholders in farms don’t know the words ‘animal welfare’ but (are) doing the job for improving food safety’ , it was met with passionate agreement from the group. Where food safety was presented by participants in the focus group sessions, it was often tied again to profit. ‘If the farmers take care very well of the animals so they have no defects or any disease during production or transportation, then when they go to the slaughterhouse, the farmer will get higher money back’ . ‘Food safety and environmental protection are the two main things that the Chinese government focus on. China has focused on food safety and environmental for many years, but especially in recent years . . .. Now is a really good chance and time for proposal of animal welfare in China’ . In the quantitative questionnaire precursor to this study, food safety was not presented as a motivator. For this reason, coupled with the smaller sample size in this study, as is usual in qualitative research as compared to quantitative, this motivator is not analysed against other motivators here. ‘Food safety’ as a theme will be analysed in full and presented qualitatively in a following publication.

Motivator relationships and application

The results of the primary quantitative questionnaire painted a useful initial description of the strength of the motivational forces on which to base this qualitative research, which aimed to gain further insight into motivators for changing animal welfare. Building on the preliminary results with a qualitative approach has revealed rich relationships of interwoven motivations, with deeper and more complex meaning, conditions and potential applications (see figure 9). Within figure 9, the two halves of the picture, ‘personal value’ (extrinsic or intrinsic) and ‘knowledge’ are both required to improve animal welfare. One without the other may be likely to result in inaction, or reduced welfare. The strength of each motivator (for e.g. money or religion) will vary with country, stakeholder role, and individual.

94

Figure 9. The relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic stakeholder motivators on improving animal welfare in the Asian livestock industry.

Figure 10 shows the perceived requirement of law to motivate stakeholders to improve animal welfare, in situations in which financial benefits are or are not present. Within figure 10, the perceived requirement of law to motivate stakeholders to improve animal welfare, in situations in which financial benefits are or are not present. In each case, knowledge is required to empower stakeholders to bring about animal welfare improvement. This figure operates in the situation devoid of intrinsic motivation to improve animal welfare i.e. a desire to improve animal welfare based on internal values such as a sense of responsibility to the animals or a desire to reduce suffering.

Figure 10. The relationship between law, and financial benefit as motivators to improve animal welfare in the Asian livestock industry.

Human motivation can be powered both intrinsically (internally, due to an interest or an ability to derive satisfaction from the task), or extrinsically (externally, due to an instrumentality that connects action with tangible external rewards) (Porter & Lawler 1968; Gagné & Deci 2005). Intrinsic motivation is seen as ‘free choice’ (Ryan & Deci 2000) which in cases to do with animal welfare are underpinned by a belief in the value of the benefit to the animals and improvements themselves. While initiating intrinsic motivation would take longer where it isn’t already present, it would also arguably be the most compelling form of motivation for sustainability of actions to 95 improve, in the absence of external pressures to do so. For the best results, intrinsic and extrinsic motivators would both be present (Ryan & Deci 2000), however, where intrinsic motivation does not exist, extrinsic motivators (such as law, company policy, financial benefit) can be very powerful, particularly when followed by value and knowledge (see figure 9). It could be suggested that intrinsic motivations may be the most beneficial to long term and sustained action to improve animal welfare, demonstrated by the nature of comments and readily applied concern for animals often expressed by those participants most motivated intrinsically, but take a much longer time to instil than extrinsic motivations which can be applied more readily and strengthened with knowledge for positive outcomes in the short term. To this end, animal welfare initiatives would be best holistically focused on appealing to both forms of motivation, with different aspects of initiatives created to develop the short term (mostly extrinsic) and long term (mostly intrinsic) motivations of stakeholders. Although much research exists about human motivation theory in literature, very little exists in regard to the specific motivational forces/driving factors influencing the impetus to act. Less literature exists in this regard for animal welfare in a cross-border setting. For this reason, this work is foundational only, and will require a continued building of research and understanding of the complex cultural, political and economic landscape, specific to each of the study countries, and extrapolated from where the cultural profiles and agricultural, economic and political landscapes are similar. The findings of this study, combined with the precursor (Sinclair et al. 2017a; Sinclair et al. 2017b) and forthcoming studies, will provide an improved understanding of the stakeholders who should be a target of animal welfare initiatives, with the purpose of developing collaborative, rather than adversarial relationships built on mutual benefit (chapter three; Sinclair & Phillips 2018b). This collaboration, built on mutual understanding and respect, is likely to result in improved animal welfare positions and practices.

96 Conclusion

Based on motivating factors that were raised as statistically important in an earlier survey study (Sinclair et al. 2017a), this qualitative focus group study revealed a complex picture of relationships between the identified motivators, and the contexts and conditions that drive them. Personal knowledge, as a motivational force to improve animal welfare, was discussed with the most frequency and emphasis by livestock stakeholders in this study. While this included the need for increased knowledge of animal welfare and agricultural processes amongst the general public, along with increased technical knowledge amongst livestock stakeholders themselves; this theme most importantly referenced the need for livestock stakeholder knowledge pertaining to the potential benefits to be gained by improving animal welfare. This knowledge was believed by participants to carry strong motivational value to improve animal welfare. The second most referenced theme within the study was that of law, as a motivational factor to improve animal welfare. Most commonly, stakeholders referenced the power and impact of the law, and its current strengths and gaps. The size and structure of the livestock company was thought to impact the motivational value of animal welfare law, with larger companies in a particularly advantageous position to take government issued law and directly implement into company policy, effectively giving their approval for animal welfare improvements to flow down throughout the supply chain. Company approval and policy, to many stakeholders, was seen to be just as important and sometimes synonymous with law, as a motivator to improve animal welfare. Motivating company approval, in the absence of law, was tied back to a knowledge of the potential benefits for improving animal welfare. Primarily, this can be taken to mean an equation to increased financial benefit. Financial benefit, as a motivator, was underreported in terms of importance in the earlier survey study. However, through the process of facilitating honest discussions in the present study, it emerged as a highly significant motivational factor for improving animal welfare, reported in all of the countries in this study. Food safety was also raised as an additional potential motivational factor for improving animal welfare in just over half of the sessions, despite not being presented to stakeholders as a finding of the previous survey study. This was particularly the case in China. After analysis of these results, visual models are presented in Figure 9 and Figure 10 to assist understanding the motivational factors, and to better understand the livestock stakeholders at the core of animal welfare improvements. This paper also presents the opportunity to better understand the strength and relationship of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational forces behind animal welfare improvement. The findings and models presented in this study will provide further background information for those endeavouring to achieve higher animal welfare standards in this region.

97 7 Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter Stunning in Key Asian Countries

Citation: Sinclair, M., Idrus, Z., Burns, G. L., & Phillips, C. J. Livestock Stakeholder Willingness to Embrace Preslaughter Stunning in Key Asian Countries. Animals 2019 9(5), 224.

Contribution: The PhD candidate (MS) secured funding, designed the focus group content and activities, sought partnership agreement with local academic collaborators, coordination of the focus groups in partnership with local collaborators, facilitated the focus group sessions, prepared transcripts, analysed the data, developed themes, constructed theory, wrote the paper, drew the figures, submitted the paper and attended to revisions as required from academic reviewers for publication. Supervisory support was provided (CJCP and GLB) for methodological oversight and editing the paper. Assistance was received from the project Research Assistant (CF) in the preparation of comprehensive field notes during the facilitation of the focus group session, which were key in the construction of the transcripts. Voluntary on-the-ground assistance was provided by academic collaborators in each country (eg; Zulkifli Idrus in Malaysia), in the preparing and hosting of the focus group sessions, and the supplying of verbal translation where required.

Abstract

Pre-slaughter stunning; the induction of unconsciousness and insensibility of animals prior to slaughter, is an important process for the welfare of livestock. The application of stunning is required by legislation in some countries, and rarely practiced in others. In order to effectively advocate the implementation of stunning in the regions that do not include the practice as standard, it is first important to understand attitudes towards stunning, barriers to implementing stunning, and stakeholder willingness to embrace the practice. To this purpose, 17 focus group sessions were held with leaders in livestock production in China, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, India and Bangladesh. Leaders were asked to rate their perceived willingness of livestock stakeholders to embrace stunning, and their rationales were discussed. In addition to this, the leaders were asked to present ideas to improve the willingness of stakeholders to embrace stunning. The data were qualitatively analysed used thematic analysis, quantified, and presented within this manuscript. Importantly, different attitudes and solutions existed by country, mostly in line with the predominating religion within the country, and the stage of economic development. The findings of this study may aid in the development of programs that aim to increase the adoption of pre-slaughter stunning practices, to the purpose of improving animal welfare during slaughter.

Introduction

Stunning is defined as a technical pre-slaughter process subjected to individual animals to induce unconsciousness and insensibility, so that slaughter can be performed without avoidable fear, anxiety, pain, suffering or distress (European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2004). Stunning should be rapid (instantaneous in best practice), and should be sufficient to allow the animal to remain unconscious until the time of death (Fletcher 1999). Although originally developed as a method of immobilisation for ease of processing, stunning is now advocated primarily for animal welfare reasons, as a method of avoiding the stress of restraint for slaughter, the pain of the knife cut to the throat, and distress experienced during exsanguination (Gregory 2008; Gibson et al. 2009; Gregory et al. 2010; Nakyinsige et al. 2013). Apart from exemptions for religious reasons, stunning of livestock before slaughter has been compulsory in the European Union since 1979, for the purpose of evading avoidable pain and

98 suffering; the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe has the position that “the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is unacceptable under any circumstances” (Federation of Veterinarian of Europe (FVE) 2002, pp. 1). While some European states, alongside countries such as Australia (Wood 2013) and the United States of America (Humane Slaughter Act 1958) legislated obligatory stunning, they also make exceptions for slaughter that omits the practice for ritual, or religious, reasons. New Zealand, however, along with some states in Australia, has no exceptions to the requirement for stunning (Ministry for Primary Industries 2018). Attitudes and reasons for not stunning are likely to differ between countries and regions in the same way as attitudes to farm animal welfare do (Sinclair et al. 2017a). However, concern about negative impacts on meat quality is a common documented reason for rejecting stunning (Farouk et al. 1998; Linares et al. 2007). While some of the science is conflicting about the validity of this concern, largely due to variation between methods and species, the scientific evidence suggests that meat quality is comparable between stunned and not stunned animals (Gregory 2008). Another primary reason that stunning may not be widely practiced in some areas of the world is connected to religious beliefs: stunning is not an accepted part of most ritualised slaughter, for example, Shechita slaughter for Kosher meat in Judaism, and most Halal slaughter in Islamism. However, collaborations between Islamic authorities and scientists in some countries are changing practices regarding the use of stunning in halal slaughter (Nakyinsige et al. 2013). Recognising that under Islamic doctrine improving animal welfare is a godly duty and quoting doctrine such as “Whoever is kind to the creatures of God, is kind to himself” (Nakyinsige et al. 2013, pp. 362), Islamic scientists have been investigating alternative methods of stunning. Methods that do not cause death (before the animal dies from its throat being cut) or irreparable injury or damage to the animal prior to slaughter, for example, can be acceptable to halal authorities (Nakyinsige et al. 2013). Other reasons for not stunning could include lack of knowledge about stunning or lack of access to appropriate tools and equipment. Poor stunning techniques can lead to a high level of stunning failure (an acceptable target is 5% of animals or less, according to Temple Grandin, 2010, p. 170). Problems include poor equipment, incorrect positioning, long hair on cattle, and delays in bleeding out (Grandin 2010). The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) considers stunning desirable, and notes that “most developed and many developing countries have legislation that requires pre-slaughter stunning” (Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) 2018), however, little is known about how widespread or consistently stunning is applied in some developing countries. This is despite the existence of guidelines under the World Animal Health Organisation that nearly all countries have adopted, which encourage, but do not require, stunning of livestock before slaughter (OIE 2016). A key region in this regard is Asia, where all of the world’s most important religions have large numbers of adherents, and which produces most of the world’s livestock, principally because this is where 57% of the population resides (FAOSTAT 2017c). The scale of agricultural operations, the number of animals that are slaughtered in the region, and the potential for pain and suffering at the time of slaughter suggest that better understanding of stunning practices in the region could provide significant benefit to animal welfare.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the willingness of livestock stakeholders in Asia to embrace stunning and to expose the barriers to adopting stunning practices. This information can then be utilised to develop targeted initiatives that address these issues in locally relevant and useful ways.

Materials and methods

This study was granted human ethics approval by the University of Queensland Ethics Committee, approval number: 2017000628. To gather data for this project, seventeen focus groups with a total of 139 participants were held in geographically dispersed locations across Vietnam (n = 20), Malaysia (n = 19), Thailand (n = 19), China (n = 23), India (n = 20) and Bangladesh (n = 43). 99 Locations were chosen to be in geographically diverse regions of each country (e.g.; south, north, central, capital and regional) in an effort to capture potentially variable sentiments between domestic regions. Livestock industry leaders -were invited to discuss the state of animal welfare in their country, in the context of major issues, challenges, solutions, opportunities and, as presented in this paper, perceived benefits to improving animal welfare. Participants were invited to attend the research sessions by country-based collaborators and were selected based on criteria that they were leaders in the agricultural sector: that they represented private enterprise, domestic government (including government veterinarians attending the livestock industry), or agricultural academics, that they were currently employed in this industry, and that they had the ability to implement change into private businesses. The majority were private industry leaders (e.g., pig or poultry slaughterhouse or production managers or owners). Some participants were known to each other as professional colleagues. Although plans were made for five to seven participants in each session, the actual number of participants present for each focus group varied from three to 13, as a result of last minute cancellations, and increased interest respectively. The mean length of the meetings was 3 hours and 45 minutes, with some extending past the scheduled 3.5 hours to enable all participants to contribute. Data were audio recorded during the sessions and additional written field notes were taken by a research assistant. The recordings and notes were collectively used to create abridged transcripts of each session. To avoid presenting potentially misleading data, linguistics and tone are not reported, as all data were translated, abbreviated, and summarised through a translator, from six different languages into English. Transcripts were uploaded into NVivo software for Mac 11.4.3 for analysis. To collect the data for this paper, participants were asked to rate the likelihood that livestock stakeholders would embrace stunning, as previously defined, on a scale from 1-10: 1 being that stakeholders would be extremely unlikely to adopt the practice and 10 being extremely likely. Participants were instructed that the rating given should be in the context of the necessary tools and equipment to stun the animals being available. After individually providing their rating verbally, they were then asked to give their reasons for these ratings. This was followed by the facilitator requesting further information for clarification where required. The participants were then asked to rate the opinions of the wider livestock community, rather than themselves personally, to avoid participants feeling defensive, and offering less honest results. The remainder of focus group discussion centred on specific animal welfare issues and solutions, and perceived benefits for improving animal welfare, which is reported elsewhere.

Analysis Ratings of likelihood that stakeholders would embrace stunning were collated and means are presented. Thematic analysis was then conducted on the data presented by participants pertaining to the justification of these rates, where persistent themes were identified and coded as nodes using coding software NVivo. Due to the high level of diversity in justifications for not embracing stunning, data were then further analysed for frequent key words and themes, and presented alongside frequency scores. Data collected in response to ‘how to encourage stunning where it isn’t already used’ were also analysed for solution themes, and results quantified. Key quotes demonstrating the major themes were identified. At the completion of the analysis no new justifications emerged from the data, suggesting data saturation. The same lead researcher (MS) who conducted the focus groups also coded all themes and conducted the analysis. Particular attention was paid to careful analysis of the key themes (benefits), the frequency of their appearance between countries, the general context and meanings that had been applied to them by the participants, and how they related to one another. Word frequency functions were utilised to identify sub themes. Direct quotes are presented in the results according to the location in which they were collected (see abbreviations in table 16).

100 Table 14. Participants by location Country City/Town Participant N

China Guangzhou 7 23 Zhengzhou 7 Beijing 9 Vietnam Hanoi 7 20 Ban Me Thout 5 Ho Chi Minh City 8 Thailand Bangkok 10 19 Khon Kaen 3 Chiang Mai 6 Malaysia Negeri Sembilan 6 19 Kuala Lumpur Selangor 13 India Banglaore 6 15 Kolkata 5 Trivandrum 4 Bangladesh Dhaka 13 43 Savar 13 Mymensingh 17

101 Table 15. Breakdown of stakeholder participant roles within the livestock industry, by country. Country Stakeholder role

Private Private Government Agricultural industry industry representatives academics leaders veterinarians China 15 0 1 9 Vietnam 4 3 13 1 Thailand 11 4 2 2 Malaysia 9 5 5 1 India 3 5 1 6 Bangladesh 4 2 17 21

Results and discussion by country

The following section presents tables that outline the ratings given by participants when asked ‘how likely are stakeholders within the industry to adopt pre-slaughter stunning’, followed by the key words identified with the highest frequency when participants justified the rating they gave. The second table outlines identified themes in the data when stakeholders were asked ‘how would we increase the willingness of stakeholders to adopt pre-slaughter stunning’. Given the varied nature of the solutions provided by participants in relation to that, quotes that best highlight the sentiment of each have been presented by country, and integrated into discussion on the existing agricultural landscape in that country, relevant to slaughter of animals.

Table 16. Likelihood to adopt stunning, and key themes, by country and region (all stunning data).

Location (country, N= Mean* Keywords, in declining order of frequency** city and its abbreviation) Bangladesh Halal, religious, better, quality, different, awareness, equipment, Dhaka 10 1 knowledge, benefits, tools, rules, pain, Muslim, productivity, law, handling, blood Mymensingh 11 1 Savar 10 1.8 China Quality, government, law, different, public, company, Beijing 9 10 knowledge, benefits, tools, religious, already, equipment, consumers, methods, pigs, time, process, standards, chicken, Guangzhou 6 9.8 improving, handling, best, butchers, implement, rating, accept, Zhengzhou 5 10 media, research, information India Awareness, halal, government, religious, important, problem, Kolkata 5 10 issues, quality, improve, Muslims, butchers, food, livelihood, health, lack, community, equipment, show, aware, public, Bangalore 6 1.1 research, education, method, vet, accept, example, sacrifice, Trivandrum 3 1.3 tools, chicken, handling Malaysia Religious, halal, meat, think, quality, know, important, DVS Kuala Lumpur 10 7.6 (Department of Veterinary Services, chicken, improve, JAKIM (Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia), public, industry, company, equipment, education, awareness, dead, process, benefits, Negeri Sembilan 5 7.8 workers, handling, money, time, Muslim, work, cost, method, education, butchers, knowledge Thailand Need, know, better, good, law, think, important, farmers, Bangkok 10 7.7 company, different, quality, halal, tools, already, want, chicken, 102 Chiang Mai 6 10 religious, agree, improve, business, equipment, way, thinks, Khon Kaen 3 7.6 still, farm, local, workers, benefits, education, process, knowledge, training, feel, right, care, government, money, personal, handling, media, research, benefit, follow, production, times, educate, social, try, value Vietnam Improve, law, meat, important, quality, better, need, halal, Hanoi 7 6.2 knowledge, equipment, think, training, tools, religious, know, vet, many, different, benefits, company, education, small, Ban Me Thout 5 8.4 already, want, authorities, awareness, butchers, general, health, show, handling, less, owners, public, lack, problem, time, Ho Chi Minh City 6 9 authority, max, min, provide, resources, staff, tell implement, method, new, used, control, food, Muslim, place, thinks, treatment, activity, work, chicken, children, difficult, disease *Mean scores range from 1 (stakeholders are extremely unlikely to adopt stunning) to 10 (stakeholders are extremely likely to adopt stunning). **Keywords were presented for up to the 100 top words for each location. Connecting words (for example, ‘and’), conversational words, and obvious words (for example, ‘stunning’, ‘animals’) along with those not deemed relevant or enlightening to report by the researcher were not included. Note: Data were broken down into regions as some countries demonstrated significant regional variability (e.g., India).

Table 17. Key themes, by country, in response to the question: ‘How to encourage stunning where it isn’t being used?

%* (n) of solutions that fit the identified theme The Technical Public Total Government availability training Advocate awareness % of Religious involvement, of suitable best Scientific business and total collaborations legislation + stunning practice research benefits consumer solutions monitoring tools and stunning education equipment application All 13.76 13.04 10.14 100 26.08 (36) 22.46 (31) 7.97 (11) 6.52 (9) countries (19) (18) (14) 14.28 Bangladesh 10.14 57.14 (8) 21.42 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 7.14 (1) 0 (0) (2) 11.11 11.11 China 6.52 0 (0) 11.11 (1) 22.22 (2) 22.22 (2) 22.22 (2) (1) (1) 16.66 India 17.39 41.66 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4.16 (1) 25 (6) 12.5 (3) (4) Malaysia 32.60 37.77 (17) 33.33 (15) 4.44 (2) 4.44 (2) 8.88 (4) 4.44 (2) 6.66 (3) 38.46 Thailand 9.42 0 (0) 23.07 (3) 30.76 (4) 7.69 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) (5) 33.33 18.18 Vietnam 23.91 3.03 (1) 27.27 (9) 15.15 (5) 3.03 (1) 0 (0) (11) (6)

*Percentages (%) were derived by first ascertaining the number (n) of presented solutions that fit the identified themes within each country, divided by the total number of solutions presented in the data for that country, multiplied by 100.

103 Bangladesh Animal agriculture in Bangladesh is mostly subsistence farming of goats, cattle and sheep (World Bank 2006). Participants in the focus groups in Bangladesh reported that stunning was not widely practiced in the country. The reason for this was religious in nature; ‘halal’, meaning ‘permissible’, in this instance, ‘permissible to eat’ (Islamic Services of America 2018) being the most common phrase, followed by ‘religious’ (Table 3). Specifically, they did not believe that meat resulting from animals that had been stunned before slaughter was halal. “I know there is no scope for stunning in halal, no way, no option” . According to their understanding and opinion, the primary reason that stunning was not halal was primarily due to the stunning restricting the subsequent exsanguination. “We believe that if we slaughter animal in halal way the animal will easily remove the blood” . “Preservation of the meat is better (without stunning), blood is good for bacteria if left inside meat, so it is also a food safety (concern)” . Participants suggested that there were scientific studies that proved that not stunning the animal and following traditional halal slaughter methods were better for animal welfare: “we believe if we follow proper way of halal slaughter animal will feel less pain” . “This is not only the belief that this is the halal method, but we are researchers and educated people … we read comparative articles and studies and we saw and found that halal method is the less painful method for slaughter so far” . “We try to follow halal method not only better for religious but also scientific, a number have researched and found halal method is the best method” . However, details of these studies were not able to be recalled, and were sourced from “some social media and networks” . Implemented during British rule, and not overturned or preceded, the Cruelty to Animals Act (1920) for Bangladesh states that a fine of two hundred Taka (approximately $2.30 USD) is deliverable for killing an animal in an ‘unnecessarily cruel manner’; however, it also states that ‘nothing in this section shall render it an offence to kill any animal in a manner required by the religion or religious rites’ (The Cruelty to Animals Act 1920). When investigating potential solutions to increase the likelihood of the uptake of the stunning process pre-slaughter, it was suggested by participants that livestock stakeholders ‘need more information’. General knowledge of what stunning was, and how it is conducted, was limited amongst participants. “We can’t express our direct opinion right now as most people don’t have the knowledge, we must get clear about it” . In four instances, anti-stunning positions were softened when participants were informed that stunning is being incorporated into the halal slaughter process in some other Muslim countries under scientific advice on acceptable methods for both animal welfare and halal, with the blessing of Islamic leaders. However, in another four instances, responses to that information resulted in statements about Bangladesh being different, with more fundamental interpretations of the doctrine. “Bangladesh people don’t eat snails like (they do in) other countries, Islamic following is stricter with slightly different beliefs” . “We are all are Muslims, but we are different” . In two instances, the question of likelihood to embrace stunning elicited animosity towards the facilitator; “Bangladesh is a Muslim country, our slaughter is better than all other slaughter methods, and we need justification first why you are asking about it … why do you want alternatives to our method?” . “Why is the stunning so important? We see a considerable welfare issue, as stunning can cause a lot of pain” . This data suggests that any initiative to encourage uptake of stunning in Bangladesh should begin with education and training around the stunning process and the existing scientific research, and would be best to begin by engaging government and law makers. Initiatives led by Islamic authorities and engaging local trusted religious leaders are likely to be most effective (Table 17).

China Responsible for 39% of the world production of agricultural animals (FAOSTAT 2017c) primarily pigs, chickens and fish (60% of the world’s fish), China has the potential to reduce suffering on a 104 scale not offered elsewhere. A recent study into the perception of Chinese livestock stakeholders ranked ‘the absence of stunning at the time of slaughter’ as the most critical farm animal welfare concern in the country (Li et al. 2018), indicating a potential opportunity to adopt stunning methods more readily in China. Chinese participants reported extremely high levels of willingness to embrace stunning, the highest in this study (Table 17). While many major production companies have adopted stunning methods (CO2 and electricity for pigs, and electric waterbaths for chickens), the practice is not common elsewhere. Religious beliefs did not play a significant role in the absence of stunning. This is reflected in previous studies, where religion was not a significant motivating force for Chinese livestock stakeholders (Sinclair et al. 2017a), and corresponds with the fact that 77% of Chinese nationals consider themselves atheist, or not religious (WIN-Gallup 2012). The concept of ‘quality’ was prominent in discussions about stunning in China (Table 16). “Based on the butchers’ experiences, the stunning is harmful to meat quality” . The meaning of quality was noticeably different in the South of China (Guangdong Provence) where concerns were presented, with some consensus, over the taste attributes being adversely affected in stunned meat, in addition to the overall meat quality, as compared to the participants in Mid and North China who focussed only on overall meat quality, and did not believe a taste difference existed. In the South it was reported that “stunning is harmful to the quality … it’s a different taste, (a different) flavour, not the special Chinese flavour” . In the North, after consensus with all participants that stunning would not affect the taste, “stunning would be ok, doesn’t affect taste” . Other key reasons for not undertaking stunning often centred around the lack of suitable equipment; “for me it’s the equipment (that) is hard to find sometimes” , and further to that, the knowledge of how to use it in a way that is effective and doesn’t reduce meat quality; “Technical uncertainties also plays a part” . “Better technique because at the moment the blood is not drained very well and leads (to) spots on the surface” . Concern about stunning impeding the bleeding process was also prominent in each location in China. “It bleeds out totally, and bleeds quicker (without stunning)” . To general agreement from the rest of the participant group in Zhengzhou, one participant stated “Without stunning the blood can get out more easily” . When considering solutions to increasing the uptake of stunning in China, data in the study suggested an equal measure of concern about the appropriate tools and equipment being available, conducting technical training on how to use the tools and equipment appropriately, and to educating the increasingly discerning Chinese consumer (Table 17). Consumer education should address quality concerns, with a focus on taste in the south. Further research into the taste properties of stunned and not stunned meat have not previously been conducted, and may be useful. In line with previous studies, the implementation of animal welfare law would also be useful (none exists in China at the time of writing), as would the promotion of business benefits of stunning adoption amongst Chinese animal agriculture business owners.

