ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 23 June 2022 doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.819893 The End of Animal Welfare Labelling as We Know It? Persisting Problems at the Consumer Level and PLF- Based Solutions Paul T. M. Ingenbleek and Caspar Krampe * Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Department of Social Science, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands Edited by: Harry J. Blokhuis, Over the last few decades, animal welfare (AW) labels have become permanent factors in Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden consumer markets for animal-based food products across Europe. During this time, scholarly thinking about consumer perspectives on AW labelling has identified problems Reviewed by: that hinder the effectiveness of labels, pertaining to (i) consumers’ trust in labels, (ii) the Mara Miele, Cardiff University, United Kingdom number of labels present in the market, (iii) confusion about the meaning of labels, (iv) Mona Franziska Giersberg, trade-offs between AW labels and price, (v) consistency between the AW standards and Utrecht University, Netherlands consumers’ individual opinions about AW and (vi) the ability of animal-based sectors to *Correspondence: innovate in AW labelling. Based on these insights, this study explores the current state of Caspar Krampe caspar.krampe@wur.nl these problems by questioning 2.433 consumers from four countries in the European Union (Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy) about these issues. The results show Specialty section: that, while opinions differ between countries and cross-border consumer segments, these This article was submitted to Animal Welfare and Policy, issues persist for many consumers. These results cast doubt on the idea that AW labels in a section of the journal their traditional form can substantially increase their effect on the market. The study Frontiers in Animal Science therefore explores potential data-based solutions to persistent consumer problems by Received: 22 November 2021 Accepted: 16 May 2022 drawing on precision livestock and e-commerce technologies. It extends current data use, Published: 23 June 2022 which is often limited to farms and value chain actors but rarely reaches consumers. We Citation: argue that innovative technologies create opportunities to influence consumers in the Ingenbleek PTM and Krampe C (2022) often neglected pre- and post-purchase stages, through a selection system where The End of Animal Welfare Labelling as We Know It? consumers can indicate their AW preferences, receive feedback, and transparently Persisting Problems at the Consumer provide insight into their preferences to other value chain actors. Level and PLF-Based Solutions. Front. Anim. Sci. 3:819893. Keywords: animal welfare, labelling, consumer perceptions, precision livestock farming (PLF), e-commerce, supply doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.819893 chain management, marketing Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 1 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? “It’s the end of the world as we know it … and I feel fine” The aim of this study is to compare and examine the extent to R.E.M. which these barriers play a role in consumer markets and to suggest a thinking direction for new solutions. To this end, we show results from a study that questions consumers from EU countries about the barriers related to AW labels (Finland, the INTRODUCTION Netherlands, Spain, and Italy). We show results by comparing In most high-income countries, like those in Western Europe the four countries, but we also examine the existence of cross- and Northern America, the main instrument to inform border consumer segments that take different attitudes toward consumers about animal welfare (AW) are labels. AW labels AW labels. To suggest a new thinking direction, to deal with the are also an important instrument for AW policy to achieve the problems related to AW labels, we take an approach based on goal of improving AW in the market domain (McInerney, 2004; connecting AW data to consumer decision-making processes Veissier et al., 2008; Ingenbleek et al., 2012 ; Clark et al., 2017). through digitalization (Stygar et al., 2022). More specifically, we Traditionally, labels are signs or cues – such as logos – that are combine insights from precision livestock farming (PLF) placed on a product’s packaging to inform customers at the technologies (Berckmans, 2017; Vranken and Berckmans, moment of purchase that the product or producer complies with 2017) and e-commerce (Grewal et al., 2021; Verhoef et al., a predefined set of standards (Gracia et al., 2011). Labels are thus 2015). The approach relies therefore on PLF that use an integral part of the information used by consumers when environmental indicators, indicators in the housing system making purchase decisions about animal-based food products (e.g., ambient temperature measurements), and animal-based (Caswell and Padberg, 1992). indicators (e.g., accelerometers, cameras and computer vision, or AW labels include specific criteria pertaining to AW microphone-based systems) to generate data directly or standards and/or issues concerning the farming environment. indirectly related to AW issues (Neethirajan, 2020). As such, The organisations and institutions behind labels set standards, PLF offers real-time data on vital AW parameters, thus certify, control, and legitimise the labelling systems, based on generating a continuous, validated and potentially detailed state-of-the-art evidence from animal science and ethical stream of information about AW, as AW parameters are based principles. Developing the label itself and applying it to a on multiple data-points in time (Gó mez et