India As the second most populous country in the world (World Population Review 2019b), close to that of China, the scope of agriculture in India is also important in the world landscape. However, the nature and structure of Indian animal agriculture differs vastly from that of other countries. This is not only in the case of a reduced beef industry, on account of a majority Hindu population and beliefs in the sanctity of cattle, and the 30% of Indians who live a vegetarian lifestyle (Government of India 2014), but also because of the structure of Indian caste systems. As taking life is believed to result in bad Karma for the 80% of Indians who adhere to Hinduism (Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner India 2001), animal slaughter is commonly carried out by minority Muslim communities (Ahmad 2013). For this reason, in a country that is not populated with a majority Muslim population, beliefs around halal are highly relevant to the practice of stunning. This was supported by this study, with ‘awareness’, and ‘halal’ were the top relevant words (Table 16). While knowledge around stunning appeared low amongst participants in this study, they believed that stunning was rarely carried out in slaughterhouses in India, with the exception of those supplying the export markets. “One part of it is meat for export, and all those 105 animals are stunned” . However, this was not able to be unverified, and information about the slaughter and stunning practices in India are difficult to obtain. This may be in part to the closed nature of the communities tasked with coordinating slaughter for the population, and also due to the diverse and varied nature in which each state (and region) operates in India. In addition to this, scores around the perceived willingness of stakeholders to embrace stunning varied greatly between focus groups in India, and at times were contradictory (Table 16). This may be indicative of the complexity of the Indian system, with India affectionately known as a land of contradictions (The Hindu Business Line 2019). This situation may be further complicated by the existence of large amounts of animal welfare legislation, which is largely not adhered to and not logistically able to be monitored. The national ‘Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001’, stipulates that “every slaughter house as soon as possible shall provide a separate space for stunning of animals prior to slaughter”, additionally outlawing unlicensed slaughter people and slaughterhouses (Government of India 2001). However, participants in each location during this study said that ‘legal’ slaughterhouses were rare, and in some situations, regions had a complete absence of legal slaughterhouses. “Bangalore is one of biggest cities in India … we don’t have a (legal) place to slaughter yet” . Despite the law, slaughter continues, and remains unable to be monitored for logistical reasons. This may be the reason that, unlike in other countries in Asia (Sinclair et al. 2017a), the presence of law is not a strong motivator in regard to animal welfare behaviours (Table 17), and also not presented as a key solution of justification in this study in regards to stunning specifically. It also may contribute to the varied and diverse nature in which animals are slaughtered in each region, and for vast differences in score regarding willingness to embrace stunning as presented in this study (Table 16). The importance of considering community and livelihood in India was indicated with regard to stunning in this study, with both ‘community’ and ‘livelihood’ appearing in the most frequent words in this analysis (Table 16) see also (Sinclair et al. 2019a). The mention of animal sacrifice while discussing stunning was another area in which India was unique in this study. While stunning was believed to be an issue of religious consideration for Islamic communities when considering slaughter for consumption, the sacrifice of animals as a part of festivals, hosted mostly by factions of Hinduism, also do not involve stunning the animal. When asked if stunning could be included as a part of these sacrifices, it was stated “If the animal is stunned it will defeat concept of sacrifice”, with another participant clarifying that “If you make it not aware then you do away with sacrifice itself so stunning or not stunning is moot point” . Large variations exist in the data across the regions in India. Therefore, we suggest addressing initiatives differently in each area regarding potential uptake of stunning practices. This should be initiated by conducting research to better understand the current practices in local areas, and tailoring a local action plan. One commonality, however, is the restriction of slaughtering to the Muslim communities and this represents an opportunity for a targeted approach. One such approach could be a demonstrative training and education program run by Muslim educators from local educational institutions that incorporates the requirements of halal with current scientific understanding, centred on the ability to successfully include stunning in halal slaughter. A program such as this should be monitored for success and ongoing investment. Scope also exists to promote both the religious benefits of stunning and improved animal welfare (such as an acquiescence to the need to consider animal welfare, as presented in the Islamic Hadiths) (Rahman 2017), alongside the business benefits of slaughter, particularly for those larger businesses in India.

Malaysia Alongside Singapore and Brunei, Malaysia hosts the most developed economy in South East Asia, (International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2018) making the country an important agricultural leader for the region. Malaysia is an Islamic country, with close to 70% observance of Islam within the population, and Islamic Sharia Law constitutionally observed, adding to its agricultural importance 106 of the country as a leading example in halal slaughter (Islamic Tourism Centre of Malaysia 2018). While stunning is deemed allowable (but not encouraged) by the governing Islamic body, JAKIM (Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia), and practised in some large poultry production companies because it makes the subsequent slaughter easier, complications exist around the appropriate usage of stunning. It is seldom used for species other than poultry. The Malaysian Standards, ISO 1500:2009, for any animal that is stunned before slaughter is for the animal to be alive post-stun and for the stun to not cause permanent physical injury, i.e. it must be reversible. The importance of ensuring meat is halal in Malaysia is reflected in participants’ choice of words, with the words ‘religious’, ‘halal’ and ‘JAKIM’ some of the most used words by participants discussing stunning (Table 16). However, the moderate approach to stunning is also represented by the moderately high ‘willingness to embrace’ rates given by participants in each location <7 out of 10 (Table 16). The general knowledge around what stunning entails also appeared much higher in Malaysia than in fellow Islamic majority country Bangladesh. The biggest concerns around stunning for halal also varied from that in Bangladesh, where the main concern was a potential impediment to complete bleeding. In Malaysia, the primary concern about fully embracing pre-slaughter stunning was one of direct interpretation of the halal protocol; ensuring that the animal is alive and not killed or irreversibly damaged at the moment of slaughter. “Most of them would support stunning, but they worry about death” . Methods of stunning that permanently damage the animal so it could not recover if it was not slaughtered would deem the meat defective and therefore not halal. “The general public are worried stunned animals may be dead … that’s the first thing, they need to be convinced that it doesn’t cause death” . The personal repercussions for leaders in livestock are high if they cannot guarantee that the meat they are feeding to trusting Muslim majority consumers is entirely halal. “If I do something wrong in halal certifying I will be held responsible even after life … no one wants to shoulder that responsibly, stakes are high” . Therefore, the motivation to ensure that products are certified halal is compelling. One of the major potential challenges presented within this study to animal welfare with was the incorrect usage of stunning equipment, particularly the wattage setting of electrical water baths for poultry. If the wattage is too high and the bird is killed, it is not halal and is therefore wasted. A wattage setting that is too low may result in immobilisation of the bird, but not unconsciousness, which presents animal welfare concerns. “They want to be sure the animal is not dead when (knife) cut … so they reduce the specifications so the animal is barely unconscious … one consultant from UK noted many of the birds after stunning were immobilised but not fully unconscious, it can cause more pain this way, but their biggest worry is the animal will die due to stunning” . One solution includes the better training of workers on the production line checking the birds before slaughter. However, this presents logistical challenges. “They (the workers) are very well trained … but with the number of birds they can’t check them all” . Solutions suggested by participants included ensuring the stunning equipment was reliable and implementing random sampling to continually assess this reliability. Much trust was placed on JAKIM for religious oversight and on the Malaysian Government’s Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) for its delivery. “We (DVS) don’t have to show the public what we do, but they also do need to be sure and confident in what we are doing” . The continued close collaboration of both bodies on implementing stunning that meets animal welfare requirements and halal requirements is extremely important to the adoption of stunning in Malaysia. Animal welfare training by technical professionals such as DVS was also recommended to be offered to religious bodies who are accountable for drafting standards, such as JAKIM, to increase confidence that both animal welfare and halal requirements can be met. The continued role of scientific research into stunning methods that reliably result in the recoverability of the animal also offers to provide methods that will increase adoption of stunning practices, particularly regarding the development of methods that reliably stun but do not kill the animal. The continued development and progressiveness of the scientific and religious interface in

107 Malaysia could provide a useful example of the successful incorporation of stunning into certified halal practices in Muslim majority countries worldwide.

Thailand As one of the most important chicken producers in the world, Thailand is host to a large export trade that aims to continue growing (International Trade Centre 2018). Along with neighbouring Vietnam, Thailand also has a focus on pork production. Participants in Thailand believed stunning to be routine in larger production enterprises, particularly for poultry, and less so in smaller to medium size slaughterhouses. They demonstrated a higher knowledge level of stunning than in the other countries, which was particularly the case in Bangkok where the head offices for the largest poultry producers are situated, and one of the focus groups were held. Constant changing of animal welfare benchmarks were cited as problematic, causing frustration and confusion, particularly for large enterprises directing scientifically advised policy to improve animal welfare, were cited as primary reasons for Thailand not fully embracing stunning. “In the beginning say (the best method of chicken slaughter involves) electrical or gas stunning, now they say atmospheric so how will this end? They talk about control atmosphere for swine and we think maybe we will do that but a year later the research says ‘no’ … once we implement a new method it costs millions and millions … then once we implement someone says ‘oh this is not welfare’” . Findings from this study suggest that the confusion is confounded by international export relationships and varied and even conflicting advice. “We have experience buying a machine from France and they sent certificate saying (it) is approved by animal welfare (bodies) … then the British people come and say no … so we bought the machine and haven’t even used it, and we had to buy another one … then we get confused” . When the facilitator asked the participants if adhering to international guidelines such as the OIE (World Animal Health Organisation) Terrestrial Animal Code: Section 7 (Animal Welfare) would be useful, rather than attempting to cater to diverse national guidelines of importing countries, the answer was no. “For example in Thailand there is debate with OIE as OIE set up current rate for electrical stunning, then they asked Thai company to follow OIE standards … but we saw the chicken was dead and halal buyers said they would not accept it … so we informed OIE that the chicken is dead and other company inform them the same … industry has to collect all data for OIE but they don’t listen to us” . Universal approaches to stunning may not be applicable internationally due to the different breeds of animals; for example, Asian village chickens are smaller than standard European broiler chickens and are likely to be more susceptible to die as a result of electrical stunning. The lack of flexibility in importers to recognise research to adapt stunning for the maintenance of animal welfare under local conditions and with local breeds contributes to this problem; “if we have done the research and is suitable for Thailand but then export to Europe they say ‘no, you have to follow European standards’ … many time we talk to them … we say how about a slightly different process but result is the same, they say not acceptable” . One solution to this challenge would be for OIE or international buying companies to implement addendum policy that allows for collaborative local research based on local conditions, that then allows for flexibility based on results, rather than a strict adherence to their own standards. This would allow results to be based on the best scientifically-measured animal welfare outcomes relevant to local conditions. A perceived benefit for embracing stunning for Thai participants, who are predominantly Buddhists, was an improved emotional state on viewing the animals’ death. “Thai people don’t like to see the suffering … people who work with animals don’t want to see the animals suffer” . For smaller companies outside of Bangkok, the main barrier to completely implementing stunning appeared to be the availability of tools and equipment, knowledge of how to use them, and the financial investment required. “If it’s a big company it’s no problem as they already have all the equipment but if small farmers they don’t have the stunning equipment” . The solution to address this, suggested by participants, was first to raise awareness about the business benefits of stunning. “Tell them the advantage of stunning but also need to tell them how to do it with less 108 investment.” . Finally, it was suggested that the best way to implement stunning effectively in Thailand was not only to make the tools and equipment more available, but to ensure the equipment itself is intelligent. “The equipment itself must be intelligent so that it can change to different conditions by itself not by the workers … the person who should be influencing this is the scientists and engineers” .

Vietnam Stunning is reported to be frequently adopted in large slaughterhouses in Vietnam that process imported animals, specifically for animals from countries like Australia that have implemented livestock welfare assurance schemes in response to public animal welfare interests (Australian Government Department of Agriculture 2014). However, the adoption of stunning practices outside these operations was believed by participants to be limited. One livestock leader from Ban Me Thout stated that “the animals all are treated badly in all size facility, including poor handling, and no stunning” , while another stated “currently many slaughterhouses do not apply stunning equipment” . A participant from Hanoi suggested that while larger slaughterhouses more often apply stunning, most of the small to medium operations do not: “Because they are different scales … intensive operations are happy to (apply stunning), but the small scale operations are different” . The most discussed issue in Vietnam pertained to the availability of tools and resources, and knowledge of how to apply them for effective stunning was presented as the largest challenge, and the most important solution (Table 17) to increasing uptake of stunning practices in Vietnam. “They need the tools and resources but also need to look at training on how to use it” . Some confusion existed around the methods of stunning that may be available, and in two of the three locations participants stated that legislation in some provinces prohibits the possession of certain stunning implements, such as the penetrative bolt, due to it being considered a concealed weapon. “Some tools are not allowed to be used … the stun gun captive bolt is illegal in some areas, people think it is a weapon … they think it’s a gun only for military and police” . Making the appropriate tools and resources available to the livestock industry as a solution was represented slightly more frequently than the potential impact of government involvement, legislation and monitoring (Table 17), and participants stressed the importance of coupling the availability of tools and resources with encouragement to use the equipment from a competent veterinary authority. “Some slaughterhouses are controlled by vet authority and have to provide (stunning) equipment … however many slaughterhouses are outside of the control of competent authorities” . Although this appears to be changing, “little by little all slaughterhouses are moving under control of vet authorities” . Participants also suggested that if the slaughterhouse agrees to implement stunning, they should be supported to do so. “Agree very high/likely to use stunning tools but wonders about investment … no problem for big companies but for small scale I worry about the cost” . “If slaughterhouse owners agree and are willing, they should receive 50% of the resource support to buy the equipment” . The second most discussed solution described the support of law, standards and monitoring. The ‘law’ was one of the most frequent words used when discussing stunning in Vietnam (Table 16), which is consistent with previous research that suggested the presence of a law would be the strongest motivator to improve animal welfare amongst Vietnamese livestock stakeholders (Sinclair et al. 2017a). “Most important is legal requirement/regulation … and strict enforcement; if there was a law it would be most the most important encouragement to embrace stunning” . Vietnam’s National Assembly passed an animal welfare law in November 2018 that makes pre- slaughter stunning compulsory (Humane Society International 2018; Vietnam News 2018); however, formal details are not yet available, and when the law will be enacted is unknown. Participants in the south of Vietnam reported the highest rate of willingness to embrace stunning, which could be influenced by the presence of large slaughterhouses in the region that cater to the aforementioned import industry. One participant in Ho Chi Minh City stated that he had reformed 109 his business to include pre-slaughter stunning based on recent training and collaborations with exporting and industry bodies in Australia. “From our company perspective, some years ago I knew nothing about animal welfare, until I was trained with other people by an Australian company … then I became aware of the importance of animal welfare, I read more, got more knowledge and then I trained my staff. Our partner company initiated the training and we were trained by MLA (Meat and Livestock Australia)” . The third most discussed solution to encouraging the uptake of stunning presented by Vietnamese participants was advocating the business benefits to stakeholders. This was believed to include “Saving labour costs, time, and money are the benefits of stunning and also better meat quality … better environment for animals, less noise … (there is) a direct benefit to people and workers … and meat quality” . However, this belief is not purported to be common amongst livestock stakeholders in Vietnam yet. “Most butchers say it’s not good because it effects the meat quality, but I know electric stunning is good, but not if applied in the wrong position” . When asked who might be best to advocate this, the veterinary authorities of Vietnam and the government Animal Health Department were again nominated. “I suggested a specific solution for Department of Animal Health to work with abattoirs and farms and butchers and meat processors and show that stunning is good for meat quality” . “Vet Authority because they already have experience working with abattoirs and show how to stun, and they work with them already; they inspect them” . “I think the authorities need to communicate with them; vet authorities … Department of Animal Health will be best to tell people it does not damage meat quality” .

Application across cultures When comparing the results across countries, it is more apparent that attitudes to pre-slaughter stunning fall under religious, meat quality, or resources contexts. The general context that is the most significant varies by country, and is directly related to the religiosity of the general population that reside in the country. Where it is not a matter for meat quality and technical resources, the practice appears to hold ritualistic or spiritual relevance, likely given that the process results in death; the life phenomenon that religion most readily seeks to address and demystify for followers. Where religion or ritual is cited as the most important consideration in relation to the adoption of pre-slaughter stunning (Malaysia, Bangladesh, India), religious leaders could be usefully engaged in development initiatives. In countries where tools, resources and technical knowledge were a primary consideration (Vietnam, China and Thailand), solutions may be substantially simpler; and providing those elements are likely to result in a substantial increase of adoption. Where the impact on meat quality was an important factor; local collaborative investigations could be usefully conducted, to demonstrate the impacts or lack of impacts stunning may have on meat quality, and to move forward to address the situational factors that may contribute to a reduced quality, such as the incorrect application of stunning methods.

Limitations Rates collected within focus group activity were not anonymous, and were shared freely, and so are susceptible to the impact of peer pressure and conformity. Qualitative data collected and analysed for themes was a small sample size relative to the industry they represent. In total there were 144 representatives across 17 locations, which is larger than any previous qualitative studies in this area. Further detailed studies to more rigorously assess the impact of the themes identified within this study, such as follow up surveys, are recommended.

Conclusion

This study identifies circumstances in which stunning would be adopted where it currently is not in a number of key countries in S, E and SE Asia. The reasons for adopting or not adopting pre- slaughter stunning differed across the six countries included in this study (and sometimes also

110 between regions within countries, such as was the case in China). Potential solutions were suggested by participants that are relevant for livestock stakeholders interested in increasing the adoption of stunning practices for animal welfare reasons. These included the engagement of religious and scientific scholars to bridge gaps in understanding, to make available stunning tools and equipment, to provide technical training on the usage of these tools and resources, to advocate the business benefits for incorporating stunning into the process of slaughter, to engage government departments such as veterinary departments and animal health departments involved in inspections and policy, to raise consumer awareness and to continue scientific research. The emphasis of each of these solutions varied depending on the country of origin of the participants. An alignment of international rules and the development of capacity to approach locally encountered challenges as presented by Thai participants is recommended. While top-down legislative solutions are likely to be successful in countries such as China, it is important to note that the desired results are unlikely to be produced where laws are not able to be enforced, as demonstrated by Indian participants. Therefore, the need to tailor solutions by country and culture is fundamental. The information presented in this study provides some insight into industry sentiments about the practice of pre- slaughter stunning, which could be used to better advise initiatives for increased uptake of the practice. A large number of animals are slaughtered for food in Asia and stunning is commonly agreed to be a very important welfare influence in this process. Therefore, informing successful initiatives to support uptake of pre-slaughter stunning is critical because it has the ability to reduce suffering on a large scale.

111 8 The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of Livestock Stakeholders across Asia

Citation: Sinclair, M.; Fryer, C.; Phillips, C.J.C. The Benefits of Improving Animal Welfare from the Perspective of Livestock Stakeholders across Asia. Animals 2019, 9, 123.

Contribution: The PhD candidate (MS) secured funding, designed the focus group content and activities, sought partnership agreement with local academic collaborators, coordination of the focus groups in partnership with local collaborators, facilitated the focus group sessions, prepared transcripts, analysed the data, developed themes, constructed theory, wrote the paper, drew the figures, submitted the paper and attended to revisions as required from academic reviewers for publication. Supervisory support was provided (CJCP) for methodological oversight and editing the paper. Assistance was received from the project Research Assistant (CF) in the preparation of comprehensive field notes during the facilitation of the focus group session, which were key in the construction of the transcripts. Voluntary on-the-ground assistance was provided by academic collaborators in each country, in the preparing and hosting of the focus group sessions, and the supplying of verbal translation where required.

Abstract

In this study 17 focus group meetings were held with livestock industry leaders in geographically dispersed areas of China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, India and Bangladesh, regarding animal welfare issues, potential solutions, and attitudes. Livestock leaders were asked ‘what do you see as the benefits to improving animal welfare’, and later to discuss the potential benefits and rank them according to their associated importance. While differences existed by country, the most important perceived benefit area across all countries was financial in nature, primarily focused on the potential to increase productive output of the animals, and to improve meat and product quality. However, doubt existed around the ability to increase profit against the cost of improving animal welfare, particularly in China. Human health benefits and the tie to human welfare and community livelihood was considered most important in India and Bangladesh, and animal-focused benefits were not significant in any countries, except India and to a lesser extent Bangladesh. Thus. improving animal welfare for the sake of the animals is unlikely to be a compelling argument. The results presented here can be used to create meaningful mutual ground between those stakeholders who advocate improvement of animal welfare, and the stakeholders that have the ability to implement it; the livestock industry.

Introduction

Farm animal production is arguably the most economically important interface between humans and other animals on this planet. It has the potential to cause suffering in large numbers of animals, over prolonged periods of time, ending in a death that has the conceivable ability to epitomise that pain and suffering. As an industry that has systematically experienced rapid growth and intensification in most regions of the world, methods employed during farming, transport and slaughter are frequently the focus of public concern, and advocacy lobby. Ethical arguments exist for addressing farm animal welfare, including it being ‘the right thing to do’ for the animals themselves, however, these arguments may not be compelling to all important parties engaged in this sector. As presented in chapter six, depending on the area of the world, other influential factors make more compelling motivators (Sinclair et al. 2019c) and the literature to this point paints a much more complex landscape than one of basic ethical value, particularly in emerging countries (Tao 2003;

112 Keyserlingk & Hötzel 2015). Animal agriculture is not simply a theoretical interface between humans and other species, it is an economic endeavour; it functions foremost as a business, and the stakeholders in the position to have the most power over the welfare of the animals in the sector are those working within the livestock industry. Key tenets of successful international animal welfare initiatives have been outlined in chapter three, which emphasized the importance of engaging with the industry and establishing mutual benefits as a basis for collaboration (chapter three; Sinclair & Phillips 2018b). According to the literature, apart from the obvious benefits to the animals themselves, the espoused benefits for improving animal welfare vary. One study focuses on the fact that economic benefits have been historically omitted from consideration, and that economists, amongst others, should play an important role when developing animal welfare initiatives (Christensen et al. 2012). From an economic perspective, improving product quality and reducing animal losses are the potential benefits to improving animal welfare that are found in the scientific animal welfare literature most frequently. Mitigating losses through reduced mortality (Dawkins 2017), reducing damage to carcasses through reducing bruising, injuries and the incidence of pale soft meat (PSE) in pigs (Hambrecht et al. 2005), and dark cutting (dark firm and dry) (Gruber et al. 2006) in beef cattle, all signs of significant stresses caused to the animal before its death, are cited as key benefits of addressing animal welfare concerns (Grandin 2015). Some studies also cite improved productivity of animals (Aguayo-Ulloa et al. 2014), as well as improved reproduction and thrift in livestock (Green et al. 2012). Apart from the product-based economic benefits, there are the strategic business benefits. One benefit that does not appear to have been contested is that improving welfare offers commercial opportunities to market products. Marketed as being from higher welfare systems, some studies show that consumers are willing to pay more (however, not vast amounts more) to purchase meat that makes them feel better about the life the animal lived (Bennett et al. 2012). This, however, is based on studies mostly conducted in western nations, and this may vary in less developed countries where consumers need to buy food as cheaply as possible and do not have the luxury of being discerning. Having noted that, this could still remain a relevant benefit for enterprises in developing countries that are seeking to export, or continue exporting, animal products to western nations. A major benefit identified in the scientific literature centers on the notion that the public, as evident in many parts of the world, are demanding better treatment of animals (Grandin 1995). Improving animal welfare offers the business benefit of mitigation of risk to the brand through bad publicity, loss of purchase partnerships, and even the jeopardy of a whole industry. In some parts of the world this is a concern, fuelled by advocacy lobby efforts that have seen reformation of farming practices, such as the abolition of veal crates, cage eggs and sow stalls in the European Union (Compassion in World Farming 2013), and it has likewise caused periodic market collapses, such as that experienced by the live export industry in Australia (Future Beef 2018). In addition to avoiding poor publicity, improving animal welfare also provides positive marketing, which has the opportunity to improve the public’s perception of the livestock industries as a whole (Grandin 1995). Finally, in terms of business benefits, the scientific literature identifies employment benefits. A review of ten years of industry data revealed that improved animal welfare makes the animals safer and easier to handle, which results in a need for fewer staff, who are more satisfied and likely to have substantially less time off, and have less medical expenses (Douphrate et al. 2009; Grandin 2015). Apart from the benefits received by the animals directly in improving their animal welfare, and the business and economic benefits, some wider community-based social benefits are also reported in the scientific literature (McGlone 2001; De Passillé & Rushen 2005). This includes mitigating environmental despoliation, and mitigating the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics driving the emerging anti-microbial resistance crisis. A close connection between animal and human welfare has been advanced under the umbrella of the One Welfare concept (Pinillos 2016). As a demonstration of that, attention has been drawn to the risks to human health of operating in environments that are poor for animal welfare, including the incubation of pathogens found in high 113 confinement situations, along with respiratory problems and low level antibiotic resistance (Rollin 2015). One study found that making animal welfare a priority contributed to positive competition within communities to improve the health and strength of the animals they care for (Pritchard et al. 2012). Despite the potential benefits of improving the animal welfare of farmed animals, introducing these changes can be expensive, and some of the scientific literature is cautious of overstating economic benefits awarded (Grandin 2015). This is particularly true when it comes to space allowances and stocking density, where profits may be increased by maintaining more animals to a smaller space, however detrimental this is to the welfare of the individual animal and even if it requires animals to be pushed beyond their biological limits through selective breeding or husbandry practices such as introducing medication and chemical supplementation. Dawkins (2017) argued that while animal welfare improvements are often perceived to conflict with economic gain, which causes hesitation within the industry, modelling financial benefits may provide compelling motivation to overcome that perception. Considering the costs of implementing higher welfare systems, cost benefit analyses have found that the total income potential was still increased (Burgess & Hutchinson 2005; Bennett et al. 2012; Vetter et al. 2014). Because most of the literature is western based, it is not clear whether the livestock stakeholders’ perception of benefits vary in other parts of the world, and in particular in developing countries. Asia is home to the biggest livestock producing country in the world, the Peoples Republic of China (henceforth referred to as China) (FAOSTAT 2017c) where no animal welfare legislation exists. Globalisation of society requires that we assess stakeholder perceptions and understand their priorities in major livestock producing nations in order to provide incentives that make solutions realistically attainable (Christensen et al. 2012). For those involved in governance, domestic enterprise, export/import business enterprise, or animal welfare advocacy; understanding the potential benefits of addressing animal welfare, as perceived (or not perceived) by livestock stakeholders, provides an important step in identifying mutual benefits to create partnerships, improve initiatives and/or enact policy reform across borders. This study begins addressing this gap by reporting the outcomes, of a series of focus groups held across six culturally diverse countries in Asia, addressing the issue of what benefits might derive from improvements in animal welfare.

Materials and methods

To gather data for this project, seventeen focus groups were held in geographically dispersed locations across Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, China, India and Bangladesh (see table 18). Locations were chosen in different areas of each country (i.e. south, north, central, capital and regional) in an effort to capture potential varied sentiments between domestic regions. Industry leaders were invited as representatives for the livestock industry to discuss the state of animal welfare in their country, in the context of major welfare issues, challenges, solutions, opportunities, and perceived benefits to improving animal welfare, with the benefits being the focus of this paper. Participants were invited through country-based collaborators based on the following selection criteria: that they were leaders in the animal production sector, working for an organisation with a maximum of two government vets, and have the ability to implement change into private businesses (see table 19). The majority were private industry leaders (e.g., pig or poultry slaughterhouse or production managers or owners). In some groups, some participants were known to each other as professional colleagues. Although plans were made for five to seven participants in each session, the actual number of participants present on the day varied from three to 14, with some participants cancelling, and others indicating their desire to attend just before the event. In this instance, focus groups were selected as the method of data collection in preference of surveys due to their scope to collect broader qualitative data, which once identified can then be measured quantitatively in future studies. Likewise, focus groups were chosen in preference of individual interviews to enable the collection of data from a wider sample size, to encourage cross- participant discussion that may lead to more in-depth and honest data collection; and to allow for 114 frequent consensus checks where the facilitator can ascertain if sentiments are shared, or contested, by the participant group. Within the focus groups participants were asked an open-ended question at the onset of the focus group by the lead researcher (MS), ‘what do you see as the benefits of addressing animal welfare’. Their collective round table responses were recorded, and presented back to the participants later during an activity that invited group discussion on ranking the benefits from most important to least important, as a group. Participants who felt strongly towards certain benefits chose to advocate for the higher ranking of those benefits, in discussion form, and the groups ultimately voted democratically by raising their hands to vote for the ‘most important benefit’ from top to bottom. The discussions surrounding the benefits of improving animal welfare, and the final rankings delivered through the activity, were documented and form the basis of this study. All contributions were voice recorded during the sessions and additional field notes were taken by a research assistant (CF). Both data sets were used to create abridged transcripts of each session. As participation was subject to translation by a third-party translator, and then presented in English to the researchers, word-for-word transcripts were not possible. The average time of sessions was 3.5 hours, with an average of eight participants. Sessions with higher numbers of participants often ran approximately 30-45 minutes past the scheduled 3.5 hours to enable all participants adequate opportunity to contribute. Transcripts were uploaded into NVivo software for Mac 11.4.3 for analysis. This study was granted human ethics approval by the University of Queensland Ethics Committee, approval number: 2017000628.

Table 18. Location of focus groups and abbreviation codes used in quote citations.

Country Abbreviated City/Town Participant N code

China CH Guangzhou 7 23 Zhengzhou 7 Beijing 9 Vietnam VN Hanoi 7 20 Ban Me Thout 5 Ho Chi Minh City 8 Thailand TL Bangkok 10 19 Khon Kaen 3 Chiang Mai 6 Malaysia MAL Negeri Sembilan 6 19 Kuala Lumpur Selangor 13 India IN Banglaore 6 15 Kolkata 5 Trivandrum 4 Bangladesh BA Dhaka 13 43 Savar 13 Mymensingh 17

Table 19. Breakdown of stakeholder participant roles within the livestock industry, by country.

Country Stakeholder role

Private Private Government Agricultural industry industry representatives academics leaders veterinarians 115 China 15 0 1 9 Vietnam 4 3 13 1 Thailand 11 4 2 2 Malaysia 9 5 5 1 India 3 5 1 6 Bangladesh 4 2 17 21

Analysis Perceived benefits of addressing animal welfare were identified and coded as a primary node/theme in Nvivo. The benefits were then classified into broader categories depending on who or what they fundamentally benefitted (human benefit, business benefit, animal benefit or community benefits). Data were then divided into relevant logical sub-themes, where present, identified through manual familiarisation with the data. Within each benefit, key quotes that demonstrate the sentiments towards that benefit were manually selected for inclusion in this paper. At the completion of analysis and coding of themes and sub themes, no new benefits emerged from the data, suggesting data saturation. The same lead researcher (MS) who conducted the focus groups also coded all themes/nodes, and conducted the analysis. To avoid presenting misleading data, linguistics and tone are not reported, as all data were translated, abbreviated, and summarised from six different languages to English. For this reason, rather than focusing on word usage, more attention was paid to careful analysis on the key themes (benefits), the frequency of their appearance across countries, the general context and meanings that have been applied to them by the participants, and how they relate to one another. However, word frequency functions in NVivo were utilised in identification of sub themes, and are reported infrequently in results. Direct quotes are presented in results according to the country in which they were collected, with the abbreviated codes presented in table 18.

Results

Demonstrated by the forthcoming presentation of 22 individual benefits in total, with numerous contributions in each session (Table 20), stakeholder leaders were generally positive about animal welfare. It is important to note, however, that in some regions the existence of the reported benefits was met with scepticism. While benefits were raised as worthwhile in all groups, some participants in some groups (listed individually below) were dubious of the ability to obtain the stated benefits by addressing animal welfare. This was particularly the case for benefits tied to economics and productivity. In some sessions, participants struggled to identify benefits to addressing animal welfare at all. For example, in Zhengzhou (CH), participants were not confident in listing any benefits, with one participant stating that ‘why some people don’t improve welfare is because of the limitation of economic (factors), not because of their consciousness’. On one rare occasion, addressing animal welfare was openly associated with liability and cost, rather than benefit. It is impossible in this experimental setting to quantify how many individuals had this sentiment of doubt, as constructs such as conformity and group think play a role in the data that is shared, however this sentiment could be valuably followed up with an individual level study. For that reason the results below represent general sentiments of scepticism only, and are not a reflection of opinions shared across the country (or even across the entire group in some instances). In Chiang Mai (TL), one participant raised the point that they are doing well with animal welfare in their business, however in the end the price they receive for their product is the same as those who have practices that are bad for welfare. ‘It’s not very fair because when you do (improve) animal welfare you have to put in more effort, but you gain back just about the same’ . While some agreed with this comment, another participant stated that ‘if we take care of the animals well, you don’t need to spend much on the medical expense and so on, and then the costs will be reduced’ . Similar sentiments were also expressed regarding the existence of financial benefit in 116 Guangzhou (China), with one participant stating ‘we want to know if there’s any specific data to prove a positive connection between animal welfare and economic benefits to company … if we have such data (it) will become much easier to promote (the) concept’ . On the other hand, in response, it was also stated that ‘if we don’t have an improvement in production rate or, even worse, production potential but we do have better flavour or meat quality, that is also acceptable’ . These sentiments were also present in Negeri Sembilian (Malaysia), where a ‘conflict between making money and (animal) welfare’ was expressed. ‘They know if they take good care it will benefit them, but in terms of making profit with limited space and budget the issue is that it is hard to make a profit’ . ‘It needs a lot of investment not only in new facilities but also to improve old facilities to use better technology and housing. For us businessmen to improve animal welfare, or make any changes, we need money … at the same time when we improve animal welfare we want to improve the output. Businessmen will rarely see the benefit’ . By way of further example, one farm manager stated that ‘(if) the handling of chicken during harvest is more gentle, we can expect reduced processing time’, then added ‘damage (can) be reduced, that’s the benefit, but stakeholders might not understand this clearly yet … benefits are not clearly understood’ . Lastly, it was also acknowledged by one participant in Malaysia that the benefits that had been raised by the group along with their ranking would be ‘seen differently by NGO’s, that it would be upside down’, and then commented (with agreement from the group) that NGO’s don’t seem to understand the livestock industry, due to different goals and priorities. ‘The industry wants to make a profit but the NGOs don’t, this issue will be questioned again and again’ .

Nature of benefit In terms of species context, leaders in China and Vietnam mostly gave examples relating to poultry and pig production (see China and Vietnam). In Malaysia and Thailand focus was primarily on poultry production (see Malaysia and Thailand). In Bangladesh the focus was on cattle, goat and sheep production (see Bangaldesh). In India, comments were less species specific (see India) with only rare comments regarding cattle (likely due to the beliefs of the Hindu population) and pigs (likely due to the beliefs of the Muslim community responsible for slaughter in India). Table 20 quantifies and outlines all benefits raised by the livestock leaders, according to country and region, and the subsections below aim to provide further contextual information by presenting illustrative quotes around these benefits. Figure 11 presents the most frequently raised benefits by respondents in each country, and Figure 12 presents benefit categories, while providing country comparisons. Within Figure 12, all benefits were placed into categories based on their intended beneficiary (i.e. business, human, community, animal). Where the suitable category for a benefit was not clear, confirmation was sought from the original data.

117

Table 20. Benefits as raised by participants in each region, in each country, presented in order of most frequently raised benefit to the least (top to bottom).

China Vietnam Thailand Malaysia India Bangladesh Beijing Guangzhou Zhengzhou Hanoi City Ho Chi Minh Ban Me Thout Bang Chiang Mai Khon Kaen Kuala Lumpur Negeri Sembil Kolkata Bangal Trivan Dhaka Myme Savar

-

kok

- - - nsingh

drum ore

-

an

Productivity of animals x x x x x x x x x x x x x Improve quality of meat or animal product x x x x x x x x x x x x x Reduce disease and injury, and treatment costs x x x x x x x x x x Increased revenue/profit x x x x x x x x Avoid cruelty and reduce animal suffering x x x x x x x x x Human health/zoonosis x x x x x x Protection of natural resources/ecosystem development x x x x x x Food safety/biosecurity x x x x x x International trade opportunities x x x x x Stronger/healthier animals x x x x People feel better for the animals x x x x x Improve human/animal relationship x x x x x Addressing the animals rights/sanctity of life x x x Improved community livelihood x x x Public concern/consumer confidence x x x Relationship between way humans and animals are treated, x x tie to human welfare Improved taste of animal product x x x International recognition (not being left behind) x x Allowing natural behaviour of animals x x Compliant with international regulation x x Human responsibility to give a good life x x x Lower mortality x x Ease of handling calmer animals x Improved commercial promotion x Note: ‘X’ signifies the presence of the theme in the focus group session in that region.

Key:

Profit or business driven benefits Animal focused benefits Human focused benefits Bigger picture community focused benefits

119

Figure 11. Comparison within countries regarding the appearance of certain perceived benefits for addressing animal welfare.

Key benefits by country

100 80 60 40 20 0 China Vietnam Thailand Malaysia India Bangladesh

Productivity Quality Disease reduction Increased profit Community livelihood Taste International trade/reputation Animal rights/human responsibility

Note: the values represent the % of focus groups in which the selected benefit was raised. Figure 12. Comparison between countries of benefit categories, based on frequency of appearance.

Country comparison of benefit categories

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Financial and business Human focussed benefits Bigger picture community Animal focussed benefits driven benefits focussed benefits

China Vietnam Thailand Malaysia India Bangladesh

Note: Amount of times a benefit falling under this category appeared, presented in a percentage according to the amount of opportunities to raise it as a benefit per country. Individual benefits associated to categories as per the colour key in table 20.

Table 21. Activity outcomes where leaders were asked to rank the benefits they presented at the onset of the session, in order of importance.

Rank China Vietnam Thailand Malaysia India Bangladesh 1 Improve quality of Improve quality of Improve quality of Productivity of Avoid cruelty and Productivity of meat or animal meat or animal meat or animal animals reduce animal animals product product product suffering 2 Stronger/healthier Productivity of Reduce disease Increased Improved Reduce disease animals animals and injury, and revenue/profit community and injury, and treatment costs livelihood treatment costs 3 Protection of Reduce disease Stronger/healthier Food Human Food natural and injury, and animals safety/biosecurity health/zoonosis safety/biosecurity resources/sustaina treatment costs ble development 4 Productivity of Human Human Improve quality of Reduce disease Increased animals health/zoonosis responsibility to meat or animal and injury, and revenue/profit give a good life product treatment costs 5 People feel better Improve Increased Reduce disease Addressing the Stronger/healthier for the animals human/animal revenue/profit and injury, and animals animals relationship treatment costs rights/sanctity of life 6 Public Relationship Avoid cruelty and Human Productivity of Avoid cruelty and concern/consumer between way reduce animal health/zoonosis animals reduce animal confidence humans and suffering suffering animals are treated, tie to human welfare 7 Increased Protection of Food Avoid cruelty and People feel better Addressing the revenue/profit natural safety/biosecurity reduce animal for the animals animals resources/sustaina suffering rights/sanctity of ble development life 8 Improved taste of Food Ease of handling Improved taste of Increased Improve quality of animal product safety/biosecurity calmer animals animal product revenue/profit meat or animal product 9 Avoid cruelty and Increased International trade Protection of Food Protection of reduce animal revenue/profit opportunities natural safety/biosecurity natural suffering resources/sustaina resources/ecosyste ble development m development 10 Reduce disease Avoid cruelty and People feel better International Improve Allowing natural and injury, and reduce animal for the animals recognition (not human/animal behaviour of treatment costs suffering being left behind) relationship animals 11 International trade International trade Public Allowing natural Human Compliant with opportunities opportunities concern/consumer behaviour of responsibility to international confidence animals give a good life regulation 12 Improved People feel better Productivity of Improve quality of Human commercial for the animals animals meat or animal health/zoonosis promotion product 13 International Compliant with Lower mortality Protection of Improve recognition (not international natural human/animal being left behind) regulation resources/ecosyste relationship m development 14 Lower mortality International trade opportunities Notes: Shaded cells indicate that the benefit was ranked in equal with each other, the broken line indicates where the split between the two equal cells appears.

Financial benefits: Improved animal productivity ‘For businessmen most of us we see that to improve animal welfare, or any changes, we need money’ . ‘I think man is the most selfish creature so revenue profit is number 1’ .

121 Although some aforementioned doubt existed as to the actual financial benefits (particularly when considering increased profit, or return from investment in higher welfare systems), leaders were, however, mostly positive towards the existence of potential financial benefits. This is particularly the case regarding reducing economic losses (reduction of treatments and antibiotic usage), and with animal-based profit measures such as increasing the productivity of the animals themselves and improving the quality of the meat/animal product. Improved animal productivity, along with improved meat quality, were the most important benefits raised. In regard to productivity, leaders made statements such as ‘when body condition is good production is also high, so profit and productivity is increased ’. ‘(I am) a farmer, (I) produce chicken and laying hens and observe (that) if chickens are given a good climate, good environment, ventilation, and space it improves (their) productivity’ . ‘(The birds) need to perform optimally in terms of productivity, that is why we make sure they are not too hot … happy birds make more money, that’s what we understand about welfare’ . ‘When the pigs are very depressed or under stress they will grow slowly’ . After describing the situation of most stockholders in Bangladesh, in that animals frequently share houses with families, one participant stated (with general agreement amongst the group), that where the animals are given love and affection, and when they come when their name is called, and when psychological welfare is high; ‘in that environment the meat production is very high … the reproduction and meat production is great … it is the most important thing’ .

Financial benefits: Improved meat and product quality Along with improved productivity, meat quality was the most important benefit described. ‘I am a farmer of pork … feed, housing, water quality and slaughter … all these things improve meat quality, economic efficiency and value’ . ‘All species can be eaten and most people treat them inhumanely especially in slaughterhouse, and to improve animal welfare can improve meat quality’ . ‘At slaughterhouse (I) observed and realise if you improve handling, with stunning, it improves meat quality’ . In Thailand; ‘I come from a slaughterhouse, and I think that if they have good animal welfare it reduces defects, the animals are more convenient and easier to handle, and it’s a good product’ . ‘The benefit for animal welfare is you will get a good quality product, reduced PSE, and also if you give (the animal) good welfare you will get a good yield’ . ‘To improve animal welfare means we will get good quality of products and customer will be happy with that’ . In China; ‘with the development of ecological agriculture, the importance of animal welfare has been emerging, so we need to improve both the management and give (the) animals some humane treatment to improve the quality of the products; that way we make the whole chain happy’ . ‘In (the) slaughterhouse the brokers who buy and transports pigs have realised they need to rest the pigs for some days before slaughter and the meat quality will become much better and taste good’ . ‘If we can have better AW for the chicken we can also have better benefits for our economy and our livelihood ’.

Financial benefits: Risk avoidance and business loss mitigation and opportunity In addition to the animal and product-based financial benefits, leaders also shared financial benefits in the form of risk and loss mitigation, through reducing the costs of medicine and treatments and lowering mortality. ‘Animal welfare requirements in standards should be satisfied from farm to slaughterhouse, even in the lairage and on the truck, feed, water, handling, all steps … (this will result in the) best quality and also improvement in health, it will reduce economic loss’ . ‘Improving animal welfare will improve animal health, less disease, lower mortality and improve growth rate (to) improve economic efficiency’ . The business risk to the domestic brand and product sales of not addressing animal welfare was also raised. ‘In recent years the people in China value animal welfare more, for example, during slaughter they (try to) use the knife to bleed quickly and they use stunning first to lower stress

122 before slaughter’ . ‘You can see some dogs or cats are abused by people (online); someone will put the videos up and people involved will be cursed by the public’ . Likewise, the risk of losing international export clientele was also raised; ‘(improving animal welfare offers) benefits to the business owner in terms of if they supply products for export the customer is concerned about animal welfare, and at same time if they provide good animal welfare our products will be good quality’ . Other than the benefit of risk mitigation, maintenance of current markets (domestic and international), and reducing costs through treatments and stock loss, 5/17 of the groups suggested that improving animal welfare standards would open up new markets, particularly those in export ‘in the time of globalisation and industrialisation, improved animal welfare gives better opportunity to export products’ . Finally, in regards to financial benefits, one leader briefly touched on the possibility of increased product promotion ability in China, and another on the procedural benefit of handling calmer less stressed animals in Thailand.

Human benefits: Physical health In most countries, the benefits were almost entirely business and financially focused, except in India and to some extent Bangladesh, where more emphasis was given to protecting human health, feeding the community, and community livelihood. This tied into the perceived benefit of animal welfare in the form of food safety, and biosecurity. ‘(Regarding) food animals, I think if you can ensure animal welfare the food will be safe’ . The ties between animal welfare and human welfare, in the shape of the One Welfare initiative, was well perceived in India, with prevalent comments such as ‘animals and human welfare is the same’ . ‘Indian people live so close to animals so there’s a lot of mixing … not like in western countries where animals are not living in close proximity… even when we go to work we meet so many animals on the road including dogs, cats, buffaloes, so there is a lot of interaction between humans and animals. Because of that there is a lot of linking between human and AW’ . ‘If animals are healthy and happy humans will benefit…promoting animal welfare means humans also gain welfare’ . ‘Human and animal welfare is tied … (for example), rabies is transferred from animal to human … but still street dogs are not vaccinated’ . ‘One health; the health of animals and health of humans are interlinked … we need to improve animal health to improve human health as many diseases are zoonotic’ . ‘Also, saving money from (human) diseases … improving (the) health of animals reduces the cost of treating ourselves’ .

Human based benefits: Psychological wellbeing In relation to benefits for human health, the benefits were not restricted to physical health, but also included benefits for mental health. Unlike the emphasis on physical health, the inclusion of mental health benefits was not restricted to India (where it took the form of satisfying religious duty to the animals), rather, some version of mental health benefits appeared in every country. The first seemed to be the satisfaction of empathy and vindication from a perceived guilt for involvement in the killing animals for both the consumers and the livestock workers themselves. ‘I am involved in animal production and I think in terms of the consumer, that if the production section is managed with good welfare then the consumer will be happy and feel good that product has come from good management, the customer will feel good about the product; hence we can eat animals don’t feel bad’ . ‘When we do the production line and then kill the animals you feel bad about that, but at the same time that kind of animal is food for people; so we should be kind to the animals to take care of them well before they become our food’ . ‘If you look after them well the benefit you get is good animals with less disease, increased efficiency and productivity … also, workers, livestock men, feel good doing that’ . ‘I have a small farm with free range chickens … what I see is that the taste is very good … I enjoy watching the chickens get to live as chickens, run around

123 flapping wings and fighting’ . ‘I work in a layer company … most direct benefit for me personally is good feeling when I see my layers well taken care of’ . The link between poor treatment of animals and poor treatment of other people was also recognised in this context; ‘when you provide humane treatment to animals, there is a relationship with providing humane treatment to humans’ .

Human based benefits: Community livelihood How the health and wellbeing of the animals directly affects community livelihood in India and Bangladesh were benefits that were emphasised frequently in those countries, although not in any others. ‘Through history the animal has assisted human population for livelihood development’ ’. ‘In our country we use animals for working, if welfare is ok this will help us use animal more for ploughing’ . ‘Unlike in other countries you can’t see animals as a separate entity, animals form an important and integral part of livelihood … If you want the benefits of improving the welfare, the prime thing is if welfare of animal is improved automatically human beings are improved’ . ‘All human beings only survive because of their livelihood, they’re dependant on this animal … if the welfare is ensured that will ensure the people’s livelihood’ . The beliefs of Hinduism were also tied to community livelihood in some instances. ‘Indians are a people who worship animals … so taking care of their welfare is equal to taking care of God, but most people are not aware of that … so you can direct things into that angle’ . ‘You cannot see the issue as two sides - cannot see animal and man as separate … consider gods of Hindus, every god is related to some animal, and actually we have a great culture of worshipping these animals; welfare is taking care of needs, people will see that as caring for gods’ .

Societally based benefits To a lesser extent, benefits that appear societally-focused, bigger picture and holistic were also presented by the leaders. In some instances, particularly in China and Vietnam under the local concept of ‘ecological agriculture’, animal welfare fitted into the objectives of protecting the environment in general. This may potentially suggest that animals are seen as a part of, rather than separate to, the natural environment, to which humans are still separate. ‘if we ensure their rights they are part of the environment, so if we improve their lifestyle and provide basic needs they will help sustain our environment’ . The importance of keeping up with international progress was also raised, with improving international standing as the perceived benefit to improving animal welfare. This was specifically pertinent to government representatives in the groups. ‘From my department’s point of view, we need to achieve international recognition … without this we will be left behind … this was evident when we had an issue regarding slaughter of animals through ESCAS (Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System) and we had to develop a whole protocol’ . Lastly, 5/17 of the groups raised the benefit of improving the human/animal relationship in general. ‘There are no definite rules and regulations in our country, no compliance with international standard … without any know-how some people relate animal welfare to their affection, to love animals’ .

Animal based benefits Leaders spent the least amount of time discussing improving animal welfare for the benefit of the animals themselves, however it was discussed more in India. Where it was discussed it was in the context of a desire to avoid cruelty and reduce suffering. ‘We want to improve welfare for the sake of the animals’ . Other than the context of animal welfare for the animals, the other context was that of animal rights. ’Every living being has its basic rights to ensure his life is lived in proper way and we have to ensure all basic needs and reduce the physical and psychological suffering’ .