al., 2021). To date, product seems like a simple task. However, the past few PLF instruments have mostly been used to manage on farm decades have shown that it is far from easy to have a strong processes like feed optimisation (Gó mez et al., 2021). As is effect on the market, as evidenced by the fact that the impact of currently examined in the EU-funded ClearFarm project, the AW labels is generally considered disappointing at best (cf., future use of PLF-data can extend beyond the farm by making Promarket, 2021; Forbes, 2021; BEUC, 2021). Different forms, the data, or more precisely the information originated from the names, multi-level systems and connections with well-known data, accessible to other users in the value chain. These users also brands, retailers and AW organisations like the RSPCA have, include AW labels, who can bring the information to the therefore, been introduced to increase their market shares. consumer, especially in a digital environment like is used for e- Nevertheless, in a large EU-wide consumer survey in 2016 commerce. While this approach perhaps would mean an ‘end to (Eurobarometer, 2016), 64% of respondents said they were not AW labelling as we know it’, it does give direction to how AW satisfied with the information provided, suggesting that labels can survive into the digital age, not only maintaining their consumers need more, or more specific, information about current effects, but potentially increasing them. AW issues. In response to this demand, the European In the remainder of the paper, we discuss the major problems Commission started to work on a new European wide, associated with AW labels at the consumer-level, as indicated by harmonised AW label (EU 2020, 2021). the existing literature. We use these insights to formulate several The innovations in AW labelling are paralleled by the questions included in our questionnaire. After explaining the thinking about labels in academic circles. Over time, authors methods and results, we conclude that all indicated problems have conducted specific studies to seek explanations and to persist to a substantial extent. In the last sections of the paper, improve the market shares of AW labels. This includes we discuss potential solutions to the problems in the era research on the ability of labels to increase transparency in the of digitalisation. market (Tregidga et al., 2019), into the extent to which the labels address underlying consumer concerns (de Jonge and van Trijp, 2013), into labels’ ability to influence consumers’ purchase decisions (Hawley et al., 2013) and into consumers’ willingness PROBLEMS WITH ANIMAL WELFARE to pay for products with increased AW standards (Lagerkvist and LABELLING FROM A CONSUMER Hess, 2011; Clark et al., 2017; van Riemsdijk et al., 2020). These PERSPECTIVE studies have, thus, identified a number of specific problems with AW labels at the consumer level, such as consumers’ trust in the For a long time, AW was seen as a ‘supply’ problem rather than a labels, confusion about their meaning and consumers’ price ‘demand’ problem. As several parts of Europe faced food sensitivity, while also providing insights into the barriers that shortages after the Second World War, policy makers aimed to may hinder AW labels from increasing their effects. secure the availability of adequate food in the future. Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 2 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? Accordingly, agriculture was intensified, with larger production Second, literature indicates that the differentiation of labels quantities per farm, while unit costs were decreased in parallel was overdone and that there are too many labels on the market (Fraser, 2008). In animal-based food sectors like pork, beef, veal that specifically target AW or at least integrate too many specific and poultry meat production, and dairy and egg production, the dimensions of it, making it impossible for consumers to oversee new policy focus had far-reaching consequences for the their meaning and to make decisions that truly reflect their conditions in which farm animals lived: they were kept in opinion (cf., Roosen et al., 2003; Miele and Evans, 2010). Thus, in smaller spaces, fed with feed to speed up growth and breeding contrast to making the market for animal-based products more practices were implemented that focused on adapting animals to transparent, labels were accused of doing the opposite, creating the husbandry systems (Fraser et al., 2001). confusion among consumers, because consumers were no longer Consumers initially enjoyed the great availability and the able to understand all their different meanings (Verbeke, 2005; associated price decreases of animal-based food products. Over Verbeke, 2008). As a result, the criticisms of labels as an effective time, however, concerns were raised about how farm animals instrument increase (Grunert et al., 2010). The question of how were treated (Blandford et al., 2002; Ufer et al., 2019). With post- consumers perceive the multitude of labels is therefore reasonable. war hunger still in mind, initiatives for setting legal standards for Third, it is probably not only the number of labels that is the cause AW stood little chance. The only option for changing the of consumer confusion, but also the complexity of the standards that conditions of animals was to differentiate supply and to make the labels stand for. When confronted with the actual indicators the differentiated animal-friendly options the preferable ones to measured to define the label, consumers are likely to discover that the the alternatives for consumers. The public understanding that way standards are set, and the level of the standards may be very emerged in the 1970s that animals also experience