Discussion 124 According to this study, the most important perceived benefit of improving animal welfare amongst livestock stakeholders is financial; primarily through increased productivity and yield from the animals in question, and improved quality of the end product (including taste in China, and not elsewhere). Other business benefits that directly or indirectly impact on the profit were ranked with high importance, including meeting customer demands and expectations, particularly with export customers, creating new markets through offering higher welfare products (again, particularly for export markets), and reducing expenses, such as treatment for disease and injury, and stock losses. Throughout the study leaders presented benefits as if they ‘could’ be important benefits for them. So, although they were raised as important, the benefits were not necessarily without scepticism that the benefits are achievable. Doubt around the actual existence of the perceived benefits was entirely focused on one benefit category, increased profit, and it was particularly present in China. This suggests a need to conduct economic evaluations into financial gains that may be possible with improving individual aspects of animal welfare, and ensuring reliable information is available to leaders within the livestock industry. Some well cited studies have outlined the relationship between animal welfare and economic productivity, and find the attitudes of the public are intrinsically tied to this relationship (McInerney 1993; Bennett 1995), and necessarily offset by cost (Bennett et al. 2012). Similar work has been conducted in the field of environmental conservation and protection, with studies highlighting that financial benefits do exist, and must be isolated and understood (Pimentel et al. 1997; Ackerman & Heinzerling 2001; Schaltegger & Synnestvedt 2002). Directly tied to economic gain, is the importance of animal welfare to consumers. Along with environmental protection, animal protection has been hypothesized to exist in a ‘nature trifecta’ of associated importance to the general public (Sinclair & Phillips 2017) making it a social issue that is highly valued across borders. Beyond simply having an effect on consumer choices and therefore profit margins, other examples of direct financial impact relational to animal welfare exist. One example of this, specifically on mitigating losses rather than increasing profit, is seen with the live export industry in Australia. Media exposés highlighting animals in conditions that were distasteful to the public resulted in lobbying and temporary shut-down of the Australian live export industry in entirety, equating to reported agricultural losses in excess of the millions (Sinclair et al. 2018a). In addition to this, economic modelling found that more profit could be accessed by processing the animals in Australia, rather than sending them overseas; a solution to animal welfare concerns, and an opportunity to reform for eventual increased profit (Davey & Fisher 2018). In another study, the transition of battery cages for layers hens to alternatives that increase the welfare of the birds have been assessed to be economically favorable in under conditions that need to be carefully measured and implemented (Foelsch et al. 1988). Likewise, economic modelling on the relationship between milk production and dairy cow welfare found that a herd of 100 head could increase profit margins by £10,000 (over $13,000 USD at the time of publishing) by implementing attainable welfare related target rates that is only likely to have increase present day (Esslemont & Peeler 1993). Likewise, profit was again related to the welfare of the dairy heifer in financial models that measured the cost of production diseases (Kossaibati & Esslemont 1997). Although this literature presents that financial benefits exist in addressing animal welfare, for livestock business making changes often requires financial outlay. It is also important to note here that this paper is not suggesting that financial benefits are present in all animal welfare improvement, but that, in line with the data collected, where economic modelling can be completed and financial benefit demonstrated, it could provide a largely compelling benefit that is likely to result in increased motivation to address the animal welfare change modelled. While financial benefits were raised as important in all countries, it was particularly the case in China and South East Asia (Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand). All of these countries, except Malaysia, have large agriculture industries that are exporting internationally, and seek to increase their export markets. However, the focus of benefits changes when looking at India, and to a lesser extent, Bangladesh, where human-focused benefits are prioritised. Benefits such as improved human physical health through reduction of zoonotic disease risks, and the relationship between animal welfare and the livelihood of the community may be the result of a culture that lives in close 125 proximity to farm animals. As a direct result of their reverence as holy animals, and their legislative protection from slaughter, cows join the ranks of commonly straying animals alongside cats and dogs in India, and interaction is frequent (Kennedy et al. 2018). Likewise, in Bangladesh, a majority of farming is by subsistence farming, where it is commonplace that animals may be sharing a domestic environment and sometimes a home with their carers (Baul et al. 2015). Cognitive dissonance theory refers to the pressure felt to convince oneself that immoral activities are in fact moral to avoid uncomfortable inconsistency between attitudes and behavior (Festinger 1957; Rabin 1994). This often unconscious human practice usually relies on avoidance or disconnect of information or situations that result in this feeling of uncomfortable inconsistency (Festinger 1957). Therefore, in the situations where avoidance or disconnection from farm based animals is less possible given their proximity to humans, cognitive dissonance from animal suffering may become more difficult, and vicarious suffering may be increased. This may further explain the higher associated importance of the human-animal relationship in Bangladesh and India, and the importance of benefits to the animals themselves in India. This explanation is also consistent with an increased concern for the ‘psychological’ wellbeing of the humans, and the perceived benefit that improving animal welfare will ‘make the humans feel better’ in these countries; with stakeholders statements in this region such as ‘happy animals happy people’, and ‘if animals are healthy and happy humans will benefit, promoting animal welfare means humans also have better welfare’. In Bangladesh, a country where cattle and buffalo are still used for work by small farm holders, the link between the health and strength of the animal, underpinned by their welfare, and the livelihood of the community is clear. According to a comprehensive economic data analysis of 189 countries conducted by the Human Development Program at the United Nations in 2018, Malaysia (ranking 57th), Thailand (ranking 83rd) and China (ranking 86th) were considered high to very high in development, Vietnam (ranking 116) was medium, and India (ranked 130th) and Bangladesh (ranked 136th) both were in the bottom of the medium development category (United Nations Development Programme 2018). India and Bangladesh are in earlier stages of development. This is consistent with the finding of this study, in which countries placed in earlier stages of development have presented the importance of human- based benefits. In this case, presenting initiatives centered on a positively impact for both human welfare and prospects for the wider community may be more likely to succeed. This is in contrast to the financially-focused profit driven countries investigated, which are placed higher in the human development scale. In general, benefits received by the animals themselves were not often presented or ranked with any great importance in most countries, despite animals being the most logical beneficiary of improving their welfare. This could be because livestock leaders considered these benefits too obvious to raise; however, considering they were on occasion raised along with other benefit categories, it is more likely that animal-focused benefits were just not considered particularly important. Improving animal welfare for the sake of the animals is rarely a compelling argument to livestock industry leaders, with one exception. This exception, again, is India and Bangladesh. Improving animal welfare for the purpose of reducing suffering, respecting the animal’s rights and fulfilling duty to appropriately consider the care of other living species could be partially attributable to the pervasion of Hindu religious beliefs in India, and again due to physical proximity to the animals resulting in more developed empathy in Bangladesh. The notion of Ahimsa, non-violence, in Hinduism includes all life and appropriate treatment of animals is tied to the tenet of Karma, where causing ill to another will result in ill to oneself. Inherently tied to rebirth; Hindus believe they may be reborn as an animal, and an animal may be reborn as a human, the specifications of which depend on their state of Karma (Krishna 2010). The holy Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, go further to describe the code of sarva-bhuta-hita; devotion to the good of all creatures (Szucs et al. 2012). Surprisingly, benefits to addressing animal welfare with the purpose of managing branded images and avoiding negative media and even market collapse, as has been seen with the livestock export industry in Australia (Everingham & O'Brien 2014; Petrie 2016; Future Beef 2018), was not mentioned with any significance in this study. This may be due to a reduced concern in Asian 126 countries that citizens may lobby and protest in an attempt to challenge an industry. This is potentially underpinned by the cultural dimension of ‘power distance’ (the degree to which a hierarchy, and the directions provided by it is accepted without question), which is often higher in Asian countries (Hofstede Insights 2019). This may also be attributable to a greater concern for maintaining economic stability as compared to western countries that enjoy a higher development ranking. Previous research has demonstrated the importance of evaluating potential changes to practices on animal welfare grounds by estimating and understanding the benefits and the costs in doing so (McInerney 1993; Bennett et al. 2012). Understanding the value citizens place on animal welfare benefits is deemed worth of exploration as it directly relates to the indirect loss of profit to the industry (Bennett 1995). Likewise, a better understanding of the strength of animal welfare benefits according to the livestock industry themselves could have great utility. The findings of this study suggest potential grounds for presenting more compelling mutual benefits to livestock industry leaders when seeking to improve farm animal welfare internationally. By applying this information, and creating education and awareness initiatives in line with benefits more likely to appeal to the livestock community, it is likely that increased engagement with animal welfare initiatives will be seen. For countries within this study, that includes the creation and presentation of reliable data sets that demonstrate profit opportunities where they exist, and an increased effort to reach business owners and senior managers in production companies with this information.

Conclusion

This study explored benefits of improving animal welfare as perceived by livestock stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, India and Bangladesh. Although the overarching importance of benefits that yield financial gain was shared across all countries, mostly through improved productivity of the animals and improved product quality, regional differences were present. This was most noticeably the case with India and Bangladesh being more concerned with human and community focused benefits to improving animal welfare, and the tie between human and animal welfare by the nature of reduced zoonotic risks, but also in regard to the potential increase in human psychological welfare by observing animals in more positive states. Animal-focused benefits were not presented with any significance by the majority of livestock leaders included in this study, with the exception of India and Bangladesh. This suggests that improving animal welfare for the sake of the animals is unlikely to be a compelling reason to act in most cases of livestock enterprise, unless it is directly related to the productive output of the animal or another financial indicator such as reducing the risk of stock losses. This study does not investigate the presence of any benefits to improving animal welfare, rather, investigates which benefits, should they be present, would be most valued by stakeholders. If applied to international animal welfare initiatives with the purpose of finding mutual benefits to initiate collaborations, this foundation information could be useful. In addition, where the more compelling benefits presented in this study can be investigated and demonstrated, it is suggested that stakeholders will be more likely to engage in change to improve animal welfare.

127

9 Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues.

Citation: Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J. Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, and Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues. Animals 2019, 9, 319.

Contribution: The PhD candidate (MS) secured funding, designed the focus group content and activities, sought partnership agreement with local academic collaborators, coordination of the focus groups in partnership with local collaborators, facilitated the focus group sessions, prepared transcripts, analysed the data, developed themes, constructed theory, wrote the paper, drew the figures, submitted the paper and attended to revisions as required from academic reviewers for publication. Supervisory support was offered (CJCP) for methodological oversight, and editing the paper. Assistance was received from the project Research Assistant (CF) in the preparation of comprehensive field notes during the facilitation of the focus group session, which were key in the construction of the transcripts. Voluntary on-the-ground assistance was provided by academic collaborators in each country, in the preparing and hosting of the focus group sessions, and the supplying of verbal translation where required.

Abstract

The welfare of farm animals has been the focus of increasing international interest, however, the movement has had little engagement with livestock leaders who are, arguably, the stakeholders in the position most able to make decisions that impact animal welfare at critical times. Previous studies have drawn attention to the need to engage in constructive collaborations with the livestock industry for the betterment of animal welfare, and to uncover mutual benefits for both stakeholders and proponents of animal welfare with which collaborations can be motivated. This study aimed to continue this need to understand leaders in livestock management, by consulting their opinions as to what constitutes the most critical animal welfare issues during farming and slaughter, and what they see as some of the solutions to begin addressing livestock welfare issues in their country. Seventeen focus group sessions were held with 139 leaders in livestock industries in six diverse countries in Asia, including China, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Bangladesh. Leaders included government representatives, key academics in agriculture, and business managers and leaders within the domestic animal agriculture industries, as relevant to each country. After conducting thematic analysis and applying basic statistical measures, the findings suggest that solutions within the themes of education, training, and awareness are most valued. However, how each of these could be best addressed varied by country. The need for local research and local solutions also contributed to the most frequent opportunities, as did the requirement for prescriptive and consistent standards and expectations. A ranking of animal welfare issues is presented, as is a selection of suggested animal welfare initiatives resulting from the findings of this study.

Introduction

Animal welfare, particularly when considering livestock, is a social issue that involves many stakeholders: consumers, animal advocates, governments, the public, veterinarians, livestock industry and the animals themselves. Well understood in the realms of commercial marketing, political science, education, war, and corporate psychology, understanding the target audience, or relevant stakeholder, is vital to the success of campaigns (Berry 2005; McQuarrie 2005; Andreasen & Kotler 2008; Entwistle & Ramsden 2015). and a universal approach to stakeholders is unlikely to generate engagement. Although the principle of understanding audiences and stakeholders has not been widely applied to social enterprise, or more specifically to the purpose of improving animal welfare, it is directly applicable and is likely to result in the development of improved strategy and initiatives (Evans 2013). Engaging stakeholders in a relationship with a product, philosophy, or behaviour requires an understanding of who influences decisions to engage with a product, their needs and problems, what they are trying to achieve, and how they can be successful (Verbeke 2009). Identifying the right stakeholders to understand and engage with is, therefore, a fundamental component of this process. In the past, animal welfare science, along with the broader farm animal welfare movement, has focused almost entirely on the animals themselves, which is reasonable considering they are the main subject and the stakeholders with the most to lose or gain. However, farm animals, and particularly those in intensive production systems, are often not in a position to improve their welfare, and are only rarely able to make choices that improve their quality of life. Key actors in the livestock industry, those with the greatest amount of choice over the details that have the greatest impact on the animals’ lives and welfare, are the farmers, transporters, slaughter-people and veterinarians. Apart from the animals themselves, no other stakeholder has as much to lose or gain from animal welfare initiatives, with stakeholders in many developing countries relying on livestock and subsistence farming for survival. In addition, no other stakeholder understands the intimate details of the livestock production business as well as they do, including the challenges and solutions to improving animal welfare. Contrary to the potential of this stakeholder group, livestock stakeholders in developing countries have seldom been the focus of animal welfare research or strategy. Some research has been undertaken on the understanding of attitudes and behaviour of livestock industry stakeholders in developed countries towards animal welfare, e.g. Verbeke (2009), but in the developing economies of Asia there are many different traditions and cultural influences, as well as market forces, which suggest that different attitudes and behaviour may prevail. Groundwork research has been conducted to begin understanding the attitudes of livestock stakeholders (Bock & Van Huik 2007; Vanhonacker et al. 2008; Kauppinen et al. 2010), but only a few studies have been recently conducted with Asian stakeholders regarding animal welfare (Sinclair et al. 2017a; Sinclair et al. 2017b; Li et al. 2018; Sinclair et al. 2018b) despite the fact that the majority of livestock are produced in Asia. The importance of finding mutual benefits (or ‘mutual gains’) with livestock stakeholders has been presented in an international development context (Mayers & Vermeulen 2002; Gryzbowski et al. 2009) and in the context of animal welfare (chapter three; Sinclair & Phillips 2018b). Further to that, the nature of the perceived benefits for livestock stakeholders, if they improve the welfare of the livestock, has also recently been explored (chapter eight; Sinclair et al. 2019a). Understanding livestock stakeholders’ perceptions of different 129 animal welfare issues, and stakeholder-initiated solutions or opportunities to improve animal welfare, has not yet been researched, particularly not in the context of Asian countries. This study aims to draw on the skills and experience of livestock leaders across six culturally diverse Asian nations with economically important livestock industries to begin addressing this gap. Incorporating stakeholder-identified opportunities to improve farm animal welfare into international initiatives is more likely to be supported by these stakeholders. Furthermore, this study aims to provide an improved understanding of the stakeholders tasked with making the most critical choices on behalf of the animals and their welfare. Materials and methods

The study was granted human ethics approval by the University of Queensland Ethics Committee, approval number: 2017000628. Three focus group sessions were held in each of five countries: India, Vietnam, Thailand, China, and Bangladesh, and two were held in Malaysia because of the relatively smaller population. There was a total of 17 focus groups and 139 livestock leaders (Table 22). Locations were dispersed across each country (i.e., capital, and regional) in an effort to capture potentially varied sentiments between different geographic regions. Participants (henceforth referred to as stakeholders) were invited through country-based collaborators utilising the following selection criteria: they had to be leaders in the agricultural sector, senior within a private organisation or agriculture government department (with a maximum of five government vets), and considered by local collaborators to have the ability to implement change in private businesses. The majority of stakeholders were private industry leaders, such as pig or poultry slaughterhouse or production managers or owners (Table 23). In some focus groups, participants were known to each other as professional colleagues.

130

Table 22. Location of focus groups and abbreviation codes used in quote citations.

Country City/Town Abbreviation Code Number of Participants Hanoi HN 7 Vietnam Ban Me Thout BT 5 Ho Chi Minh City HCM 8 Negeri Sembilan NS 6 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Selangor KL 13 Bangkok BK 10 Thailand Khon Kaen KK 3 Chiang Mai CM 6 Guangzhou GZ 7 China Zhengzhou ZZ 7 Beijing BJ 9 Banglaore BA 6 India Kolkata KO 5 Trivandrum TR 4 Dhaka DH 13 Bangladesh Mymensingh MM 17 Savar SA 13

Table 23. Breakdown of stakeholder participant roles within the livestock industry, by country.

Country Stakeholder Role Private Industry Private Industry Government Agricultural Totals Leaders Veterinarians Representatives Academics China 15 0 1 9 25 Vietnam 4 3 13 1 21 Thailand 11 4 2 2 19 Malaysia 9 5 5 1 20 India 3 5 1 6 15 Bangladesh 4 2 17 21 44 Totals 46 19 39 40

Although plans were made for five to seven stakeholders to attend each session, the actual number of stakeholders present on the day varied from three to 14, due to a mix of cancellations and heightened interest. Sessions were scheduled for 3.5 hours, but those with more stakeholders often ran for longer to allow all stakeholders adequate opportunity to contribute. The lead researcher (MS), with the assistance of a research assistant, facilitated all groups in a semi structured format with consistent base questions (see Appendix A). These were followed by questions prompting stakeholders for further discussion around animal welfare issues relevant to them, which suggested strategies, solutions and opportunities to improve animal welfare in their country. In addition to this discussion, two activities were conducted with stakeholders: a group ranking of what stakeholders saw to be the most important livestock welfare issues, and an individual rating of the perceived willingness to improve stock handling skills to be calmer and gentler with livestock animals, in the context of front line animal staff within the livestock industries. 131

Within the group activity, 12 cards were presented with major welfare concerns in livestock production, written in both English and the local language, translated by the local academic collaborator (simplified Chinese in China, Vietnamese in Vietnam, Thai in Thailand, Bangladeshi in Bangladesh, Hindi in India, and Bahas in Malaysia). Stakeholders were asked to reach a consensus as a team and place the cards in order of importance, from the most concerning animal welfare issue, to the least. This was first completed in the context of animal farming, and second in the context of animal slaughter. Stakeholders were encouraged to discuss their thoughts, and present their rank order back to the facilitator and research assistant when they had agreed on an order. The research assistant advised the groups by answering questions about the meanings of cards if they were not readily understood. In each session, the stakeholders were advised to consider the issues not in relation to the current issues on their respective farms, rather, that in the case that all of the issues were present, which issues were the most important, ranked from most to least important. The task took between 10 and 30 minutes in each session, with some groups choosing not to distinguish between farming and slaughter, and to present one list. This activity was completed early in the sessions, before discussing pre-slaughter stunning (presented in Chapter 7), handling or potential solutions in-depth, to avoid creating a biased emphasis on either of these animal welfare issues. In a third line of questioning presented in this chapter, the stakeholders were also asked to rate ‘on a scale from 1–10 how willing do you think people handling the animals would be to improve their stockperson skills to be calmer and gentler with the animals’. Stakeholders provided an individual rating, and were then asked if they had any suggestions for increasing the willingness of stock handlers to improve their skills to be gentler and calmer with the animals. As presented in earlier chapters, the remainder of the session content focussed on the benefits to improving welfare, willingness to embrace pre-slaughter stunning, and, pursuant to our earlier surveys, achieving a better understanding of the motivators to seek to improve animal welfare (Sinclair et al. 2017a; Sinclair et al. 2017b; Li et al. 2018; Sinclair et al. 2018b; Sinclair & Phillips 2018b; Sinclair et al. 2019a). The sessions ended with a summary of the major points presented by the lead researcher (MS), in order to achieve agreement with all stakeholders. Stakeholders were not paid for their participation, were advised that the session was voluntary, and that all data would be de-identified. Dialogue was voice recorded during the sessions and additional field notes were taken by the research assistant. To avoid presenting misleading data, linguistics and tone are not reported, as most data were translated, abbreviated, and summarised through verbal translators during the sessions, from six different languages to English. Both datasets were used to create abridged transcripts of each session. As participation was facilitated by verbal translation during the sessions in most instances (except for some Malaysian, Thai, Indian, and Bangladeshi participants who spoke English), verbatim transcripts were not possible. However, post hoc transcripts were uploaded into NVivo 11.4.3 software for Mac for analysis (henceforth referred to as NVivo). The same lead researcher who conducted the focus groups also coded all themes (recurring concepts or ideas) as is preferable where logistically possible (Vaismoradi 2016), and conducted the analysis. On completion of each session participants received a small gift from Australia (such as pins, magnets, and small toy koalas) as a token of appreciation for participating in research.

132

Analysis For the data collected in the animal welfare issues group card activity, the ranking of issues per location is presented as it was collected, and the percentage of total solutions that each solution comprised was calculated and is presented graphically. Thematic analysis was utilised to obtain a deeper understanding of the solutions and specific opportunities, and to investigate the most important solutions to stakeholders. Data contained in the session summary and relating to solutions and opportunities was compiled into 19 solution themes and presented as they appeared in each location. The percentage of total solutions was calculated for each individual solution. The most significant solution theme was then further analysed for specific sub-themes and what proportion of this solution theme each constituted. Once all data relating to solutions or opportunities to improve animal welfare had been coded as a theme, it was manually inspected for quotes that best illustrated this data. At the completion of analysis and coding of themes and sub-themes, no new themes emerged from the data, suggesting data saturation. Lastly, individual quantitative ratings from the question regarding perceived willingness to improve stockperson handling skills to be gentler were documented and subjected to a means and median calculation by location. Qualitative data in line with this topic were also subjected to thematic analysis and quantification. Due to possible translation nuances, rather than focusing on word usage, more attention was paid to careful analysis of the key themes, the frequency of their appearance across countries, and the general context and interpretation of their meanings. However, word frequency functions in NVivo were still utilised in the identification of sub-themes and to ensure data saturation. For the data collected in relation to rating the willingness of stakeholders to engage in calm and gentle animal handling, responses were counted for each location, and presented as a mean and median. Data relating to these scores were coded and are summarised in the results.

Results

Animal Welfare Issues In a farming context, most stakeholders placed the lack of food and water at the top of the list as the most serious animal welfare issues (Table 24; Figure 13). Lack of pre-slaughter stunning, coupled with experiencing fear and distress and rough handling, were rated as most important across most countries when considering a slaughter context, except in Bangladesh where the lack of pre- slaughter stunning was rated amongst the lowest animal welfare concerns during slaughter, and one session in Malaysia in which it was placed in the middle of the list. In those sessions in which the stakeholders chose to craft one list to cover both farming and slaughter contexts, consideration was frequently given to the lack of pre-slaughter stunning in Vietnam and India, and to thermal discomfort in Thailand. Boredom consistently ranked the lowest of animal welfare considerations in all sessions, both in the farming and slaughter context, except in one session in China in which rough handling and lack of shelter were rated as being of lower in importance in a slaughter context, and in one session in Malaysia in which, again, rough handling rated lower than boredom in a farming context. In the slaughter context boredom was rated at a low level, however, it was rated of greater importance than food and treatment for disease in a couple of

133 sessions, presumably due to the withholding of these provisions prior to slaughter. Lack of stunning at slaughter was mostly rated the least important consideration in Bangladesh, interchangeably with boredom. Most other animal welfare issues were rated with varied importance, with no significant consistency by country, except that space to express normal behaviour, thermal discomfort, and rough handling considerations rated consistently high in most countries when considering farming, after food and water, with the exception of Bangladesh which had less consistency in the rating of these issues.

Stakeholder Initiated Solutions or Approaches The primary themes underpinning the solutions presented by stakeholders are summarised in Table 25 and Figures 14-15. The most frequent were education of children, industry training, awareness of the general public, the need for prescriptive standards, and the need for local research and local solutions. Although some themes were consistent across the countries, their suggested content and conduct varied considerably. For this reason, and for practicability of application, the qualitative detail of these themes is considered and discussed by country, illustrated with direct quotes from the stakeholders. The subthemes for education and training were, from most to least important, industry training, building public awareness, childhood education, and leveraging social and mass media (Figure 15).

Table 24. Group ranking of animal welfare issues, by country. Country Region Ranking Farming Context Slaughter Context (1) Handling (1) Water (2) No stunning (2) Food (3) Fear (3) Temperature (4) Temperature (4) Space (5) Water (5) Shelter (6) Wrong food China Beijing (6) Disease (7) Food (7) Wrong food (8) Space (8) Rest (9) Rest (9) Fear (10) Boredom (10) Boredom (11) Disease (11) Handling (12) Shelter (1) Water (1) Water (2) Food (2) Food (3) No stunning (3) Shelter (4) Shelter (4) Temperature (5) Temperature (5) Handling (6) Handling Guangzhou (6) Disease (7) Disease (7) Space (8) Space (8) Fear (9) Fear (9) Wrong food (10) Wrong food (10) Rest (11) Rest (11) Boredom (12) Boredom

134

(1) No stunning (1) Food (2) Fear (2) Water (3) Handling (3) Handling (4) Temperature (4) Space (5) Food (5) Temperature (6) Water Zhengzhou (6) Wrong feed (7) Space (7) Shelter (8) Wrong food (8) Fear (9) Shelter (9) Disease (10) Rest (10) Rest (11) Disease (11) Boredom (12) Boredom (1a) Food (1b) Water (1c) Wrong food (2a) Fear (2b) No stunning (3a) Rest (3b) Shelter (3c) Temperature Vietnam Hanoi * (4) Space (5) Handling (6) Disease (7) Boredom (1) No stunning (2) Space (3) Disease (4) Handling (5) Temperature (6) Fear Ho Chi Minh * (7) Shelter (8) Water (9) Food (10) Rest (11) Wrong food (12) Boredom (1) No stunning (2) Fear (3) Handling (4) Space (5) Temperature Ban Me Thout (6) Shelter

* (7) Rest (8) Water (9) Wrong food (10) Food (11) Disease (12) Boredom (1) Space (2) Temperature (1) Fear (3a) Handling (2) No stunning (3b) Fear (3) Temperature (4a) Water Malaysia Kuala Lumpur (4) Handling (4b) Food (5) Rest (5) Disease (6) Water (6) Rest (7) Space (7) No stunning (8) Boredom

135

(1) Water (1) Fear (2) Food (2) Rest (3) Shelter (3) Water (4) Temperature (4) Temperature (5) Rest (5) Shelter Negeri (6) Wrong food (6) Handling

Sembilan (7) Fear (7) Space (8) Space (8) No stunning (9) Disease (9) Disease (10) Boredom (10) Boredom (11) Handling (11) Wrong feed (12) No stunning (12) Food (1) Temperature (2) Water (3) Disease (4) Fear (5) Handling (6) Space Thailand Bangkok * (7) Food (8) No stunning (9) Rest (10) Shelter (11) Wrong food (12) Boredom (1) Water (1) Handling (2) Food (2) Space (3) Wrong food (3) No stunning (4) Space (4) Rest (5) Disease (5) Shelter (6) Handling (6) Temperature Khon Kaen (7) Shelter (7) Fear (8) Temperature (8) Boredom (9) Fear (9) Water (10) No stunning (10) Food (11) Rest (11) Wrong food (12) Boredom (12) Disease (1) Water (1) No stunning (2) Food (2) Handling (3) Wrong food (3) Water (4) Fear (4) Fear (5) Space (5) Space (6) Disease (6) Rest Chiang Mai (7) Handling (7) Shelter (8) Boredom (8) Temperature (9) Rest (9) Disease (10) Temperature (10) Boredom (11) Shelter (11) Food (12) No stunning (12) Wrong food (1) Disease (2) Food (3) Wrong food (4) Water (5) Space (6) Temperature India Kolkata * (7) Rest (8) Shelter (9) Handling (10) No stunning (11) Fear (12) Boredom 136

(1) No stunning (2) Handling (3) Fear (4) Food (5) Wrong food (6) Shelter Bangalore * (7) Shelter (8) Disease (9) Rest (10) Space (11) Temperature (12) Boredom (1) Food (2) Water (3) Wrong food (4) Shelter (5) Space (6) Temperature Trivandrum * (7) No stunning (8) Disease (9) Fear (10) Rest (11) Handling (12) Boredom (1) Space (2) Rest (3) Wrong food (4) Fear (1) Transportation discomfort (added (5) Handling by participants) (6) Transportation discomfort (added by (2) Fear participants) (3) Handling (7) Temperature Bangladesh Dhaka (4) Slaughtering pregnant animals (8) Boredom unknowingly (added by participants) (9) Shelter (5) Disease (10) Disease (6) Rest (11) Water quality (added by (7) No stunning participants) (12) Food (13) Water (14) No stunning (1) Wrong food (1) Handling (2) Space (2) Shelter (3) Food (3) Rest (4) Shelter (4) Water (5) Disease (5) Temperature (6) Handling (6) Food Mymensingh (7) Temperature (7) Wrong food (8) Rest (8) Disease (9) Fear (9) Fear (10) Water (10) Space (11) No stunning (11) No stunning (12) Boredom (12) Boredom

137

(1) Food (1) Poor vehicle design (added by (2) Wrong food participants) (3) Disease (2) Rest (4) Temperature (3) Temperature (5) Space (4) Space (6) Poor vehicle design (added by (5) Handling Savar participants) (6) Shelter (7) Handling (7) Water (8) Rest (8) Fear (9) Shelter (9) Disease (10) Fear (10) Food (11) Water (11) Boredom (12) Boredom (12) No stunning * Farming and slaughter combined.