pain and different from what they had in mind. Several authors have therefore stress, suffer, rage, fear, apprehension, frustration, and pleasure argued that consumers often have an idealistic picture about livestock (Gonyou, 1994) probably fostered the transformation, at least in farming and the way in which, and how long animals are kept and part. Prominent examples are the growth of organic agriculture live, even if they are produced under improved AW standards (e.g., and the transformation of farm animal husbandry systems, such Boogaard et al., 2011; de Jonge and van Trijp, 2013). A simple as the transition from conventional laying hen cages to furnished example is the average life of a broiler, which is about 40 days for a cages, to cage-free system in Europe (cf., Ingenbleek et al., 2007). fast-growing ‘mainstream’ broiler, 56 days for one raised under the With animal-friendly product alternatives being available, the RSPCA standards and 81 days under an organic slow growing problem arose of how to convince consumers to buy them. From scheme (de Jonge and van Trijp, 2013, RSPCA, 2021). This may an economics point of view, the problem either was that dramatically differ from the idea of the ‘long and happy life’ that consumers were not ethical enough to purchase products with consumers may expect when purchasing animal-friendly products. increased AW characteristics or that the market failed to provide As such, AW labels may confuse consumers even more if they start consumers the information about AW levels of the alternative searching for additional information. products. Given that consumer studies indicated that consumers Fourth, some research has pointed out that explanations found AW important and were willing to pay for it (Lagerkvist about AW are not necessarily found in the information and Hess, 2011; van Riemsdijk et al., 2020), market failure was provision per se, but in the way in which consumers considered the more likely explanation (Frey and Pirscher, 2018). incorporate and process the information in their decision- The attention accordingly moved to creating awareness among making processes. Dual-process-theories (e.g., Strack and consumers. By providing a label on the product and making Deutsch, 2006; Gawronski and Creighton, 2013) suggest that consumers aware of them, consumers would – at least in theory – consumers make use of two distinctive decision-making systems, have everything at hand at the moment of purchase to make an generally known as ‘system 1’ and ‘system 2’. Following ‘system informed and presumably ethical choice. The effect of the labels 1’, consumers make decisions based on their intuition and/or was, however, often disappointing, leading to at least one easy-to-access cues from the environment, like prices tags, in- Minister of Food and Agriculture calling consumers store promotions and merchandising activities, information cues ‘hypocrites’ (Trouw, 2021). There are, therefore, several on the packages, brand names and the logos of other products in potential explanations for why labels in the market do not the shelves (Krampe Gier et al., 2018; Krampe et al., 2018). achieve what they aim at. Consumers using ‘system 2’, are expected to go through a more First, AW is a credence attribute and as such the actual value sophisticated reasoning process that requires more thinking, determined by the increased AW cannot be observed during the considering the benefits and risks related to a purchase purchase phase (by product inspection) nor during the decision. When it comes to food shopping, ‘system 1’ is usually consumption phase (by experiencing the product, such as the predominant system because consumers are often under time tasting it) (Verbeke, 2009). Consumers need therefore to trust pressure and because food purchases are associated with low (Krampe, et al., 2020) that animals were kept under the risks for consumers. Given that an average grocery shopping trip conditions promised by the label. Trust has thus become a takes about 33 minutes, the average grocery stores’ assortment frequently studied variable in literature on AW labelling (e.g., consists of approximately 40,000 units and the time consumers Tonkin et al., 2016). To get a picture on the state of AW labelling, look at a product is less than four seconds (Statista, 2021), well- the question of how confident consumers are that AW labels advertised discounts weigh heavily in the intuitive trade-off (Gier properly protect farm animals is therefore a logical first one. et al., 2020). Hence, it comes as no surprise that consumers arrive Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 3 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? at different decisions in the supermarket than when they are at 6. How innovative do you think the dairy/pig sector is in home answering questions about AW issues (also see literature improving animal welfare standards? on the ‘attitude-behaviour gap’; Hassan et al., 2016; Auger and Devinney, 2007; Vanhonacker et al., 2007). We therefore ask the The first five statements were examined on 5-point Likert question, whether consumers sometimes buy products that are not scale. However, as both, the pig and dairy sectors are considered labelled because they are on discount. as rather conservative and traditional production areas, less Fifth, while some have argued that labels lack effectiveness variance in consumer responses to the last two sub questions because there are too many of them, the opposite can also be of question 6, about the innovativeness of the sectors, was true. Because there is no such thing as ‘the’ consumer, but rather expected. We therefore decided to enlarge the 5-point Likert a heterogeneous group of consumers, it may be the case that scale to a 10-point Likert scale to increase the explained variance some find AW standards more important than others and are for both questions. therefore willing to pay more for products produced according to higher animal-welfare standards. Consumers may also differ in Sample the aspects of AW that they find important. The answer to this The data for this study are collected in four EU countries: Finland, issue would be to differentiate the supply, for example, in the Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. Drawing on the results from the different levels of AW, indicated by multi-level systems, such Eurobarometer (2016), the four countries appear interestingly as stars or traffic light symbols. In a study on broilers that positioned within the EU-27 on two important dimensions, investigated the multi-layer label ‘Beter Leven’ from the Dutch namely: the perceived need for AW information (on which Italy ‘Society for the Protection of Animals’, De Jonge and van Trijp scores highest, the Netherlands the lowest, and the other two (2013) found that the label would indeed lose market share if the countries take positions towards the middle with Spain labelling system would be simplified to one or two levels only, experiencing a considerably stronger need for information than because consumers differ in their levels of preferences for AW. Finland), and consumers’ use of AW labels in their purchase Hence, consumers may refrain from purchasing labelled decisions (for which the Netherlands is among the highest scoring products because they are not confident that the labels indeed countries in the EU, Spain among the lowest, and Finland and Italy reflect their own opinions about AW. take positions in the middle with Finland scoring higher than Italy). Sixth, rather than acting as an instrument to remove market As such the four countries together cover important variance imperfections, labels might be part of an innovation process in regarding consumers’ stated need for and use of AW information. which companies, labelling organisations, AW organisations and Within these countries, we selected main shoppers perhaps other value chain actors would continuously search for (responsible for the grocery purchases of their household) labels, brands and standards that tap into the preferences of below the age of forty. Age was used as a selection variable newly recognised market segments (Ingenbleek et al., 2013; because the relatively younger age groups are more likely to be Ingenbleek, 2011). The essential role of labelling would then confronted with future-focussed digital innovations than older become an innovation to actively create new markets for animal- age groups. Vegetarians, vegans, and people working in the areas friendly products. Against this background, it is important to ask of marketing, market research and agriculture were excluded consumers how they rate the innovative power of the sector in from the study, because they are known to have more introducing animal-friendly innovations. background knowledge, leading to stronger opinions on AW labelling (Verbeke, 2009). Following this procedure, 520 Finnish, 437 Dutch, 606 Italian and 529 Spanish consumers completed the questionnaire (2.433 in total). The mean age of the sample MATERIALS AND METHODS was 29.45 years (SD=6.16). The gender distribution was aligned with the gender distribution of main shoppers in the respective Based on the discussion above, we formulated six simple country: 53.5% women, 46.3% men and 0.2% diverse across all questions for a consumer survey. The questions were attached four European countries. 46% of the participants were employed, to a questionnaire developed for the ClearFarm project. As this 15.2% were unemployed and 38.8% indicated that they were in project focuses on dairy and pork, our questionnaire adopted education or following an apprenticeship, were entrepreneurs or these contexts. The following six statements were included in were retired. Most participants indicated that they eat animal- the questionnaire: based products, being 77.1%, whereas 22.9% indicated having a 1. I am confident that animal welfare labels properly protect farm flexitarian diet, meaning that they occasionally consume animal- animals. based products. 2. There are too many labels. Procedure 3. The labels on meat and dairy products sometimes confuse me. The questionnaire was developed in the English language and 4. I sometimes buy products that are not labelled because these subsequently translated into Finnish, Dutch, Spanish and Italian. products are discounted. To guarantee consistency and to detect possible translation 5. How confident are you that the labels set standards that are mistakes, the questionnaires were back translated. Moreover, prior consistent with the way you think farm animals should be to the actual data collection in the four European countries, the kept? questionnaires were pre-tested in online and face-to-face interviews Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 4 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? with five consumers. The feedback gained from the pre-test FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION interviews was considered when finalising the questionnaires. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part, The results are shown in Figures 1, 2. The first panel in Figure 1 consumers were provided with information about the aim of the (Q1), shows the results of the first statement, asking consumers study and educated about the privacy regulations that align with about their confidence that AW labels properly protect farm animals. EU privacy legislation. Afterwards, consumers were asked to The results show that, in general, consumers are confident that AW answer three selection questions with regards to age, gender and labels protect farm animals, indicated by the fact that 51% of the shopping responsibilities (see above). In the second part of the Finnish, 41% of the Dutch, 49% of the Spanish and 59% of the questionnaire, consumers were asked to answer some questions Italian consumers (completely) agreed with the statement. Dutch relevant to the ClearFarm project, before in the third and final consumers, however, seemed more sceptical compared to part of the questionnaire, consumers were provided with the six consumers in the three other European member states: less than questions described above in randomised order, as well as the half of the participants agreed with the statement. A possible mentioned demographic and socioeconomic questions. explanation is that the influence of AW organisations and activists is somewhat greater in the Netherlands due to the Data Collection business climate characterised by increased Dutch government The data collection was administered by the international market investment in NGOs (Ingenbleek et al., 2012; Dutch government, research company Kantar (kantar.com) in October and 2022). Overall, however, the results show that in three of the four November 2020. The used consumer panel is based on a portal European countries, the majority of consumers have a high level of that EU citizens can enrol in. This portal presents them with all confidence and trust in the AW labels. As such, the trustworthiness questionnaires available, and respondents are free to complete of AW labels does not seem to be a major issue for consumers. Still, the questionnaires in which they are interested. In the portal, the results may indicate the existence of critical consumer segments there is no information available about the subject of the that need more convincing data/information or control of the questionnaire: only the length of the survey and the incentives information process. provided are shown. By completing this questionnaire, The second panel (Q2) indicates consumers’ perceptions of the consumers received an incentive of 40 ‘LifePoints’, equivalent number of labels. The results indicate that consumers from the to €40 and which can be used to receive all kinds of benefits (e.g., Netherlands (49.5%) and Spain (42.7%) perceive the number of product vouchers). The data collection was completed labels on the market as ‘too many’. Comparatively, only a third simultaneously in all four European countries to minimise or less of Finnish (34.1%) and Italian consumers (24%) agreed time dependent interference. with the statement that there are too many labels. As the question FIGURE 1 | National results of the consumer questionnaire. Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 5 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? FIGURE 2 | Cross-national results of the consumer questionnaire. was asked about labels in general and not specifically about AW higher number of and more differentiated active AW labels, consumers were probably influenced by the number of organisations may explain this finding. sustainability, health, quality, and safety labels. As in the In response to the questions about the innovativeness of the Netherlands and Spain, there are only one independent, dairy and pig sectors (Q6), the results indicate that consumers national-wide AW certification scheme for meat and dairy (the across the four countries consider both sectors as moderately ‘Beter Leven keurmerk’ and ‘WelFair’ certification schemes). innovative. It appears, however, that consumers from southern When it comes to the confusion elicited by labels (standards), European countries (represented by Spain and Italy) consider the in Spain, almost half of the participants agreed with the sectors to be more innovative than consumers in northern statement of Q3 (47%), followed by Dutch (38%), Finnish European countries. The results further indicate that consumers (30%) and Italian (25%) consumers. A logical explanation for across the four European countries perceive the dairy sector as the higher number in Spain is that labelling schemes in Spain, more innovative than the pig sector. in accordance with autonomous regional legislation, differ In addition, to identify consumer segments beyond European between regions. Consequently, consumer confusion is country-driven effects, a two-step cluster analysis was conducted increased by the multiplicity of regional labels and the (Tkaczynski, 2017), using IBM SPSS Statistics [version 25, https:// associated labelling standards. www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software]. The variables When asking consumers whether they would also purchase included in the cluster analysis were the consumers answers to products that are not labelled, because they are on discount (Q4), the six-research questions. The two-step cluster analysis first uses a almost two third of the Finnish consumers indicated that they distance measure to separate groups and then a probabilistic would do so. This was followed by 54.7% of the Dutch consumers approach to choose the optimal subgroup model (cf., Benassi, and 44.4% of the Spanish consumers, but only 30.3% of the et al., 2020). The two-step cluster analysis determines the number Italian consumers. These results seem to show that consumers of clusters based on a statistical measure of fit rather than on an are somewhat less price sensitive in countries with a ‘stronger’ arbitrary choice, can handle categorical and continuous variables food culture, where food quality differences play a greater role in simultaneously, and can analyse atypical values (cf., Benassi et al., the evaluation of food products (cf., Askegaard and 2020). Data were standardised, converting raw data into z-values. Madsen, 1998). The standardised values were in the first step (pre-clustering) used When asking consumers about the consistency between the in a sequential approach to pre-cluster the cases based on the standards behind the labels and the way they think about farm definition of dense regions in the analysed attribute-space. In the animals should be kept (Q5), almost three quarters of the Italian second step (clustering), the pre-clusters are statistically merged in and Spanish consumers agreed with the statement. Comparatively, a stepwise way until all the observation clusters are in one cluster. 