Abbreviation key for Table 24.

Animal Welfare Issues as Stated on Activity Cards in Full (Translated) Disease Lack of treatment of disease and injury Food Not enough food Wrong food Inappropriate feed Water Not enough water Space Confinement in space too small to express normal behaviour Temperature Thermal discomfort: too hot or cold Rest Lack of comfortable rest Shelter Lack of shelter Handling Rough stock handling No stunning Lack of stunning during slaughter Fear Experiencing fear and distress Boredom Boredom

138

Lack of shelter 3.75

Lack of comfortable rest 5

Lack of treatment of disease and injury 5

Thermal discomfort 6.25

Experiencing fear and distress 10

Wrong food 10

No pre-slaughter stunning 11.25

Rough handling 12.5

Lack of food 15

Lack of water 15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Figure 13. Percentage (out of 100) of focus groups in which each issue was rated within the top three ‘most important’.

Note: The 12th issue, ‘boredom’, did not appear amongst the top-rated animal welfare concerns in any of the sessions, therefore, it does not appear here.

139

Tie to food safety and antibiotic Tie to human welfare resistance 5% 4% Engage national and heritage pride 5% Local research Education and 5% training 50% Form stakeholder collaborations (industry, government, associations, universities, NGO) 10% Focus on the business benefits 10% Develop prescriptive and consistent standards 11%

Figure 14. The top 12 stakeholder suggested solutions and opportunities to improving animal welfare (% frequency with which each of the top 12 solutions was represented, across all countries).

Figure 15. Visual representation of the % frequency of subsets within the ‘Education and Training’ solution, across all countries.

140

Table 25. Solutions to improving animal welfare presented by livestock leaders in each location.

China Vietnam Thailand Malaysia India Bangladesh Ho Chi Ban Me Chiang Khon Kuala Negeri Beijing Guangzhou Zhengzhou Hanoi Minh Bangkok Kolkata Bangalore Trivandrum Dhaka Mymensingh Savar Thout Mai Kaen Lumpur Sembilan City Childhood education X X X X X X X X X X Industry training X X X X X X X X X X X X Build public awareness X X X X X X X X X X X Build AW profile using mass media X X X X X X X X Build AW profile using social media X X X X X X X X Societal move to larger and licensed slaughterhouses for ease of X X X monitoring Local research on issues and local X X X X X holistic solutions Engage cultural pride/goodness in X X X X X heritage Create prescriptive and consistent X X X X X X X X X X standards and company policy Focus on science to eliminated X X emotive stigma Focus on One Welfare, and the X X X X X holistic human tie Focus on business benefits to X X X X X X X X X X improving animal welfare Consumer willingness to pay X X campaigns Collaborations between stakeholder groups (industry, industry groups, X X X X X X X X X X NGO, government, universities) Regional flexibility and X understanding for standards Peer skill sharing X X X Leverage food safety or X X X X antimicrobial resistance for AW Leverage new technology to X safeguard animal welfare Incorporate animal welfare into X X X religious curriculum

141

China The solutions presented with the most frequency in China centred on a practical and pragmatic approach. Firstly, the creation of industry standards that are prescriptive by nature, locally relevant to China, and based on scientific measurements were consistently raised as important in China (Table 25). “During the conference of the last October in Hangzhou the wise Minister of China Agriculture expressed (the view) that we cannot have animal welfare standards that are not realistic in the Chinese situation, they must be based on our own situation, not based on other countries” . “Animal welfare is never ending, conceptually, so we need specific standards and guidance on how to meet them … because you cannot meet the requirements of a concept” . The second solution presented in all sessions in China was the need to present clear information on the business benefits for improving animal welfare. “Companies want to make money, so when animal welfare can improve their benefits they will incorporate that notion” . “Is there any specific data to prove a positive connection between animal welfare and efficiency of economic benefits to company? If we have such data it will become much easier to promote the concept” . “We need to communicate that animal welfare can improve their productivity” . Five other solutions were repeatedly presented with emphasis in China, though not in every session. One of these focused on building a body of local research that is Chinese led, and specifically relevant to the Chinese industry and conditions. “We have all the foreign countries pressing us to go forward on animal welfare and that will make us confused … the foreign countries have advanced animal welfare practices and they are pushing us to go like them but we don’t have the fundamentals” . “We need to encourage the Chinese academics to promote the research, first the scientific knowledge. It is easier to trust Chinese science conducted in a Chinese environment” . Collaboration between stakeholder groups, in particular the importance of working with Chinese government, was raised in each session. “The government is very important to the Chinese people, for example, if government media says ok we need a green environment, it will engage the common people” . “The government need(s) to consider that if we have better animal welfare we may have more advantages in international trading or leading positions ahead of other countries” . “If the government focusses on this people will follow, but if not, they won’t do it (animal welfare improvement)” . The last three of these could be grouped together as focussed on raising awareness of animal welfare amongst the general public, and lifting the profile of animal welfare both in social media, and mass media. “First we should rely on the internet and second is that we can use documentaries to promote (animal welfare, including) social media such as Weibo and applications with live videos such as Huajiao” .

India Education focused on children was a primary solution to improving animal welfare, according to Indian stakeholders. “Everyone in the general public, right from school children age should be educated … not only about dogs, all animals should be treated well and it should be part of the curriculum. It should be made mandatory if they’re involved with animals or not, because they will come across animals” . For both children and adults alike, a pride in the ‘goodness’ of Indian heritage; the history of belief in the sacred nature of life and the holiness of animals could be used as a platform to convey messages of respect and empathy that would underpin behaviours that seek to advocate for the welfare of animals. “Indians are the people who worship animals, so taking care of their welfare is equal to taking care of God, but most people are not aware of that … so you can direct things in that angle.” . “Consider gods of Hindus, every god is related to some animal, and we had a great culture of worshipping these animals; welfare is taking care of needs, people will see that as caring for gods” .

142

Stories traditional to Indian heritage could be an important tool to assist in this purpose. “When we were kids there was a set of tales all about how animals and humans co-exist and how humans learn lessons from animals. It’s sad that in today in schools those tales are not taught to children. We are copying the West and taking your stories and lessons, but these short stories are beautiful; how much we interact and benefit from symbiotic relationships … this could be done in schools” . “Being kind and compassionate to animals is there in our history, mythology and stories, we have grown up with it. However, over time we are living in urban pockets with shopping malls and we have lost the connection with animals and that they too feel pain and suffer; we have to start re- educating our children and society.” . Utilising social media to build awareness around animal welfare issues, and to elicit empathy and concern was also raised in each session in India. This included the use of Indian celebrities (specifically Bollywood stars and cricketers), which was deemed an important medium to elicit interest. “It is very popular in India to use celebrities; for example in India, cricket is religion … we had an Indian cricket captain speak on TV about vaccination for rabies … involving celebrities has a very good impact” . “Youtube and WhatsApp are popular platforms” . Other solutions presented in most of the sessions in India included a need to understand the complex local issues through research, including all stakeholders impacted by potential solutions, which could then result in a holistic ‘roadmap’ to solving the issue. “Basically, India is very vast country with so many kinds of issues and we don’t have a program like a road map to achieve what we can do. It’s a little like traffic, you people would be shocked, however, we cannot have traffic rules like those which exist in Australia … What applies to your country may not apply to our country, so we need practical local road maps” . One Welfare, the need to focus on human welfare and livelihood in solving animal welfare issues, was reiterated with wide agreement in most of the sessions. “So where human welfare is a problem how do you think about animal welfare? They both need to be addressed at the same time” . “Unlike in other countries you can’t see animals as a separate entity to the people; animals form an important and integral part of our livelihood” . Where this approach to solutions had been attempted, stakeholders shared success stories. “We stopped bear dancing in India, we did not just say stop, we re-employed them and gave them new professions … same with snake charmers, snakes are confiscated and we give alternate professions. So we should not only approach the animal welfare, but ensure the welfare of humans is not compromised … especially in India where 70% of the population goes to bed without a meal” . This notion fed back into the need to conduct comprehensive research with stakeholders before putting initiatives in place. Lastly, on the implementation of law in India, stakeholders felt that initiatives that increase the implementation and monitoring of the existing laws may aid solutions; however, it was believed to be a highly political landscape and, therefore, a complicated route. “India has the most advanced animal welfare laws, we are the only country where animal welfare is mentioned in the constitution, but for so many political reasons it lacks implementation. One reason is that every slaughterhouse, barring a few, is owned by Muslims and it is a politically sensitive issue (with the government predominated by Hindus). If you go with police and stop something at the slaughterhouse there will be riot, there will fighting and there will be dying … so no government will dare take on issue, they have bigger problems. In some places the slaughterhouse is locked from the inside; what happens inside nobody knows … nobody can do anything as (it is) politically sensitive” .

Malaysia The need to educate children to plan for a society in which animal welfare notions are received with more openness was presented as a priority in all of the Malaysian sessions. The nature of education in Malaysia, however, was thought to benefit from a more technical focus on the animals themselves, and the basics of agriculture. “Children need to be taught about agriculture, where eggs and milk come from … doctors, accountants and lawyers … no one has any idea about where anything comes from. Then the next step is to talk about animal welfare … it would be much easier 143 to talk about animal welfare when they have a base understanding” . “Increasing personal value should start at school with children, they need to realise that animals are creatures of God, created by God and we should appreciate them” . Building public awareness around what animal welfare is, the links to product quality and the benefits relating to animal welfare were considered beneficial. “People need to be educated on animal wellness and welfare and also food security. Providing a safe and quality product can all be related to in animal welfare education” . The Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) within the Malaysian Government was thought to be in the best position to share these awareness messages. This authority ensures requirements are met for the religious body in Malaysia, Jakim, (such as the production of halal), as well as those of the government and the animals. “Education should be through DVS and it should be standardised, otherwise everyone has their own thoughts” . “DVS are now organising seminars, talks and one-on-one sessions, support is free … get DVS to advise on animal welfare and they can dispense the advice to farmers” . Collaborations between DVS and other important bodies, such as Jakim and universities, with livestock industries and NGO bodies, were seen as the only way to progress animal welfare issues with wide reaching impact in Malaysia. “Religious authorities know about the importance of animal welfare but they don’t know what happens on farms so they don’t know how to improve it; it is a matter of education between religious authorities and DVS as technical advisors” . The last solution raised by stakeholders in all of the sessions was that of presenting livestock business managers with the financial benefits for improving animal welfare. “I agree, education is a must, and without education we don’t understand the importance of animal welfare … but for the businessman profit is a must; if you can show them by doing this (improving welfare) you will improve your profit, the boss will tell them do it now, not tomorrow, now!” .

Thailand Reliance on the government offering industry training to improve animal welfare was one of the two solutions stakeholders presented in all of the sessions in Thailand. “Previously we just have been told to do animal welfare, not how to do it, so that detailed information would be good … for example, instead of telling us that we need enrichment for the animals, tell us what it is, and how we can make it” . “In general I think Department of Livestock (DOD) are in the best position to look after this, with officers not only in the central areas but also districts and regional areas” . In line with this, the other solution presented in all Thai sessions was creating a collaborative animal welfare network that comprised the Thai Department of Livestock (DOD), livestock industry leaders, and academics. “Department of livestock, local agricultural officers and universities or colleges should work together. The DOD should be the main organisation but the officers need to deal with the farmers after the university or college build the officers knowledge” . “I think everyone works in a silo at the moment. Everyone aims to improve animal welfare, but the scientists only research and the businesses only focus on business. Who will lead us to bring our groups and stakeholders in line in animal welfare?” . The notion of peer knowledge sharing between livestock stakeholders, and between knowledgeable farmers, was presented in most of the sessions in Thailand, as was the potential utility of livestock associations in the facilitation of this process. “We have success when we see another farm succeed. In smaller farms you may try something but have obstacles, but once other farms have the same experience and find success then it is easier to learn from others and implement it” . “(People on) small farms in villages are friends anyway and they might form an organisation or association to exchange ideas. So they might come and share and influence others. They have organisations of pig farmers, chicken farmers, and beef association and so on, so they can organise for members to share knowledge” . “The associations communicate with each other on things like Facebook and (on-)Line” .

144

A pride in the existing kindness and empathy inherent in Thai culture was evident in Thai sessions, and for this reason it was thought that training initiatives could be more usefully focussed on how to implement better animal welfare, rather than why to do this. “Thai people are kind, I think our personal value may be related to our Buddhism; as a Buddhist the first rule is be kind to animals, to the living things” . “They think that as farmers they don’t know what animal welfare is, in terms of definition or phrase, but when we take care of animals we want our animals to be comfortable, to be healthy … Farmers will do all kind of things to make sure their animals are well, things that might collectively be focussed on animal welfare … some things they do by good intention though (they) may not be good for animal welfare” . Building the profile of animal welfare through social media was also presented in most Thai sessions, with messages in line with the aforementioned solutions; an emphasis on Thai cultural kindness by the general public, and information on successful practical methods of improving animal welfare from ‘knowledgeable farmers’. “Cooperation between friends and peers will help with the ability to improve animal welfare, farmer to farmer. In Thailand right now, especially in rural and regional areas, there are people who will hold a lot of knowledge and are very successful, a lot of farmers from everywhere will come and learn from them” . Lastly, although the need to create clear and consistent animal welfare standards as a solution was only presented as a solution in one session, it was presented with great emphasis from stakeholders in that session. Confusion and frustration existed at one of the largest animal production companies in Thailand, within which an animal welfare agenda was active, with evolving policy aimed at improving animal welfare standards for export market reasons. “There are many different kinds of law and different countries will be slightly different … so which law we should follow? We are in Thailand, but once we export do we follow the Thai law? We have to focus on country law and our customer, the European Union (EU) may say this stocking density is acceptable but the buying company may disagree. We can say this is EU law and we comply but they say no we must meet our company law” .

Vietnam Providing industry training on animal welfare was raised as an important solution to improving livestock animal welfare in all of the Vietnamese sessions. “Training is first priority for stakeholders who directly work with animals” . The leader of one of the largest beef importers in Vietnam attested to the likelihood of success of practical skill-based stakeholder training programs. “From our company’s perspective, some years ago I knew nothing about animal welfare and some other people and I were trained by an Australian export company. I became aware of the importance of animal welfare, then I read and got more knowledge and I trained my staff. Our industry partner company initiated the training and it was run by MLA (Meat and Livestock Australia)” . The other solution raised in all of the Vietnamese sessions was that of childhood education. In this instance, a concern for animals was believed to be currently lacking, and could be fostered in children, eventually increasing the uptake of industry training for livestock stakeholders. “All children should be educated about animal welfare for basic knowledge, and then as they grow up animal welfare grows too. The problem now is not a lack of care, just that the knowledge is poor. Education for children is for the future, while specific training for stakeholders is for short term” . Additionally, raised in most, but not all, sessions in Vietnam was the need to raise public awareness that animal welfare is a consideration, which feeds into the need for childhood education, and also to focus awareness of the livestock stakeholder leaders on the financial benefits of improving animal welfare. “Companies are big business, so if they know that if you apply good methods it will increase profits they can invest, as they have the money and systems to do it, and the training” .

Bangladesh 145

In Bangladesh, the need to focus solutions on human welfare and livelihood was presented in every session, with wide agreement from stakeholders. “There are more major issues than animal welfare here … human rights in Bangladesh is hard, so how do you think about animal welfare?” . “If we want to improve animal welfare we have to think of farmer welfare also as they are closely related. Most animals come from family production, about 60%, they are poor and their livelihood depends on farming” . “No farmer welfare, no animal welfare” . Further to this, all stakeholder sessions proposed that the creation of prescriptive and consistent standards for improving livestock welfare would offer a solution to improving animal welfare, as the knowledge levels are basic and it is not known how to improve animal welfare. “First the government must build guidelines” . Following this, offering industry stakeholder training was the last solution presented in all Bangladeshi sessions, with the target audience to include government representatives. “First we need good training materials and then we should have master trainers … then they will make another group of master trainers, and this will be continued. Nowadays everyone has smart phone and wants to play with it, they like it. Farmers too … so farmers can have access to those materials and they can see and understand easily. By looking at that material again and again maybe this will come into their heart. Facebook is also very popular here” . “The big stakeholder is DLS (Department of Livestock Services). DLS personnel should be trained properly (to be) number one, then they can train the farmers up. The training should be a continuous process” . Additionally, in most of the sessions the need to build public awareness to support the profile of animal welfare, primarily through traditional mass media, specifically television and radio was raised. “We need to develop awareness … we have a TV cartoon in Bangladesh that plays an important role in women’s empowerment and the basic needs of human health, a similar attractive TV program for children on animal welfare could help make a sustainable change for the nation” . “Currently our government has an advertisement about polio vaccinations, we need something similar for animal welfare” . Further to the solutions that focus on animal welfare as a complementary cause, rather than a stand- alone endeavour, stakeholders in most of the sessions in Bangladesh emphasised that food safety and antimicrobial resistance were important issues in Bangladesh and had the ability to include animal welfare. “Two issues are more important, one is food safety and the other is antibiotic resistance … If you want animal welfare to be popular you must tie animal welfare to these” . “One example from two years back, our society was not aware of antimicrobial resistance, but in the last two years in collaboration with DLS and under a One Health approach they raised awareness, and nowadays people are aware about AB resistance … so animal welfare should start now” . In relation to themes, stakeholders in most sessions proposed that solutions should be focused on the human benefits for improving the welfare of animals, including improved productivity and profit. “First we need motivation … if I understand what benefits I might get if I follow an animal welfare path and understand the advantages to our economy and to public health then we can easily accept (it)” . Citing that animal welfare is a brand-new consideration in Bangladesh, one stakeholder made a proposal to other participant stakeholders on conclusion of the session; “maybe we could make a network of people interested in animal welfare. Maybe we are ten people and after six months 50% will drop out but we have a platform to extend our views and share new idea” .

Improving Animal Handling Skills In response to the question, ‘on a scale from 1–10 how willing do you think people handling the animals would be to improve their stockperson skills to be calmer and gentler with the animals’ stakeholders provided a rating (Table 26). After providing ratings, stakeholders were asked for suggestions to improve the willingness of stock handlers to improve their skills to be more gentle and calmer with the animals. The most common response in all countries was that catchers and

146 movers needed more time, as they are often working quickly to either meet demands, or to get paid for their job and move on, mostly being contractors or casuals recruited from a foreign contingent. Suggested solutions included incentivising the absence of injury to animals and good carcass quality, hiring a sustainable workforce who are trained appropriately, hiring workers with the right personal characteristics to be gentle, structuring the pay differently, offering staff rewards for careful catching, caring for the handlers to ensure they are not tired and are well rested so as to not let their work slip, replacing workers with machinery, investing in better tools for the workers, better advertising the benefits of gentle handling, teaching handlers about animal behaviour, reviewing management processes to ensure fewer animals arrive at slaughterhouses at the same time, monitoring and supervising the process both in person and using CCTV, issuing penalties for rough stockperson-ship and researching and counteracting the effects of desensitising to suffering.

Table 26. Willingness to learn calmer animal handling techniques, from a scale of 1–10 (not willing—extremely willing), by location.

n Mean * Median * Bangladesh Dhaka 9 9.7 10 Mymensingh 8 6 5.5 Savar 11 9.4 10 China Beijing 9 8 7.5 Guangzhou 7 8.4 8 Zhengzhou 7 6 6 India Kolkata 5 7.6 8 Bangalore 6 7 7.5 Trivandrum 4 4.4 4 Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 12 7.6 8 Negeri Sembilan 5 1.6 2 Thailand Bangkok 9 7.5 7 Chiang Mai 6 9 10 Khon Kaen 3 8.3 8 Vietnam Hanoi 5 7.5 7.5 Ban Me Thout 5 6.2 6 Ho Chi Minh City 5 7 7 * 1 being stakeholders who are extremely unlikely to embrace stunning, 10 being extremely likely.

Discussion

Issues Most stakeholder groups ranked the importance of issues in line with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a pertinent human model of psychological motivations (Maslow 1943). Basic physiological needs of food and water were presented as the most important issues in most situations, as they are for humans. Anthropomorphism, the practice of projecting human feelings onto other species, is often the subject of caution, as it is not based on a scientific knowledge of the animals and their needs 147

(Wynne 2004). However, in many instances it helps humans to relate to, and empathise with, other species (Bekoff 2007; Burns 2014), and in the context of this study could be useful. On multiple occasions in different countries, stakeholders shared their experiences of training farm staff and slaughter staff to describe how animals may feel in the environment, too hot or too cold, for example, and they believed that being aware that the animals may have similar feelings is important. However, caution is still advisable as culture obviously influences the perceived impact that certain welfare issues, such as the lack of stunning at slaughter, have on animals. Although the lack of stunning at slaughter was rated with high importance overall, immediately after lack of food, lack of water, and rough handling, in some countries (Bangladesh and Malaysia), a lack of pre-slaughter stunning was not seen as a significant concern for the animals and their welfare. This perception is likely to be based on religious belief, with most Bangladeshis adhering to a traditional sect of Islam that believes that the preparation of halal food, i.e., that which is permissible for Muslims to eat, needs to exclude pre-slaughter stunning, with the practice seldom conducted during slaughter (Ahsan et al. 2014). Although animal welfare science demonstrates that pre-slaughter stunning improves animal welfare (Federation of Veterinarian of Europe (FVE) 2002; Gibson et al. 2009; Gregory et al. 2010), the belief that it is not acceptable seems to be transferred to the perceived experience of the animals regardless. Boredom was consistently rated as the lowest animal welfare concern, with some stakeholder groups purposefully leaving it out of the activity, confused as to why it was included as an animal welfare issue and, in some cases, met with scepticism. Although ‘experiencing fear’ was most commonly ranked with moderate importance indicating some level of understanding of the significance of mental welfare for the animals, the scepticism relating to ‘boredom’ may indicate a lack of full and developed appreciation and understanding of the concept of mental welfare in animals, and the richness of the mental processing capacity of the animals. This activity enabled valuable insight into the perception of stakeholders in different countries, and provided indications as to which animal welfare issues are likely to be more easily acknowledged and accepted by industry stakeholders in each region.

Solutions The solutions and opportunities presented for addressing animal welfare expectedly varied between countries, in line with findings of previous studies with students and the general public (Phillips et al. 2012; Ling et al. 2016; Sinclair & Phillips 2017). However, the key sentiments of education, training, and awareness remained universal. Despite this, the level of emphasis on education, training, and awareness and how best to conduct initiatives differed between countries. Solutions in both India and Thailand were community- focused, reflecting the interconnectedness of animal welfare to people’s livelihood in India, and solutions based on knowledge sharing which, in Thailand, was proposed to be through industry association groups and farmer peer groups. Thailand is a community-based society, ranking very high on the Hofstedes cultural dimension of ‘collectivism’ (‘we’ rather than ‘I’), which may, in part, explain this finding (Hofstede Insights 2019). It also reflects previous survey findings in Thailand that show that livestock stakeholders are more encouraged to improve animal welfare when it is important to their peers (Sinclair et al. 2017a). A focus on solutions that leverage a heritage of kindness in Thailand, and respect and reverence in India is understandable in light of the Buddhist and Hindu beliefs surrounding empathy and animal gods, respectively, and the large proportion of Buddhists in Thailand (93.2%) and Hindus in India (80.5%) (PEW Research Centre 2012). Stakeholders in India, like those in Bangladesh, emphasised the importance of human welfare, and that to ensure successful and sustainable animal welfare improvement it should not be addressed in isolation. This concept of ‘One Welfare’ recognises the interconnectedness of animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and human welfare and advocates holistic solutions based on a knowledge of these interactions (Pinillos 2016). Of the countries investigated, India and Bangladesh have the highest rates of poverty, at 21.2% and 14.8% of the population, respectively, and the 148 lowest income per capita, which may explain the emphasis on human welfare and livelihood in these areas as compared to the other countries (World Bank 2016). While mentioned in other countries, such as China, the suggestion to tie animal welfare to other issues considered as public safety, such as food safety and biosecurity, was particularly prevalent in Bangladesh. The relative scarcity of both human and animal healthcare in Bangladesh probably explains this (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2019). In China, unlike the other countries, education and industry training was not presented as a solution to improving animal welfare. With a strong focus on tertiary education within China (World Bank 2016) this finding was unexpected, however, it is also explicable for this very reason. According to data collected in 2014, expected years of education in the Chinese population were higher than those in the populations of other investigated countries (United Nations Development Programme 2014). Quotes from the Chinese stakeholders suggested belief that education and training levels were sufficient, but that there was a lack of prescriptive scientifically-supported standards or guidelines that were locally relevant to China. While the presence and impact of animal welfare law was not the focus of this study, given it was not a solution stakeholders felt they had control over, it was intermittently thematic in these sessions, particularly as its absence presented an impediment to solutions. Animal welfare law is at different stages in the various countries of this study: China has no national farm animal welfare legislation, and it has been argued that these laws would be better implemented at a local level anyway (Sima 2016). In contrast to this. India has had animal welfare legislation for almost 100 years, which illegitimates many cruel acts relevant to farm animals and has been updated several times, with the support of the Animal Welfare Board of India (Parliament of India 1960). Bangladesh still has the animal welfare legislation enacted in colonial days but, recently, it has been utilised with greater frequency (Anon. 2018). Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam have just introduced new animal welfare legislation, in 2015, 2014, and 2018, respectively, which has similar regulatory control of cruel acts to farm animals as India (Government of Malaysia 2015; National Legislative Assembly of Thailand 2016; Humane Society International 2018). Indian stakeholders in every session presented with pride the fact that India had drafted more animal welfare laws than any other country, however, this followed with exasperation that the laws were not practicable or implementable in most cases. Likewise, in one session in Thailand, stakeholders demonstrated frustration with the lack of clarity around which animal welfare laws and standards they should follow, compounded when they are seeking to export to companies in western countries. With that, the contrast between environmental conditions in Thailand and the importing countries in Europe was emphasized. By way of example, one stakeholder shared that regulation for importers in the transport of chickens was that they were not to be sprayed with water, for welfare reasons. However, spraying the birds with water in the humid climate of Thailand was sometimes conducted for the very same reason: animal welfare. Likewise, electrical stunning standards set in Europe to ensure an effective stun of poultry is set for the welfare of the birds, however, when replicated in Thailand on smaller poultry species the birds are often killed by the same process. This might suggest a need for regional flexibility in international standards, with outcomes based on the animal and its welfare. A shift from a universal approach to standards, to respectful international relations and regional tailoring would minimise confusion, frustration, and maximise uptake of standards. Stakeholders in all countries stated that they would be willing to adhere to standards for improved animal welfare if they were practicable, based on science, and locally tailored. This suggested a need for local collaborative research in each region to ascertain specific animal welfare issues, key stakeholders, who is in a position to influence the welfare of the animals, and what might enable them to do that. The result would be an understanding of who to approach, with what messages, and what support to approach them with. This was a focus particularly in India, where the sociopolitical environment is complex, chaotic, and sometimes contradictory. To summarise the sentiments of education, training, and awareness that was a prominent theme throughout this study, in all countries children need to be educated on the value of the animal, what they are, and why welfare is important, and the general public need to be informed on farming 149 practices so that, as consumers, they will pay more for higher-welfare products. Additionally, the livestock industry needs educating on the potential benefits of addressing animal welfare and how to implement it, and government officers, lawmakers and law enforcers need education to understand what animal welfare is and, often, the detail of the standards for improving animal welfare in their country. Finally, animal welfare scientists and advocates need education in the realities of the livestock business. To this purpose, multistakeholder collaborations could underpin major progress in animal welfare around the world.

Application Below are listed potential opportunities to improve international animal welfare strategies and tailor them by region, derived from the findings of this study (Table 27).

Table 27. Evidence supported opportunities for international animal welfare initiatives operating in Asia. • Development of prescriptive standards based on science and economic modelling • Support the development of local farm animal welfare research • Clearly communicate the business benefits for improving farm animal welfare in industry forums China • Continue building the profile of animal welfare amongst the general public on Chinese social media platforms such as Weibo, Huajiao, and Wechat, including food blog messages of improved product quality and taste • Create documentaries (partnering with state media and government) on farm animal welfare • Develop school-based education on animal empathy, utilising the cultural history of reverence for animals; including Indian heritage stories of the symbiotic relationship between humans and animals to support a reconnection to both Indian cultural heritage and animals • Support local research to holistically understand animal welfare issues in detail that will enable the development of tailored strategies and issue-specific programs that will also benefit stakeholder livelihoods • Raise the awareness of the general public to animal welfare by hosting social media campaigns India that feature celebrities, and leverage the Hindu and Indian cultural heritage of reverence for animals. Popular platforms locally include YouTube and WhatsApp • Tie animal welfare to televisual public announcement campaigns that support the concept of One Welfare, featuring human welfare-related issues, such as rabies management • Ensure regulatory bodies, such as the Animal Welfare Board of India, are inclusive of stakeholders that represent communities responsible for animal welfare at critical points in their lives, such as the inclusion of Muslim representatives for the livestock processing community • Develop industry stakeholder animal welfare training that focusses on how to improve animal welfare, which is best coordinated by the Department of Livestock Development in collaboration with livestock associations, with non-government organisation coordination assistance if requested • Facilitate peer sharing events and platforms based on animal welfare, that involve livestock association groups and utilise knowledgeable farmers to share experiences and advice Thailand • Leverage the local culture of kindness and empathy to build education programs and initiatives that are backed with animal welfare knowledge • Advocate childhood and community education based on existing empathy and Buddhist ideals to improve animal welfare in locations such as community halls and temples • Produce clear and consistent animal welfare standards that are tailored to the Thai environment, and advocate international acceptance of these standards for export • Develop industry training on what animal welfare is, why animal welfare should be addressed and what the benefits are. Follow-up training to be offered on how to deliver improved animal welfare. Both would be best hosted by livestock associations or international business partners, in Vietnam collaboration with the relevant government agency • Research the perception of children to animals in Vietnam and develop a childhood education program that fosters empathy and concern for animals at school

150

• Develop collaborative educational programs to be hosted by the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) to build the capacity and knowledge of JAKIM (the Malaysian Islamic Authority) on farm animal welfare, to increase understanding around pre-slaughter stunning and other matters of animal welfare • Develop technical training programs to be hosted by DVS for industry, to build awareness of business benefits for improving animal welfare, and best practice standards Malaysia • Advocate the addition of agricultural education for children to focus on where their food comes from, and why it is important to care • Develop campaigns that draw on the religious mandate outlined in Islamic texts to be careful guardians of animal welfare • Develop public awareness campaigns that tie improved welfare products to quality • Support the development of internationally-advised, locally-devised standards for livestock welfare • Create a network of representatives interested in progressing the field of animal welfare in livestock production in Bangladesh, including academics, government veterinarians and key industry stakeholders • Collaborate with the network of representatives to create animal welfare training materials for government representatives, and for farmers, that focus on the human welfare benefits for improving animal welfare, and the fundamentals to improving mutual welfare (in a One Welfare framework) Bangladesh • Deliver animal welfare education by training trainers, thus empowering the growth of animal welfare specialists within Bangladesh • Develop a smart phone application on which the training materials are freely available. This application could also host the animal welfare network and be advertised on social media • Develop public awareness campaigns that tie farm animal welfare to food safety and antibiotic resistance • Produce a children’s show in the likeness of a popular existing Bangladeshi show that encourages the empowerment of women and that holistically focusses on animal welfare and human welfare

While the findings of this study may be applied to improve animal welfare initiatives, it is important to note that solutions shared by the stakeholders are indicative of their perceptions and each suggested solution needs to be holistically assessed, considering all relevant stakeholders, and the socio-economic and political landscape in each country as to their suitability. Additional societal- and market-driven solutions also exist to improving animal welfare, to which an integrated global market could further assist. A limitation to this study exists in the group size variability, from three stakeholders, to 17 stakeholders in the largest. This could have impacted the group dynamic, and therefore, the responses that were shared. While groups that numbered less than the intended minimum size of five (four in Trivandrum, India and three in Khon Kaen, Thailand) constituted a useful mix of government and industry stakeholders (two government/two industry, and one government/two industry, respectively), some limitations in stakeholder role diversity exist. Where groups are smaller and missing key stakeholder groups then results may not be as representative. One important example includes the lack of private veterinarians in the Chinese contingent of participants.

151

Conclusion

Livestock industry stakeholders have a good understanding of their industries and are in an ideal position to identify problems, find opportunities, and to enact solutions regarding animal welfare. Therefore, engaging them in farm animal welfare initiatives should be the first stage of any strategic plan to improve animal welfare. This study suggested that solutions centred around education, training, and awareness were likely to have a great impact in most countries, however, the precise details of best practice implementation of these solutions varies with region and socioeconomic and political landscape. The need for local research to develop local solutions, and an improved understanding of animal welfare supported by clear and consistent prescriptive standards was also evident. Through this animal welfare assessment focus can be on relevant outcomes, rather than utilizing a common set of criteria that may have weak links to animal outcomes. Bearing this in mind, optimal strategies are presented for each country. The findings of this study can be applied to increase the background understanding of those who wish to be animal welfare proponents, to advise on the creation of an informed animal welfare strategy that is most likely to see success.

152

10 General Theory Discussion

The proceeding chapter summarises the studies and findings developed in this PhD thesis (10.1), discusses how the theory might be applied to international animal welfare strategy and incorporated into progressive research in the future (10.2), before concluding with reflections on limitations and learnings (10.3). Focusing on key stakeholders within animal welfare by culture, the thesis serves as foundational research into an area minimally considered in the past (both anecdotally in the movement and empirically academically) and is therefore broad. This has included the fundamentals behind successful international strategy, motivations/perceived benefits and solutions to addressing animal welfare, and the investigation of key attitudes towards specific animal welfare issues, such as intensive farming and pre-slaughter stunning. As each of these topics deserve individual attention, and vary in their application, each chapter has sought to develop relevant theory, and present applications. For this reason, this discussion is focussed on broader learnings and applications of the body of work as a whole. First, however, a basic summary of findings is presented.

Summary of studies and the fit with theory

The studies and development of findings within this thesis have been guided by the outcomes of the literature review (chapter one). Market segmentation theory and stakeholder theory provided useful in focussing on stakeholder identification as a priority. With this, engagement theory, and the importance of appropriately engaging stakeholders for improved success of initiatives was tested and supported throughout this thesis. However, while these theories provide fundamental direction, they don’t provide further guidance or answers in the field of animal welfare, particularly in international settings. Motivation such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour fits in principle, particularly in emphasising the pertinence of understanding attitudes as a precursor to behaviour, was a good place to start. Studies by Prof Hemsworth and Dr Graham Coleman (2011; 2014) in Melbourne, Australia extensively and successfully measured the impact of stockperson behaviour on animal based welfare indicators using this theory. The studies within this thesis, however, focussed purely on the earliest stages of this theory in the specific context of culture - further developing knowledge and information around leaders’ attitudes, perceptions and solutions. In a similar way that Theory of Planned Behaviour provided a good place to start, without providing direction on developing international initiatives, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was also found to be relevant, specifically aligning with the findings and statements within the ‘perceived benefits of animal welfare’ study (chapter eight) that animal welfare improvements cannot be made without considering the basic needs and welfare of the target communities, particularly in lesser developed nations. However, the theory itself is again too fundamental and perhaps simplistic (without considering culture) to be directed applied to international animal welfare initiatives. While these theories are important staples for general guidance, the findings within this thesis would urge particular caution in applying ‘western’ developed theory to the field of animal welfare or other social progression initiatives, as they fail to identify, test and address culture. One of the most important contributions to come out of the work within this thesis is that ‘culture’ and the regional environmental context in which a stakeholder is found is a critically important influencer of attitude, perception and determinant of motivation. Therefore, this thesis, based on guidance from theory before it, speaks to the integral importance of regional tailoring (based on respect, collaboration and mutual benefits) and that complex international social progress initiatives such as animal welfare cannot be successfully addressed with the adoption of ‘fit all’ solutions or strategies. This finding is very much in line with cross-cultural theory and cultural dimension theories (such as Hofstede’s) in relation to the business (for profit) environment. To summarise the work within this thesis, three studies were conducted within this PhD program. In the first (chapters two and three), interviews were conducted with some of the leaders of the world’s

153 largest international animal welfare not-for-profits. These respondents were asked to describe the attributes of their most successful and unsuccessful projects, how they identified which animal welfare issues they would address, and what they believed made for successful leaders in the movement. This study found that ‘engaging people’ was the most important tenet of success. To do this in the context of international animal welfare requires thorough cultural knowledge, locally focused key action, identification of mutual benefits, collaboration with the relevant industry, and trust-based relationships to be built (see chapter one, and figure 16 below). The fastest way to undermine success was to attack identity, including cultural identity, or to not consider the livelihoods of impacted people. This work also found that reason and moderation in animal welfare messages may be more powerful when seeking collaboration with key stakeholders, rather than emotive messages that again elicit defensiveness and the feeling of being under baseless attack. Demonstrated long term commitment and a plan for sustainability of the initiative, along with the development of unwaveringly focussed strategy based on knowledge, and partnering with governments where possible, were also key to success. Animal welfare issues to pursue should be carefully chosen based on the remit of the organisation, opportunities for leverage (such as a demonstrated willingness to embrace pre-slaughter stunning, as outlined in chapter 7), the duration and intensity of suffering abstained by the animals within the issue in question, and importantly, based on utilitarian measures. That is, consideration of which animal welfare issues to address was based on ‘how do we do the best for the most’ (see chapter two, and figure 16 below). The best people in the movement to successfully lead were identified as those who have passion, but not passion alone. Passion, focused with a bigger picture ambition, a drive to further the cause (not just their own reputation), resilience in the form of determination and persistence, the ability to collaborate, and importantly, the ability to build a capable and engaged team. Above all, the best people to lead the movement understand the importance of thoroughly understanding the issues and the many contexts (including culture) in which they are found (see chapter two, and figure 16 below).

Figure 16. Brief summary of ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ in approaching the development of international animal welfare, based on the findings of this manuscript.

154

• Passionately focused on animal welfare, and people welfare • Understand the issue and the society Identify • Collaborative, and have the ability to build an engaged and competent team leaders • See the bigger picture • Flexible, and can meet stakeholders as equals, with reason and moderation • Focused organisational remit Isolate • Utilitarian - 'the best for the most' specific • Take advantage of an opportunity for issues to leverage or collaboration • Consider the degree of duration and persue intensity of potential suffering • Ability to contribute to change • Engages local stakeholders • Based on knowledge of the issue, and Create context (importantly, culture) a • Locally led strategy • Involves government and industry • Constructed and executed with reason and moderation • Aims to build trust with stakeholders • Mutually beneficial • Does not attack 'rights' or identity

When considering the findings of this initial study and chapters (chapter two and three), the following two studies have a logical development. Once the need to engage relevant stakeholders into animal welfare is accepted—and that engagement requires understanding culture and the context of issues by country, coupled with a collaboration with industry for the development of locally driven solutions—it is clear that local stakeholder research is required. Considering the findings of chapter two (identifying the right issues at the right time), that issues are best selected with a utilitarian approach, a focus on the welfare of animals undergoing farming and slaughter was also a logical progression, given the scale, intensity and duration of potential suffering. For the remaining two studies, a survey was conducted with pig and poultry farmers (chapter three) and extensive focus groups were hosted with livestock industry leaders across China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam and Bangladesh (chapters four to seven). In general, and contrary to anecdotal perceptions within the animal welfare movement, livestock leaders across Asia highly valued animal welfare, were amenable to improving animal welfare, and enthusiastically contributed to enlightening the research on the environments required to facilitate change. First, as discussed in the literature review (chapter one), ascertaining insight into what might motivate livestock stakeholders to engage in improving animal welfare was integral (see chapter four, and table 28 below). Across the countries, the motivational power of animal welfare law was highly compelling to the livestock stakeholders, as was an increase in knowledge about the benefits (particularly financial) of addressing animal welfare, and how to implement improvement. The overall message was the need for benefit (again, mutual benefit as featured in the earlier publications/chapter two and three) to provide motivation for improving animal welfare. From this, chapter six was dedicated to investigating what those benefits might be (summarised in table 28 below). In general, the benefit of improving animal welfare for the sake of the animals was not a compelling benefit in any country except India. Instead, the indirect business benefits of increased productivity, yield and produce quality and the lower treatment costs for reduced disease burden was compelling across all of the countries. The sum of this body of research culminated in the presentation of locally driven, mutually beneficial, industry-initiated solutions for improving animal welfare in Asia (see chapter 155 seven, and table 28 below). Across the countries, solutions focused on education; that is; childhood education focussed on animal agriculture, technical training within the livestock industry, and again, focus placed on raising awareness of the financial benefits of improving animal welfare. This, along with the development of prescriptive and consistent standards on how to ensure animal welfare is adequately addressed, and the profile raising of animal welfare (including the use of social and mass media), was shared across all countries. Given the emphasis placed on understanding the animal welfare issues, and how stakeholders relate to them (evidenced in both in the literature review, chapter one, and chapters two and three), attention was also given to primary areas concern in farm animal welfare, to discover what issues were considered important to stakeholders, and therefore offer mutual ground (mutual benefits) on which to deliver avenues of least resistance (opportunities for leverage). Attention to this issue was conducted within chapter seven (importance of animal welfare issues). This was also investigated in more depth regarding the crucial issue of pre-slaughter stunning for improved animal welfare across each of the countries (see chapter five), and specifically, in intensive and extensive farming systems for poultry and swine in China; the most numerous farmed terrestrial species in the country that is responsible for 39% of the world animal agricultural output (see chapter three). While the motivations to improve animal welfare, the perceived benefits in doing so, and the industry-initiated solutions to animal welfare had some similarities across the countries, key differences existed between them in each instance. This was specifically the case when delving more deeply into one specific issue; the potential for improved animal welfare at slaughter by introducing pre-slaughter stunning. This further demonstrated the findings of the literature review, earlier studies, and the initial studies within this body of work that emphasise the importance of understanding animal welfare issues and contexts by culture and country. Specific findings and potential applications for each country were purposefully included in each thesis chapter in detail, however a summary of key findings is collated and presented below (table 28).

156

Table 28. Brief summary of motivations, perceived benefits and potential solutions to improving farm animal welfare in Asia (chapters four, six and seven).

China Vietnam Malaysia Thailand India Bangladesh Potential 1. Improve quality of meat or 1. Improve quality of meat or 1. Productivity of animals. 1. Improve quality of meat or 1. Avoid cruelty and reduce 1. Productivity of animals. benefits for animal product. animal product. animal product. animal suffering. improving 2. Increased revenue/profit. 2. Reduce disease and injury, animal 2. Stronger/healthier animals. 2. Productivity of animals. 2. Reduce disease and injury, 2.Improved community and treatment costs. welfare 3. Food safety/biosecurity and treatment costs. livelihood. 3. Protection of natural 3. Reduce disease and injury, benefits. 3. Food safety/biosecurity. resources/sustainable and treatment costs. 3. Stronger/healthier animals 3. Human health and the development. and meeting the human reduction of animal treatment responsibility to give a good costs. life. Solutions 1. Focus on business benefits 1. Childhood education. 1. Focus on business benefits 1. Industry training. 1. Engage cultural 1. Focus on One Welfare, and for to improving animal welfare. to improving animal welfare. pride/goodness in heritage. the holistic tie to human improving 2. Industry training. 2. Collaborations between welfare. animal 2. Create prescriptive and 2. Childhood education. stakeholder groups (industry, 2. Childhood education. welfare consistent standards and 3. Focus on business benefits industry groups, NGO, 2. Create prescriptive and company policy. to improving animal welfare. 3. Build public awareness. government and universities). 3. Build the public profile of consistence standards and animal welfare (using social company policy. 3. Build public profile of 4. Build public awareness 4. Collaborations between 3. Peer skill sharing. media and mass media). animal welfare (using mass stakeholder groups (industry, 3. Industry training. media and social media). industry groups, NGO, 4. Engage cultural 4. Focus on One Welfare, and government and universities). pride/goodness in heritage. the holistic tie to human 4. Build the public profile of 4. Local research on issues welfare. animal welfare (using mass and local holistic solutions. 5. Build the profile of animal media). welfare using social media. 5. Local research on issues 5. Collaborations between and local holistic solutions. 5. Focus on the business stakeholder groups (industry, benefits to improving animal industry groups, NGO, welfare and leveraging government and universitites) antimicrobial resistance.

Motivators 1. Law – impact of law, need for standards, relationship between company size and for influence of law. improving animal welfare 2. Personal knowledge – knowledge of benefits, general public awareness and stakeholders’ technical ability to improve welfare.

3. Financial gain.

4. Personal intrinsic value given to the animals and their welfare.

5. The availability of tools and resources to improve welfare.

157

See table 27 in chapter 7 for potential application opportunities by country, supported by this body of research.

158

In general, a focus on education, collaboration and standards creation could be safely incorporated into initiatives across the board in Asia, but how these solutions are applied best will vary by country. Despite some general messages that can be fairly safely applied across the region, this body of research primarily demonstrates the importance in foundation research at the developmental stages of any international animal welfare initiatives.

Strategic application and the progression of future research

This body of work has contributed to the field of animal welfare by gaining insight into a group of important stakeholders who were previously minimally understood in the animal welfare movement, despite being vital to the progression and implementation of improved animal welfare standards. The novel methodologies applied within this work resulted in findings that could be directly applied to improvement initiatives in the respective countries. Furthermore, the findings presented in this body of work have enabled the careful construction of broader strategic theory for consideration that could provide a basis for developing empirically supported ‘best practice’ approaches to international animal welfare initiatives. The resulting initiatives are likely to be more readily successful than those not based on research findings, and therefore, a more fruitful utilisation of the limited resources available to the movement. There are no known documented strategic approaches to international animal welfare initiatives, and in that regard this body of work is an important development. Despite the contribution of this work, is it still novel and at the broad fundamental stage. Further development and then testing of these findings and deeper investigation into some of the specific opportunities unearthed in these studies would be the logical useful progression of this work. This could be accomplished in partnership with international animal protection and welfare organisations to develop initiatives based on these findings that are then further researched with target audiences in a similar format to that used in commercial marketing and product testing and ‘pre-release screening’ frameworks; sample focus groups and collaborative consultation with the target audiences and key stakeholders, as a validation tool. The resulting initiatives could then be implemented, and the partnership could continue to monitor the efficacy of the initiatives, further attributing to the development of ‘best practice’ strategy. The current body of empirical evidence suggests that work to this nature, specifically on engaging and collaborating with stakeholders capable of meaningful animal welfare change is not yet happening with any regularity. The position demonstrated by the lack of empirical literature is a position that is further supported by the personal anecdotal experience gained while operating as a senior manager within and in partnership with animal welfare organisations for 15 years. Further to this, the uptake of science in general could be greatly increased to the benefit of the organisations causes, as could a stronger focus on researched strategy. This would require a shift of thinking within the international animal welfare movement, with such a shift supported by the findings of the body of work presented in this thesis.

In addition to real-world partnerships with international animal welfare organisations, another way this still novel, yet demonstrably integral, research activity can be conducted with more regularity, would be to formally incorporate it into the reasonably new academic field of inquiry known as Anthrozoology. Defined as the study of human-animal relations (Sax, 1999 #325), anthrozoology is an emerging robust subfield of anthropology that is multidisciplinary and growing (Siddiq, 2016 #326). It draws on psychology, sociology, philosophy and anthropology. As the definition of the field would suggest, anthrozoology is focussed on the relationship between humans and animals. Animals provide the reference point for what is considered human, which leads us to consider what is means to be an animal, and ultimately, what is humankind (Sax,1999 #325). Relationships, as defined in psychology and repeated to the point of cliché, are two way; they involve the interests of two parties (Dictionary, 2019 #327). However, most of the focus within anthrozoology, with some notable exceptions, has been toward fields of investigation that have been overwhelmingly anthropocentric, those that directly benefit humans such as utilising non-human 159 animals in therapy and understanding what animals mean to humans. Consolidating this distinction, The International Society of Anthrozoology, in outlining guidelines for publication in their academic journal Anthrozoös, note that papers concerning the welfare of animals fall outside the criteria for consideration (Anthrozoos, 2019). As discussed in the first chapter of this thesis, the field of animal welfare science has mostly focused on animal-based research, with human based research (particularly that fitting the category of qualitative research) traditionally observed as less robust, not favoured, and often neglected. However, when considering real world application of research, gaps become apparent in this conventional approach alone. While animal-based research into welfare is necessary and useful, animals are rarely in a position to make choices about their own welfare; this right is mostly reserved for humans. Just as research into the human-animal relationship to the benefits of humans is necessary and useful, a balanced approach true to the nature of two-way relationships would consider the reverse; a focus on the study of humans to the benefit of animals. Researchers in the field of anthrozoology are adept at conducting human-based research, and have a multidisciplinary approach, drawing heavily from the fields of psychology, sociology, human clinical medicine, philosophy and anthropology, that could be vastly beneficial to the animal welfare movement. In developing a new and focused stream in anthrozoology that is dedicated to the human-animal relationship to the benefit of animals, a generation of applied cultural anthrozoologists could be engaged in the ongoing genesis of a knowledge base that is directly applicable to international animal welfare initiatives. As presented earlier, continuing a partnership with animal welfare organisation to then monitor, measure and evaluate the success of the resulting initiatives and programs would further advise the development of best practice, and advise the allocation of resources to the most effective and productive initiatives within the movement. Ultimately aligned with the newly generated ‘effective altruism’ movement, this stream of research could be used to develop driver-led initiatives that can be put into practice, measured for effectiveness, and also used to validate best practice approaches for application into international animal welfare programs. This multidisciplinary and collaborative approach has the ability to deliver solutions to international animal welfare challenges that otherwise may not be discoverable by focussing on animal science and animal-based measurements, or by anthrozoology focused almost entirely on human benefits. A novel approach such as this may offer one way to overcome the inertia and hopelessness that is often expressed by professionals and general public alike with the current state of animal welfare both domestically and internationally.

Personal reflections: Limitations and learnings

This section is going to explain some of the key limitations of the research, and describe some of my key learnings from undertaking the research. As this section pertains to personal reflections, it is presented in first person. The primarily limitation of the work within this PhD thesis could also be considered one of its strongest contributions; it is both broad and fundamental. This was purposeful, given the lack of investigation of this nature that precedes it. It does, however, point to a need to further develop the findings, as above, can be utilized as background research, and provides opportunities to conduct more specific research on each of the elements presented. With the exception of wider strategy chapters, such as two (key tenets of successful initiatives) and three (right people and right issues), this work is also predominately focused specifically on the context of farm animal welfare species, which may limit some of these findings to this sub-set of animals within human society. Furthermore, chapter four (Chinese farmers attitudes to farming) specifically focused on two species within this farming context; pigs and chickens only. The approach utilised here could be usefully conducted in regard to animals found in other contexts within human society (zoo animals, companion animals, wild animals, pest animals, laboratory animals), for findings applicable to those contexts, and for comparison between the contexts. This information would provide much more depth and validation to the development of best practice approaches moving forward. Another 160 limitation is that this work focusses on a few key stakeholders; animal welfare leaders, livestock leaders, and front-line farmers. Although, again, this was purposeful, it is important to note that the farm animal welfare movement includes more stakeholders, such as consumers, purchasers, shareholders and governments. Furthermore, this work was conducted in six countries only, and could be usefully conducted in a wider sample of countries. Lastly, in specific regards to academic limitations, all publications chosen for inclusion within this thesis were published in the same journal; Animals. This is notably and reasonably problematic from an academic standpoint but was a conscious decision on my part. I undertook this PhD for the primarily purpose of discovering information that could be of use to those looking to improve animal welfare internationally. Most commonly, those people are placed within animal welfare organisations rather than academic institutions and, therefore, do not have institutional access to journals that are not open access. Animals is open access and contains articles submitted by scientific officers placed within these organisations, demonstrating that it is a resource that industry engages with. In the future, however, I will seek to diversify to other open access journals within the field as they continue to be introduced. Although there have been unexpected findings within this body of work, the primary learning I have obtained from this PhD process has been that collaboration is extremely important; for both the movement, and for the successful conducting of research of this nature. Therefore, research partners, collaborators and co-authors should only be approached after careful deliberation, as collaboration and rigorous human-based research can be made substantially more difficult should the field or methodology be inappropriate for that prospective partner. My research skills and knowledge have expanded and been refined through this PhD process. I plan to remain active in the field of human-animal welfare, and what could be developed as ‘cultural anthrozoology’. I anticipate continuing to develop the findings presented in this thesis, and to continue to apply these methodologies to investigate novel opportunities for progressing animal welfare initiatives internationally. Lastly, I plan to generate a collaborative network of academics, and partnerships with not-for-profit organisations, to collectively develop, deliver and refine these international animal welfare initiatives.

In closing, I consider the following five messages to be the most important to take away from this thesis; 1) Livestock stakeholders across borders see animal welfare as important, albeit not often for the sake of the animals themselves. 2) Engaging critical stakeholders into the creation of animal welfare initiatives, by country, is likely to enhance their success. 3) Important findings can be clearly attributed to culture, and vary significantly by country; therefore, initiatives and solutions should be tailored by country accordingly. 4) Opportunities exist to improve animal welfare on a large scale that have not been pursued before. 5) This nature of research could be developed in the future, with NGO and not-for-profit partners alongside government and industry; perhaps as a stream of anthrozoology.

11 Conclusions

The value of engaging people towards a goal is well understood across many fields: commercial marketing, human resources, politics and international development. Target audience research, to better understand those identified as the most useful to engage, is conducted in these fields with some regularity. The animal welfare movement, perhaps by nature of being a field focused on non- human species, has not yet harnessed and applied these lessons. This is particularly the case with Asia (the largest and most economically significant region in the world for animal agriculture), when considering farm animals (the largest and most economically significant group of animals in 161 human society—also with the most to lose). Despite the knowledge base built by cross-cultural scientists, and the proven critical importance of understanding and applying that knowledge in any enterprise that seeks to operate across borders, very little work of this nature has previously been conducted around not-for-profit initiatives; and seldom adopted into the animal welfare movement. This PhD thesis contributes to addressing these gaps, by applying a novel, mixed method approach to learning more about key stakeholders in international farm animal welfare. Interviews were conducted with leaders of the major international animal welfare charities to identify strategies for selecting animal welfare issues to pursue, for selecting the most effective leaders for the movement, and most significantly, to identify themes that have attributed to both successful and unsuccessful initiatives in the past. Focus groups were then conducted with leaders from the livestock industries across China, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Bangladesh to understand their motivations and perceived opportunities, benefits, and solutions for improving animal welfare. Lastly, a quantitative survey was conducted within China (the largest agricultural producing country in the world) with farmers of poultry and pork (the terrestrial species most numerous in Chinese agriculture), to begin understanding their perceptions of animal welfare, attitudes to the farming systems they work within, and perceptions of the animals themselves. By bringing together the findings of these three studies I was able to determine the importance of engaging critical stakeholders into international animal welfare initiatives, which can be achieved by establishing mutual benefits, conducting respectful dialogue, and carefully tailoring initiatives by region and culture. Empirically supported applications were proposed for improved international animal welfare initiatives resulting from each of these studies, and the findings of each are available for direct application into international animal welfare strategies. They offer preliminary foundations for developing best practice approaches to international animal welfare issues, particularly in Asia. These findings also demonstrate an openness and interest in animal welfare amongst livestock leaders in the region, and encourages educated optimism through the presence of previously untapped opportunities for progression. Most importantly, the results highlight a potential for developing this collaborative line of inquiry and mixed method of investigation alongside practitioners in animal welfare for the betterment of the animal welfare movement in general.

86,328 words minus 5,828 bibliography. Total 80,500*. *Permission received for additional 500 words.

162

Bibliography

Aaltola, E 2013, 'Skepticism, empathy and animal suffering', Journal of Bioethical Enquiry, vol. 10, pp. 457-67.

Ackerman, F & Heinzerling, L 2001, 'Pricing the priceless: Cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection', University of Pennsylvania Legal Review, pp. 1553-84.

Aguayo-Ulloa, LA, Miranda-de La Lama, GC, Pascual-Alonso, M, Olleta, JL, Villarroel, M, Sañudo, C., & María, GA 2014, 'Effect of enriched housing on welfare, production performance and meat quality in finishing lambs: The use of feeder ramps', Meat Science, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 42- 8.

Ahmad, Z 2013, 'Marginal occupations and modernising cities: Muslim butchers in urban India. ', Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 48, no. 32, pp. 121-31.

Ahsan, M, Hasan, B, Algotsson, M & Sarenbo, S 2014, 'Handling and welfare of bovine livestock at local abattoirs in Bangladesh', Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 340- 53.

Ahuja, RD, Capella, L.M. and Taylor, R.D. 1998, 'Child influences, attitudinal and behavioral comparisons between single parent and dual parent households in grocery shopping decisions', Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 48-62.

Ajzen, I 1985, 'From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior', in Action control, Springer, Berlin, pp. 11-39.

Andreasen, AR & Kotler, P 2008, Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations, Pearson/Prentice Hall New Jersey, USA.

Annan, K 2000, 'Secretary-General Kofi Annan's opening address to the fifty-third annual DPI/NGO Conference', in Fifty-third annual DPI/NGO Conference, General Assembly Hall, United Nations.

Anon. 2018, What is the punishment for animal abuse in Bangladesh?, viewed 25 April 2019, . 163

Anthrozoos 2019, Instructions for authors, Taylor and Francis Online, viewed 2019, .

Ascione, F & Arkow, P 1999, Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: Linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention, Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, USA.

Australian Government Department of Agriculture 2014, Compliance review report: Cattle exported to Vietnam.

Australian Government Department of Health 2017, Stakeholder engagement framework, Australian Government Department of Health, Brisbane, Australia.

Bandura, A 1977, Social learning theory, General Learning Press, New York, USA.

Batmanian, G 2014, From farm to chopsticks: Improving food safety in China, The World Bank, viewed 28/03/19, .

Baul, TK, Moniruzzaman, MMR & Nandi, R 2015, 'Status, utilization, and conservation of agrobiodiversity in farms: a case study in the northwestern region of Bangladesh', International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 318-29.

Bayne, K, Ramachandra, G, Rivera, E & Wang, J 2015, 'The Evolution of animal welfare and the 3Rs in Brazil, China, and India', Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 181-91.

Bazeley, P & Jackson, K 2013, Qualitative data analysis with NVivo, Sage Publications Limited, London, UK.

Bekoff, M 2007, The emotional lives of animals, New World Library, California.

Bennett, R 1995, 'The value of farm animal welfare', Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 46-60.

Bennett, R, Kehlbacher, A & Balcombe, K 2012, 'A method for the economic valuation of animal welfare benefits using a single welfare score.', Animal Welfare, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 125-30.

Bennett, W 2005, 'Social movements beyond borders: understanding two eras of transnational activism', Transnational Protest and Global Activism, vol. 203, no. 26.

164

Berry, J 2005, 'Nonprofits and civic engagement', Public Administration Review, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 568-78.

Biggadike, R 1989, 'The risky business of diversification.', in Readings in Strategic Management, Palgrave, London, pp. 177-90.

Blandford, D, Bureau, JC, Fulponi, L & Henson, S 2002, 'Potential implications of animal welfare concerns and public policies in industrialized countries for international trade', in Global Food Trade and Consumer Demand for Quality, Springer, New York, pp. 77-99.

Bock, BB & Van Huik, MM 2007, 'Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers', British Food Journal, vol. 109, no. 11, pp. 931-44.

Botreau, R, Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bracke, MB & Keeling, LJ 2007, 'Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare.', Animal Welfare, vol. 16, no. 2, p. 225.

Braithwaite, VA & Boulcott., P 2007, 'Pain perception, aversion and fear in fish', Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 131-8.

Brambell, FWR 1965, Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems, HM Stationery Office, London, U.K.

Branson, H 2014, An organisation is only as strong as it’s people, Virgin, .

Britton, B 1998, The learning NGO, INTRAC, Oxford, UK.

Broom, D 2011, 'A history of animal welfare science', Acta Biotheoretica, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 121- 37.

Broom, DM 2007, 'Cognitive ability and sentience: which aquatic animals should be protected?', Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 99-108.

Burgess, D & Hutchinson, WG 2005, 'Do people value the welfare of farm animals?', EuroChoices, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 36-43.

Burns, GL 2014, 'Anthropomorphism and animals in the Anthropocene', in GL Burns & M Paterson (eds), Engaging with Animals: Interpretations of a Shared Experience, Sydney University Press, Sydney, pp. 3-20.

Cahill, DJ 1997, 'Target marketing and segmentation: valid and useful tools for marketing', Management decision, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 10-3.

165

Cambridge Dictionary (English) Dictionary: ‘Engagement’, viewed 2018, .

Cambridge Dictionary (English) 2019, Dictionary: ‘Relationship’, viewed 2019, .

Central Intelligency Agency 2018, The world factbook: China, viewed 2019, .

Charities Aid Foundation 2016, World giving index, UK.

Charmaz, K 2014, Constructing grounded theory, Sage publishing, California, USA.

Christensen, T, Lawrence, A, Lund, M, Stott, A & Sandøe, P 2012, 'How can economists help to improve animal welfare?', Animal Welfare, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1-10.

Compassion in World Farming 2013, Strategic Plan 2013-2017, Surrey, UK. Cornish, A, Raubenheimer, D & McGreevy, P 2016, ‘What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countires’, Animals, vol. 6, no. 11, p. 74.

The Cruelty to Animals Act, 1920, Bangladesh, viewed 2018, .

Davey, A & Fisher, R 2018, Economic issues associated with the West Australian live sheep export trade, Pegasus Economics, Canberra, Australia.

Dawkins, MS 2017, 'Animal welfare and efficient farming: is conflict inevitable?', Animal Production Science, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 201-8.

De Passillé, AM & Rushen, J 2005, 'Food safety and environmental issues in animal welfare', Revue Scientifique et Technique (office international des épizooties), vol. 24, no. 2, p. 757.

Department of statistics Malaysia 2010, Population distribution and basic demographic distribution report 2010, viewed 2018 .

Deschepper, R, Grigoryan, L, Lundborg, CS, Hofstede, G, Cohen, J, Kelen, GVD, Deliens, L & Haaijer-Ruskamp, F 2008, ' Are cultural dimensions relevant for explaining cross-national differences in antibiotic use in Europe?', BMC Health Services Research, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 123.

166

Douphrate, DL, Rosecrance, JC, Stallone, L, Reynolds, SJ & Gilkes, DP 2009, ' Livestock handling injuries in agriculture: an analysis of workers compensation data', American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 391-407.

Drury, R, Homewood, K & Randall, S 2011, 'Less is more: the potential of qualitative approaches in conservation research', Animal Conservation, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 18-24.

Eccles, J 1983, Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors, Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, California.

Eddy, TJ, Gallup Jr, GG & Povinelli, DJ 1993, 'Attribution of cognitive states to animals: Anthropomorphism in comparative perspective', Journal of Social issues, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 87-101.

Entwistle, N & Ramsden, P 2015, Understanding student learning (Routledge Revivals). Routledge, London, UK.

Erian, I & Phillips, CJC 2017, 'Public understanding and attitudes towards meat chicken production and relations to consumption', Animals, vol. 7, no. 20.

Esslemont, RJ & Peeler, EJ 1993, 'The scope for raising margins in dairy herds by improving fertility and health', British Veterinary Journal, vol. 149, no. 6, pp. 537-47.

European Commission 2016, Special Barometer 442: Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare, European Union.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2004, Scientific report of the scientific panel for animal health and welfare on a request from the commission related to welfare of animals during transport The EFSA Journal, Palma, Italy.

Evans, M 2013, The importance of really knowing your target audiences, Forbes 2017, .

Everingham, S & O'Brien, K 2014, 'Cattle industry launches class action against Federal Government, seeking compensation over live export ban', ABC News.

Facebook.com 2018, Charity facebook pages, Facebook, viewed 2018, .

FAO 2017, The state of food security and nutrition in the world, viewed 2018, .

167

FAOSTAT 2017a, Data: Australia, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, viewed 2017, .

FAOSTAT 2017b, Data: Chickens, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, viewed 2019, .

FAOSTAT 2017c, Data: China, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, viewed 2019, .

Farouk, MM, Al-Mazeedi, HM, Sabow, AB, Bekhit, AED, Adeyemi, KD, Sazili, AQ & Ghani, A 1998, 'Halal and kosher slaughter methods and meat quality: A review', Meat Science, vol. 98, pp. 505-19.

Federation of Veterinarian of Europe (FVE) 2002, Slaughter without stunning and food labeling: Briefing note, viewed 2018, .

Festinger, L 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, California.

Fletcher, DL 1999, 'Symposium: Recent advances in poultry slaughter technology', The Journal of Poultry Science, vol. 78, no. 277-281.

Foelsch, D, Huber, H, Boelter, U & Gozzoli, L 1988, 'Research on alternatives to the battery system for laying hens', Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 1, pp. 29-45.

Food and Agricultural Organisation 2019, FAOSTAT, viewed 2019 .

Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) 2018, Chapter 7: Slaughter of livestock, .

Freeman, R & Edward 1984, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Pitman, Boston.

Funds for NGOs 2018, Richest charities, viewed 2018, .

Furnham, A, McManus, C & Scott, D 2003, 'Personality, empathy and attitudes to animal welfare', Anthrozoös, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 135-46.

Future Beef 2018, Live export, viewed 2018, .

168

Gagné, M & Deci, EL 2005, 'Self-determination theory and work motivation', Journal of Organizational behavior, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 331-62.

Ganz, M 2010, Handbook of leadership theory and practice: A Harvard Business School centennial colloquium, Harvard Business Press, Boston.

Genchev, D 2018, World Health Organisation focuses on China’s food safety, World Health Organisation, viewed 2019, .

Gibson, TJ, Johnson, CB, Murrell, JC, Hulls, CM, Mitchinson, SL, Stafford, KJ, Johnstone, AC & Mellor, DJ 2009, 'Electroencephalographic responses of halothane-anaesthetised calves to slaughter by ventral-neck incision without prior stunning', New Zealand Veterinary Journal, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 77-83.

Government of India 2001, Notification: S.O.270(E), New Delhi, viewed 2017 .

Government of India 2014, Sample Registration System Baseline Survey 2014, viewed 2018,

Government of Malaysia 2015, Laws of Malaysia Act 772: Animal Welfare Act, viewed 2019, .

Grandin, T 1995, 'The economic benefits of proper animal welfare', in 48th Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference, Illinois, United States.

Grandin, T 2010, Improving animal welfare: a practical approach, CABI, Wallingford, UK.

Grandin, T 2015, 'The effect of economic factors on the welfare of livestock and Poultry', in T Grandin (ed.), Improving animal welfare: a practical approach, Cabi, Oxfordshire, UK.

Green, L, Kaier, J, Wassink, G, King, E & Grogono, T 2012, 'Impact of rapid treatment of sheep lame with footroot on welfare and economics and farmer attitudes to lameness in sheep', Animal Welfare, vol. 21, pp. 65-71.

Gregory, NG 2008, 'Animal welfare at markets and during transport and slaughter', Meat Science, vol. 80, pp. 2-11.

Gregory, NG, Fielding, HR, Wenzlawowicz, Mv & Holleben, Kv 2010, 'Time to collapse following slaughter without stunning in cattle ', Meat Science, vol. 85, pp. 66-9.

169

Gruber, SL, Tatum, JD, Grandin, T, Scanga, JA, Belk, KE & Smith, GC 2006, Is the difference in tenderness commonly observed between heifers and steers attributable to differences in temperament and reaction to preharvest stress, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Washington D.C.

Gryzbowski, A, McCaffrey, SC & Paisley, RK 2009, 'Beyond international water law: Successfully negotiating mutual gains agreements for international watercourses', McGeorge Global Business and Development, vol. 22, p. 139.

Hambrecht, E, Eissen, JJ, Newman, DJ, Smits, CHM, Verstegen, MWA & Den Hartog, LA 2005, 'Preslaughter handling effects on pork quality and glycolytic potential in two muscles differing in fiber type composition', Journal of Animal Science, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 900-7.

Hamilton, L & McCabe, D 2016, '‘It’s just a job’: Understanding emotion work, de-animalization and the compartmentalization of organized animal slaughter', Organization, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 330- 50.

Harley, S, More, S, Boyle, L, O' Connell, N & Hanlon, A 2012, 'Good animal welfare makes economic sense: potential of pig abattoir meat inspection as a welfare surveillance tool', Irish Veterinary Journal, vol. 65.

Harter, JK, Schmidt, FL & Hayes, TL 2002, 'Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 268-79.

Harzing, AW 2006, 'Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study', International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 649, no. 6, pp. 243-66.

Hatfield, G 2008, René Descartes, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 2018, .

Hemsworth, PH, & Coleman, GJ 2011, Human-livestock interactions the stockperson and the productivity and welfare of intensively-farmed animals, 2nd ed, CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, U.K. Coleman, GJ & Hemsworth, PH 2014, Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock enhances welfare and productivity, Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), vol. 33, no. 1, pp.131–137. Herzog, H, Betchart, N & Pittman, R 1991, 'Sex role identity and attitudes towards animals', Anthrozoos, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 184-92.

Hofstede, G 1984, 'Cultural dimensions in management and planning', Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 81-99.

170

Hofstede, G 2011, 'Dimensionalizing cultures: e Hofstede model in context', Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, vol. 2, no. 1.

Hofstede, G, Hofstede, GJ & Minkov, M 2010, Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.

Hofstede Insights 2019, Country comparison, viewed 2018, .

Horowitz, B & Bowers, K 2012, Zoobiquity, Random House, New York.

Horsthemke, K 2009, 'Rethinking humane education.', Ethics and Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 201- 14.

HR Council Canada 2017, Keeping the right people, HR Council Canada, viewed 2017, .

Human Rights Law Centre 2013, Marriage equality gains momentum internationally, Human Rights Law Centre, viewed 2017, .

Humane Slaughter Act, 1958, 85-765, United States of America, August 27, 1958, .

Humane Society International 2018, New Vietnam law mandates humane treatment of farm animals, .

ICC/ESOMAR 2008, International code on market and social research (4th Ed.), Amsterdam, Netherlands, .

Inglehart, RWC. 2005, Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) 2018, GDP per capita: Current prices, .

International Trade Centre 2018, Trade map, viewed 2018, .

171

Islamic Services of America 2018, Halal information, viewed 2018, .

Islamic Tourism Centre of Malaysia 2018, Islam in Malaysia, .

Kahn, WA 1990, 'Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work', Academy of management journal, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 692-724.

Karg, H & Drechsel, P 2011, 'Motivating behaviour change to reduce pathogenic risk where unsafe water is used for irrigation', Water International, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 476-90.

Kassin, Fein & Markus 2010, Social Psychology, Cengage Learning, Wadsworth, Ohio.

Kauppinen, T, Vainio, A, Valros, A, Rita, H & Vesala, KM 2010, 'Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers' attitudes', Animal Welfare, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 523.

Kellert, S 1980, 'American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update', International journal for the Study of Animal Problems, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 87-119.

Kendall, SD 2007, 'Customer service from the customer's perspective', in Customer service delivery: Research and best practices, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, USA, pp. 3-21.

Kennedy, U, Sharma, A & Phillips, C 2018, 'The sheltering of unwanted cattle, experiences in India and implications for cattle industries elsewhere', Animals, vol. 8, no. 5, p. 64.

Kenrick, DT, Griskevicius, V, Neuberg, SL & Schaller, M 2010, 'Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations', Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 292-314.

Keyserlingk, M & Hötzel, A 2015, 'The ticking clock: Addressing farm animal welfare in emerging countries', Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 179-95.

King, ML 1967, 'Christmas sermon on peace', in Massey lecture #5, Atlanta.

Kleinginna, PR & Kleinginna, AM 1981, 'A categorized list of motivation definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition', Motivation and Emotion, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 263-91.

Klem, A & Connell, J 2004, 'Relationships matter: linking teaching support to student engagement and achievement', Journal of School Health, vol. 74, no. 7, pp. 262-73.

172

Kling-Eveillard, F, Dockes, AC & Souquet, C 2007, 'Attitudes of French pig farmers towards animal welfare', British Food Journal, vol. 109, no. 11, pp. 859-69.

Knight J., Gao H., Garret T. & K., D 2008, 'Quest for social safety in imported foods in China: Gatekeeper perceptions', Appetite, vol. 50, pp. 146-57.

Kossaibati, MA & Esslemont, RJ 1997, ' The costs of production diseases in dairy herds in England', The Veterinary Journal, vol. 154, no. 1, pp. 41-51.

Krishna, N 2010, Sacred animals of India, Penguin Books, New Dehli, India.

Krueger, RA 2014, Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, Sage publications, California, USA.

Kvale, SBS. 2009, Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, Sage publishing, California, USA.

Langford, M 1989, 'Animal welfare and human welfare', Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 95-103.

Lefrancois, GR 1980, Psychology, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California, USA.

Levi-Strauss, C 1988, 'Cultural relativity', in G Hofstede (ed.), Cultures and organisations: software of the mind, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Levitt, T 1993, 'The globalization of markets ', in RWC Robert Z Aliber (ed.), Readings in international business: a decision approach, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.

Li, X, Zito, S, Sinclair, M & Phillips, CJC 2018, 'Perception of animal welfare issues during Chinese transport and slaughter of livestock by a sample of stakeholders in the industry', PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 6.

Linares, MB, ́rnez, RB & Vergara, H 2007, 'Effect of different stunning systems on meat quality of light lamb', Meat Science, vol. 76, pp. 675-81.

Ling, R, Zulkifli, I, Lampang, P, Nhiem, D, Wang, Y & Phillips, C 2016, 'Attitudes of students from south-east and east Asian countries to slaughter and transport of livestock', Animal Welfare, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 377-87.

Linkedin 2017, 7 Levels of Engagement for Marketers, Linkedin.com, viewed 2018, .

173

Lovejoy, K & Saxton, G 2012, 'Information, community, and action: how nonprofit organizations use social media.', Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 337-53.

Ma, XQ, Verkuil, JM, Reinbach, HC & Meinert, L 2017, 'Which product characteristics are preferred by Chinese consumers when choosing pork? A conjoint analysis on perceived quality of selected pork attributes', Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 770-5.

Marciano, P 2010, Carrots and Sticks Don’t Work: Build a Culture of Employee Engagement with the Principles of Respect, McGraw Hill Professional, New York, USA.

Market Analyst 2013, Benefits of market research 2017, .

Maslow, A 1943, 'A theory of human motivation', Psychological Review, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 370-96.

Maslow, AH 1969, 'The farther reaches of human nature', Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-9.

Masri, BA 1989, Animals in Islam, Athene Trust, Great Britain.

Mathews, S & Herzog, HA 1997, 'Personality and attitudes toward the treatment of animals', Society & Animals, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 169-75.

Maxwell, J 2017, The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change. The leader adjusts the sails., Twitter, .

Mayers, J & Vermeulen, S 2002, Company-community forestry partnerships: From raw deals to mutual gains, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

McGlone, JJ 2001, 'Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems', Livestock Production Science, vol. 72, no. 1-2, pp. 75-81.

McInerney, JP 1993, 'Animal welfare: an economic perspective', paper presented to valuing farm animal welfare, Oxford, UK, .

McLeod, S 2007, 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs', Simply Psychology, vol. 1.

McPhedran, S 2009, 'A review of the evidence for associations between empathy, violence, and animal cruelty', Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-4.

174

McQuarrie, E 2005, The market research toolbox: a concise guide for beginners, 2 edn, Sage publications, California, USA.

Mench, J 2008, 'Farm animal welfare in the USA: Farming practices, research, education, regulation, and assurance programs', Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 298- 312.

Michie, S, Fixsen, D, Grimshaw, JM & Eccles, MP 2009, 'Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method.', Implementation Science, vol. 4, no. 40, pp. 1-6.

Miles, S 2011, 'Stakeholder definitions: profusion and confusion"', in EIASM 1st interdisciplinary conference on stakeholder, resources and value creation, Barcelona.

MfP Industries 2018, Code of welfare: Commerical slaughter, by Ministry for Primary Industries, NZ, New Zealand Government.

Minkov, M & Hofstede, G 2014, 'Nations versus religions: which has a stronger effect on societal values?', Management International Review, vol. 54, no. 6, p. 801.

Moloney, S, Horne, RE & Fien, J 2010, 'Transitioning to low carbon communities—from behaviour change to systemic change: Lessons from Australia', Energy Policy, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 7614-23.

Nakyinsige, K, Man, YBC, Aghwan, ZA, Zulkifli, I, Goh, YM, Bakar, FA, Al-Kahtani, HA & Sazili, AQ 2013, 'Stunning and animal welfare from Islamic and scientific perspectives', Meat Science, vol. 95, pp. 352-61.

Nasierowski, W & Mikula, B 1998, 'Culture dimensions of Polish managers: Hofstede's indices', Organization Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 495-509.

National Legislative Assembly of Thailand 2016, Prevention of cruelty and animal welfare provision act, viewed 2019, .

Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner India 2001, Distribution of population by religion, viewed 2019, .

OIE 2016, Terrestrial animal health code: Section 7 (Animal Welfare), World Animal Health Organisation, viewed 2017, .

175

OIE 2017, OIE: About Us, World Animal Health Organisation, viewed 2017, .

Olavarria, H 2008, Implementation of OIE International Standards by OIE Members, World Animal Health Organisation, viewed 2017, .

Parliament of India 1960, The prevention of cruelty to animals act. Amended 1982, viewed 2019, .

Patel, PC, Thorgren, S & Wincent, J 2015, 'Leadership, passion and performance: a study of job creation projects during the recession ', British Journal of Management, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 211-24.

Patton, MQ 2015, Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New Jersey.

Patz, JA, Campbell-Lendrum, D, Holloway, T & Foley, JA 2005, 'Impact of regional climate change on human health', Nature, vol. 438, no. 7066, p. 310.

Paul, ES & Serpell, JA 1993, 'Childhood pet keeping and humane attitudes in young adulthood', Animal Welfare, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 321-37.

People’s Republic of China 2010, >> , viewed 2019, .

Petrie, C 2016, Live export: A chronology, viewed 2018, .

Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production 2008, Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in America., Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, Washington, DC.

PEW Research Centre 2011, The future of the global Muslim population, viewed 2018, .

PEW Research Centre 2012, Forum on religion and public life and global religious landscape, viewed 2018, .

Phillips, C 2008, The welfare of animals: the silent majority, vol. 8, Springer Science & Business Media, New York, USA.

176

Phillips, C, Izmirli, S, Aldavood, S, Alonoso, M, Chloe, B, Hanlon, A, Handziska, A, Illmann, G, Keeling, L, Kennedy, M, Lee, G, Lund, V, Mejdell, C, Pelagic, V & Rehn, T 2012, 'Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia', Animal Welfare, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 87- 100.

Phillips, CJ, Wojciechowska, J, Meng, J & Cross, N 2009, 'Perceptions of the importance of different welfare issues in livestock production', Animal, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 1152-66.

Phillips, CJC, Izmirli, S, Kennedy, M, Lee, GH, Lund, V, Mejdell, C, Pelagic, VR, Rehn, T, Aldavood, J, Alonso, M, Choe, BI, Hanlon, AJ, Handziska, A, Illmann, G & Keeling, L 2010, 'An international comparison of female and male students’ attitudes to the use of animals.', Animals, vol. 1, p. 7.

Piazza, J & Loughnan, S 2016, 'When meat gets personal, animals’ minds matter less: Motivated use of intelligence information in judgments of moral standing', Social Psychological and Personality Science, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 867-74.

Pifer, L 1996, 'Exploring the gender gap in young adults' attitudes about animal research', Society and Animals, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 37-52.

Pimentel, D, Wilson, C, McCullum, C, Huang, R, Dwen, P, Flack, J, Tran, Q, Saltman, T & Cliff, B 1997, 'Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity', Bioscience, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 747- 57.

Pinillos, RG, Appleby, M. C., Manteca, X., Scott-Park, F., Smith, C., & Velarde, A. 2016, 'One welfare–a platform for improving human and animal welfare', Veterinary Record, vol. 179, no. 16, pp. 412-3.

Plous, S 1993, 'Psychological mechanisms in the human use of animals', Journal of Social issues, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 11-52.

Pomeroy, R & Douvere, F 2008, 'The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process', Marine Policy, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 816-22.

Popkin, S 1994, The reasoning voter: communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

Porter, LW & Lawler, EE 1968, 'What job attitudes tell about motivation', Harvard Business Review, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 118-26.

Pritchard, JC, van Dijk, L, Ali, M & Pradhan, SK 2012, 'Non-economic incentives to improve animal welfare: positive competition as a driver for change among owners of draught and pack animals in India', Animal Welfare, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 25-32.

177

Prochaska, J & Levesque, DA 2002, 'Enhancing motivation of offenders at each stage of change and phase of therapy', in M McMurran (ed.), Motivating offenders to change: A guide to enhancing engagement in therapy, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA.

QSR International 2018, Nvivo, Melbourne, AU, .

Rabin, M 1994, 'Cognitive dissonance and social change', Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 177-94.

Rahman, S 2017, 'Religion and Animal Welfare—An Islamic Perspective', Animals, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 11.

Randall, DMaF, M.F. 1991, 'The social desirability response bias in ethics research', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 805-17.

Reed, MS 2008, 'Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review.', Biological Conservation, vol. 141, no. 10, pp. 2417-31.

Robbins, JA, Keyserlingk, M, Fraser, D & Weary, D 2016, 'Invited review: Farm size and animal welfare', Journal of Animal Science, vol. 94, pp. 5439-55.

Rogers, RW 1975, 'A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change', The Journal of Psychology, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 93-114.

Rollin, B 2015, 'Why is Agricultural Animal Welfare Important? The Social and Ethical Context', in T Grandin (ed.), Improving animal welfare: a practical approach, Cabi, Oxfordshire, UK.

Ross, T & Phillips, CJC 2018, 'Relationships between knowledge of chicken production systems and advocacy by animal protection workers.', Society and Animals, vol. 26, pp. 73-92.

RSPCA Australia 2017, How many pets are there in Australia, viewed 2017, .

Ryan, RM & Deci, EL 2000, 'Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions', Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 54-67. Rynes, S, Gerhart, B & Minette, K 2004, ‘The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do’, Human Resources Management, vol. 43, pp. 381–394.

178

Samuel, L 2013, Freud on Madison Ave: motivation research and subliminal advertising in America, University of Pennslvania Press, Philadelphia.

Sanderson, E, Jaiteh, M, Levy, M, Redford, K, Wannebo, A & Woolmer, G 2002, 'The human footprint and the last of the wild’, Bioscience, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 891-904.

Sashi, CM 2012, 'Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media', Management Decision, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 253-72.

Sax, B 1999, 'Anthrozoology and literature', Anthrozoos, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 66-7.

Schaltegger, S & Synnestvedt, T 2002, 'The link between ‘green’and economic success: environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 339-46.

Schenk, A, Marcel, H & Kienast, F 2007, ' Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures—A qualitative study in Switzerland. ', Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 66-79.

Schwartz, SH 1992, 'Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries', Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 1-65.

Seward, J 1956, 'Drive, incentive, and reinforcement', Psychological Review, no. 63, pp. 19-203.

Si, SXaC, J.B. 1998, 'Response categories and potential cultural bias: Effects of an explicit middle point in cross-cultural surveys', The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 218-30.

Siddiq, AB & Habib, A 2016, 'Anthrozoology–an emerging robust multidisciplinary subfield of anthropological science', Green University Review of Social Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 45-67.

Signal, T & Taylor, N 2006, 'Attitudes to animals: Demographics within a community sample', Society & Animals, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 147-57.

Silver Egg Media 2016, Why is understanding your audience so important?, Silver Egg Media, viewed 2017, .

Sima, YOS, S. 2016, 'Chinese animal protection laws and the globalization of welfare norms', Inernational Journal of Law Context, vol. 12, pp. 1-23.

Sinclair, M, Derkley, T, Fryer, C & Phillips, CJC 2018a, 'Australian public opinions regarding the live export trade before and after an animal welfare media expose', Animals, vol. 8, no. 7, p. 106.

179

Sinclair, M, Fryer, C & Phillips, CJC 2019a, 'The benefits of improving animal welfare from the perspective of livestock stakeholders across Asia', Animals, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 123.

Sinclair, M, Idrus, Z, Burns, GL & Phillips, CJC 2019b, 'Livestock stakeholder willingness to embrace preslaughter stunning in key Asian countries', Animals, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 244.

Sinclair, M, Idrus, Z, van Nhiem, D, Katawatin, S, Todd, B, Burns, GL & Phillips, CJC 2019c, 'Motivations for industry stakeholders in China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia to improve livestock welfare', Animals, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 416.

Sinclair, M, Morton, J & Phillips, CJC 2018b, 'Turning intentions into animal welfare improvement in the Asian livestock sector', Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 385- 99.

Sinclair, M & Phillips, CJC 2017, 'The cross-cultural importance of animal protection and other world social issues', Journal of Argricultual and Environmental Ethics, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 439-55.

Sinclair, M & Phillips, CJC 2018a, 'International animal protection society leadership: The right people for the right issues', Animals, vol. 8, no. 6, p. 89.

Sinclair, M & Phillips, CJC 2018b, 'Key tenets of operational success in international animal welfare initiatives', Animals, vol. 8, no. 6.

Sinclair, M & Phillips, CJC 2019, 'International livestock leaders’ perceptions of the importance of, and solutions for, animal welfare issues', Animals, vol. 9, no. 6, p. 319.

Sinclair, M, Yan, W & Phillips, C 2019d, 'Attitudes of pig and poultry industry stakeholders in Guangdong Province, China, to animal welfare and farming systems', Animals, vol. 9, no. 11, p. 860.

Sinclair, M, Zito, S, Idrus, Z, Yan, W, Nhiem, D, Lampang, P & Phillips, CJC 2017a, 'Attitudes of stakeholders to animal welfare during slaughter and transport in SE and E Asia', Animal Welfare, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 417-25.

Sinclair, M, Zito, S & Phillips, CJC 2017b, 'The impact of stakholders roles within the livestock industry on their attitudes to livestock welfare in Southeast and East Asia', Animals, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 6.

Szucs, E, Geers, R, Jezierski, T, Sossidou, EN & Broom, DM 2012, 'Animal welfare in different human cultures, traditions and religious faiths', Asian - Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1499-507.

180

Tao, B 2003, 'A stitch in time: Addressing the environmental, health, and animal welfare effects of China's expanding meat industry', Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 321-57.

The Economist Intelligence Unit 2019, Global access to healthcare index, viewed 2019, .

The Hindu Business Line 2019, Land of contradictions, viewed 2019, .

Tierney, DW & McCabe, MP 2002, 'Motivation for behavior change among sex offenders: A review of the literature.', Clinical Psychology Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 113-29.

Tindana, PO, Singh, JA, Tracy, CS, Upshur, RE, Daar, AS, Singer, PA & Lavery, JV 2007, 'Grand challenges in global health: community engagement in research in developing countries.', Plos Medicine, vol. 4, no. 9, p. 273.

Tiplady, C, D.B., W & Phillips, CJC 2012, 'Cruelty to Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs - how the public responded to media coverage', Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 26, pp. 869-85.

Top Nonprofits The best nonprofits on the web, Top nonprofits, viewed 2018, .

Top Nonprofits Top nonprofits on social media, Top nonprofits, viewed 2018, .

Transparency International 2017, World corruption index, viewed 2019, .

Tzu, S 5th century BC, The art of war, Tuttle Publishing, China.

United Nations Development Programme 2014, Human development data, viewed 2019, .

United Nations Development Programme 2018, Human development report, United Nations, New York City, USA.

Vaismoradi, MJ, J.; Turunen, H.; Snelgrove, S. 2016, 'Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis', Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, vol. 6, no. 100-110.

181 van Hiuk, MM & Bock, BB 2007, 'Attitudes of Dutch farmers towards animal welfare', British Food Journal, vol. 109, no. 11, pp. 879-90.

Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E & Tuyttens, FA 2008, 'Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently?', Livestock Science, vol. 116, no. 1-3, pp. 126-36.

Vassallo, W 2016, Crowdfunding for sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation, IGI Global, Hershey, USA.

Veissier, I, Butterworth, A, Bock, B & Roe, E 2008, 'European approaches to ensure good animal welfare', Applied Animal Behavior Science, no. 113, pp. 279-97.

Verbeke, W 2009, 'Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare', Animal Welfare, vol. 18, pp. 325-33.

Verbeke W, Pr-CF, de Barcellos MD, Krystallis A and Grunert KG 2010, 'European citizen and consumer atti- tudes and preferences regarding beef and pork', Meat Science, no. 28, pp. 284-92.

Vetter, S, Vasa, L & Ózsvári, L 2014, 'Economic aspects of animal welfare', Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 119-34.

Vietnam News 2018, Clarifications needed for animal husbandry law: National assemby, . von Hardenberg, L & Heinke, H 2018, 'German pig farmers attitudes towards animal welfare programs and theur willingness o participante in these programs: An empirical study', International Journal on Food System Dynamics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 289-301.

Webb, TL, Sniehotta, FF & Michie, S 2010, 'Using theories of behaviour change to inform interventions for addictive behaviours.', Addiction, vol. 105, no. 11, pp. 1879-92.

Weiner, B 2013, Human motivation, Psychology Press, Hove, United Kingdom.

Westbury, HR & Neumann, DL 2008, 'Empathy-related responses to moving film stimuli depicting human and non-human animal targets in negative circumstances', Biological psychology, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 66-74.

White, DE 1995, The art of planned giving: Understanding donors and the culture of giving vol. 36, Wiley, New Jersey, USA.

182

Wilson, D 2015, The welfare of performing animals: A historical perspective, vol. 15, Animal Welfare, Springer, Berlin.

WIN-Gallup 2012, Global index of religion and atheism, < https://sidmennt.is/wp- content/uploads/Gallup-International-um-trú-og-trúleysi-2012.pdf>.

Wood, A 2013, 'Animal welfare under the Shari’a', Macquarie Law Journal, vol. 12, pp. 155-28.

World Animal Protection 2017, World Animal Protection Index, viewed 2017, .

World Atlas 2019, Top countries for aquaculture production, .

World Bank 2006, Bangladesh: Growing the economy through advances in agriculture, .

World Bank 2016, Poverty and equity data portal, World Bank, viewed 2019, .

World Bank 2019, Employment in agriculture data portal, viewed 2019, .

World Population Review 2019a, China population 2019, .

World Population Review 2019b, India population 2019, .

Worldometers 2018, Current world population, viewed 2018, .

Wynne, CDL 2004, 'The perils of anthropomorphism', Nature, vol. 428, no. 6983, p. 606.

You, X, Li, Y, Zhang, M, Yan, H & Zhao, R 2014, 'A survey of Chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal welfare', PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 10.

Zaleznik, A 2004, 'Managers and leaders: are they different?', Clinical Leadership & Management Review: the Journal of CLMA, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 171-7.

183

Zastrow, C 2009, Introduction to social work and social welfare: Empowering people, Cengage Learning, Boston, USA.

Zhangyue Zhou, Weiming Tian, Jimin Wang, Liu, H & Cao, L 2012, Food Consumption: Trends in China Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, AU.

184

Appendix A (Study One: Survey)

Motivators for improving pig & chicken welfare in Chinese farming systems

Your responses will not be identifiable. Please feel free to decline to answer any of the questions or to withdraw from the survey.

‘The welfare of animals’ refers to how well an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal has good welfare if its needs are being met and hence it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express important behaviour and not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear and distress 1

Section 1; Your attitude to farm animal welfare Please indicate your level of agreement with each statement about farm animals by a tick (a) in each row.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree or Agree 1. The welfare of animals is important to me 2. The welfare of farm animals is satisfactory in my workplace 3. Most people who are important to me would approve of me making improvements to the welfare of the animals in my care 4. I intend to make improvements to the welfare of the animals in my care 5. I am confident that I can make improvements to the welfare of animals 6. In the past I have tried to make improvements to the welfare of the animals in my care

Section 2; The factors influencing your choices concerning farm animal welfare We would now like to understand which factors influence, first, your evaluation of the welfare of animals you work with, second, your ability to make welfare improvements, and third, what most encourages you to make these improvements. Please indicate your level of agreement with each statement about farm animals by a tick (a) in each row.

1 adapted from World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)

185

7. The following factors influence my Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly evaluation of the welfare of the farm animals Disagree Disagree Agree that you work with or Agree 7a. My religious beliefs 7b. My personal beliefs (not religious) 7c. The extent to which there are more pressing concerns than the welfare of animals in my community 7d. My monetary gain 7e. Monetary gain to my community 7f. How important the welfare of animals is to the company I work for 7g. How important the welfare of animals is to those who work with me 7h. My knowledge about farming practices 7i. The laws relevant to farming practices

8. The main factors that influence my ability Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly to make improvements to animal welfare Disagree Disagree or Agree include the following; Agree 8a. My religious beliefs 8b. My personal beliefs (not religious) 8c. The extent to which there are more pressing concerns than the welfare of animals in my community 8d. Monetary gain to myself 8e. Monetary gain to my community 8f. How important the welfare of animals is to the company I work for 8g. How important the welfare of animals is to those who work with me 8h. Company approval towards improving the welfare of animals

9. I am more encouraged to change my Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly practices if; Disagree Disagree or Agree Agree 9a. Changes are prescribed by local government 9b. Changes are prescribed by a non- government local organization 9c. Changes are prescribed by local law enforcement (police) 9d. Changes are prescribed by a western international organization 9e. Changes are prescribed by law 9f. Changes are prescribed by my company 9g. Changes are prescribed by my supervisor 9h. Changes are prescribed by my community elder or community leader 9i. I see moral value in changing practices 9j. I see personal monetary gain from changing practices 186

9k. I see others making the changes

Section 3; Your attitude to farming systems

3a; Pig farming

Please indicate your level of agreement with each statement about farm animals by a tick (a) in each row.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree or Agree In regards to pig farming systems; 1. I believe indoor intensive farming of pigs is better for food safety 2. I believe indoor intensive farming systems are better for the welfare of the pigs 3. I believe outdoor farming systems where pigs are in groups and able to roam are better for the welfare of the pig 4. I believe housing sows in individual stalls is better for the welfare of the sow 5. I believe it is desirable to house pigs in a group situation 6. I believe pigs can suffer 7. I believe pigs feel pain

8. It is important that pigs are physically healthy 9. It is important that the pigs are happy In regards to the pigs; 10. It is normal for pigs to display mouthing behaviours such as biting bars and chewing (without food) repetitively 11. Pigs are intelligent animals 12. Pigs are aggressive animals 13. Pigs are social animals 14. Pigs do not understand much about their environment 15. Pigs are unfriendly animals and do not like to interact with other pigs 16. Pigs should be allowed to forage for food and root in the ground 17. Sows should be allowed to make a nest before they give birth 18. Piglets do not mind if their tails are docked and teeth clipped

3.b; Meat chicken farming

187

Please indicate your level of agreement with each statement about farm animals by a tick (a) in each row.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree or Agree In regards to meat chicken farming systems; 1. I believe indoor intensive farming of meat chickens is better for food safety 2. I believe indoor intensive farming systems are better for the welfare of the chicken 3. I believe outdoor farming systems where chickens are in groups and able to roam are better for the welfare of the chicken 4. I believe chickens can suffer 5. I believe chickens feel pain

6. It is important that chickens are physically healthy 7. It is important that the chickens are happy In regards to the chickens; 8. It is normal behaviour for chickens to peck each other’s feathers out 9. It is normal for chickens to attack each other 10. Chickens are intelligent animals 12. Chickens are social animals 11. Chickens do not understand much about their environment 13. Chickens are not friendly and do not like to interact with other chickens 14. Hens should be allowed to make a nest to lay their eggs in 16. Chickens should be allowed to peck the dirt to forage for food 15. Chickens should be allowed to bathe in dust or dirt 16. Chickens should be allowed to flap their wings 17. Chickens should be allowed to perch 18. Chickens should be allowed to stretch and preen

Section 4; About you

Please indicate your answer by a tick (a) in the box that best describe you.

1. Please indicate your gender a. Male………...... □ b. Female……...... □

188

2. In what type of area have you lived for most of your life? a. Rural……...... □ b. Town ...... □ c. Suburban ...... □ d. City centre ...... □

3. Please indicate your age range a. Under 18 ...... □ b. 18-25 ...... □ c. 26-35 ...... □ d. 36-45 ...... □ e. 46-55 ...... □ f. 56-65 ...... □ g. Over 65 ...... □

4. Please indicate which job role best describes your involvement in the pig (a)/ chicken (b) meat industries a. I work directly with the animals………………………………… ...... □ b. I am a team Leader: I supervise people who work directly with the animals………………………………………………………...... □ c. I am a business owner or manager…………………………………...... □ d. I am a veterinarian ………………………………..…………………… ...... □ e. I am a government representative f. Other………………………………………..…………………… ...... □

5a. Please indicate the pig farming system that best describes the pig farming systems you currently work with a. An intensive indoor only housing system……………………...... □ b. Mixed systems where the pigs spend time indoors and outdoors in groups ...... □ c. Outdoor systems where the pigs are kept in sties ...... □ d. Outdoor systems where the pigs are free to roam in a paddock ...... □

6a. Please indicate the size of pig farming systems you currently work with a. 1-10 pigs ...... □ b. 10-50 pigs ...... □ c. 50-100 pigs ...... □ d. 100-500 pigs ...... □ e. 500-3,000 pigs ...... □ f. 3,000 + pigs ...... □ 5b. Please indicate the chicken farming system that best describes the system you are currently involved in a. Indoor only systems that include enrichment (such as bedding, perches and space for each chicken to stretch their wings) Indoor only systems ...... □ b. Indoor only systems without enrichment ...... □ c. Outdoor system with chickens kept permanently in a coup/pen ...... □ d. Outdoor systems where the chickens are free to roam day and night ...... □ e. Outdoor system where the chickens are free to roam during the day and in a coup at night ...... □ f. I am not involved in chicken farming ...... □ 189

6b. Please indicate the size of chicken farm you are currently involved in a. 1-50 chickens ...... □ b. 50-200 chickens ...... □ c. 200-1000 chickens ...... □ d. 1,000-10,000 chickens ...... □ e. 10,000+ chickens ...... □

7. How did you gain your farming knowledge? Please tick more than one if they apply a. Formal qualifications – relevant degree, training course ...... □ b. Farm employment – hands on experience ...... □ c. Personal interest – internet, journals, newspaper articles, television programmes ...... □ d. Friends and acquaintances ...... □ e. All of the above ...... □

8. Please indicate how long you have been working in the industry f. Less than 1 year ...... □ g. 2 – 3 Years ...... □ h. 3 – 5 Years ...... □ i. 5 – 9 Years ...... □ j. 10 – 15 Years ...... □ k. More than 15 Years ...... □

190

Appendix B: (Study Two: Focus Groups)

Table B1. Focus group structure and base questions.

Approx. Question Q Category (Analysis Question Time Number Intentions) Allocation Please introduce yourselves by stating your name and Introductory (not used in 1 10 min where you work. analysis) What are the benefits you see to improving animal 2 Transition 10 min welfare? Share top 5 modes of encouragement (write on board, or flipchart). In recent research we completed, stakeholders in your country said they were more encouraged to improve Key (all comments included 3 animal welfare if the changes were prescribed in some 15 min in thematic analysis) specific ways. These are the top 5 ways. Can you please share your thoughts and ideas on the reasons why the stakeholders rated this so highly in this country? Follow on from last question. What might be the best strategies to use this Key (all comments included 4 10 min information to motivate stakeholders to improve in thematic analysis) animal welfare? Share top 5 factors’ impacting ability (write on board, or flipchart). In recent research we completed, stakeholders in your country rated the following as the top 5 factors that Key (all comments included 5 impact their ability to improve animal welfare during 15 min in thematic analysis) slaughter and transport. Can you please share your thoughts and ideas on the reasons the stakeholders rated this so highly in this country? Follow on from last question. Key (all comments included 6 What might be the best ways to support stakeholders to 10 min in thematic analysis) make improvements to animal welfare? Coffee break + prepare cards for Q3 follow on 15 min Group activity (ranking exercise). As a group, please place these cards in rank, from the Key (record ranking for greatest animal welfare concern in this country to the analysis, transcribe key 7 10 min least. comments during activity Provide the group cards with listed animal welfare for analysis) concerns during slaughter and transport.

191

Individual activity. Please write down 3 changes that could be made in Key (record response for 8 10 min your workplace to improve animal welfare. analysis) Please each share the most important one. Follow on from Q3. Ranking activity. Key (record ranking for Based on your comments at the start, we made cards of analysis, transcribe key 9 the benefits for improving animal welfare. As a group, 10 min comments during activity can you please place them in order of most important for analysis) to least important. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being extremely unlikely and 10 Transition (record rating for being extremely likely, how willing are stakeholders to analysis, transcribe key 10 embrace stunning prior to slaughter to ensure the 10 min comments during activity animal is completely unconscious before killing it? for analysis) Move around the table one by one. How could stunning be implemented where it isn’t Key (all comments included 11 10 min already? in thematic analysis) On a scale of 1-10, 1 being extremely unlikely and 10 Transition (record rating for being extremely likely, how willing are stakeholders to analysis, transcribe key 12 10 min improve their stockpersonship skills to be calmer with comments during activity the animals? for analysis) How could stakeholders be encouraged to improve Key (all comments included 13 10 min their stockpersonship skills? in thematic analysis) Of all of the points you have shared with us today, Key (all comments included 14 15 min what is the most important? in thematic analysis) Present a short oral summary of the key points as presented by the participants. 15 Closing 5 min Does that capture the most important points of today? Have we missed anything?

192

Appendix C: Study 3 (Interviews)

Pre-workshop statement;

Q# Q Q category Approx time allocation 1 I have your position down as xx, is that Introductory 1 min correct? How long have you been at xx? 2 What initially drew you to animal welfare Transition 3 mins leadership? 3 I know that xx has coordinated some Key 5 mins successful animal welfare projects in the Asia Pacific region, can you describe your most successful? 4 What made that project so successful? Sub-key 2 mins 5 How did you know it was successful? Sub-key 2 mins 6 I know within social progression initiatives, Key 5 mins some trial and error occurs in the search for successful strategies, and that doesn’t always work. Can you describe your organisations least successful project? 7 What made that project unsuccessful? Sub-key 2 mins 8 How did you know it was unsuccessful? Sub-key 2 mins 9 How do you identify the animal welfare Key 3 mins issues that you will pursue, to then go forward to campaign and educate around? 10 Once you have decided to add an animal Sub-key 3 mins welfare issue to your remit, what are the steps that follow? 11 In your mind, what makes a good animal Key 2 mins welfare leader? 12 Thank you greatly for your time. Is there Closing NA anything else that you feel might be helpful in investigating strategies to engage stakeholders to improve animal welfare?

193

Appendix D: Ethical approval letter

194