62.2% of the Dutch and 47.4% of the Finnish consumers thought Following this procedure, the results suggest a five-cluster solution. that labelling supported their reasoning of how farm animals The consumer clusters do not differ in the age, gender, or should be kept. The results indicate that consumers in the two education distribution, but show some important differences in northern European countries have stronger personal opinions terms of individual consumer perceptions of labelling (Figure 2). about how farm animals should be kept and a more critical The most discriminating factors pertain to the number of labels at stance on labels. The longer tradition in civic society and the the market (Q2), consumers’ confidence that the labels are in line Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 6 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? with their own welfare standards (Q5), the consumers’ confusion distributed across the identified four consumer segments, elicited by the labels (Q3), the perceived innovativeness of the leading to the conclusion there are individual driving forces sectors (Q6), the perceived consumers’ confidence that labelling that determine consumers’ opinions about AW labelling. approaches properly protect farm animals (Q1) and the consumers price sensitivity when purchasing AW products (Q4). The first cluster –the neutral consumer cluster, consisting of DISCUSSION 674 consumers (of which 31% are Finnish, 20.5% are Dutch, 20.2% are Spanish and 28.3% are Italian) is the largest clusters. Our findings should be interpreted in the light of the limitations of Consumers in this cluster have a relatively neutral opinion this study. First, while we have had the opportunity to question towards labelling approaches, while being confident that labels many consumers from four different EU member states, many protect farm animals. They see the livestock sectors as European countries are not included in the study. In particular, moderately innovative, do not feel overwhelmed by the Eastern Europe was not covered. Second, in our questionnaire, we number of existing labelling approaches and do not seem to addressed several issues regarding AW labelling that were raised in disagree nor agree with existing labelling approaches. the existing literature. It should be noted that addressing these issues The second cluster –the positive consumer cluster– consists of with single-item questions can often not address multi-dimensional 377 consumers (of which 16.2% are Finnish, 13% are Dutch, 24.4% labelling effects, mechanism and complexities that are explained in are Spanish and 46.4% are Italian). Consumers in this cluster the underlying literature. Such simplification seems an inevitable perceive the livestock farming sectors as more innovative than consequence of attempting coverage of all these issues at the same their peers in the first cluster. Consumers also display higher trust time within the budget constraints of an expensive international that the labels fulfil their personal AW requirements but are less consumer survey. certain about whether labels generally protect the AW of Bearing these limitations in mind, several important insights farm animals. can be derived from the results. First, none of the questions The third cluster –the critical consumer cluster– consisting of shows extreme scores, indicating that a particular problem may 475 consumers (of which 20.6% are Finnish, 30.7% are Dutch, have been solved. The problems stated in the literature therefore 24% are Spanish and 24.6% are Italian), displays a rather critical persist to at least some considerable degree for a fair share of the group of consumers who are confused by the (number of) labels consumers who answered the questionnaire. Second, while we do and have a high disbelieve that AW labels protect AW of farm find some country-related differences, these differences are not animals. They also see the innovativeness of the livestock sectors extreme. As such, the issues with AW labels at the consumer- as low. level identified in the literature are not restricted to some The fourth cluster –the innovation-recognition consumer national environments without having relevance for other cluster– consists of 499 consumers (of which 22.8% are Finnish, countries. Third, while the sample of consumers used in this 32.1% are Dutch, 29.5% are Spanish and 15.6% are Italian) who study is clearly highly heterogeneous in how they perceive some perceive the livestock farming sectors as extremely innovative. In of the problems with labelling, the cluster analysis shows that addition, these consumers believe that the labelling standards are they can be grouped according to their individual perceptions. consistent with the way they would like farm animals to be kept. This means that interventions to remove some of the problems Moreover, the multitude of labels does not confuse them. are likely to be effective with some groups, but not with all The fifth cluster –the confused consumer cluster– consists of consumers. Fourth, the segments we identified are found in all 408 consumers (of which 20.8% are Finnish, 25.2% are Dutch, EU Member States and in all age and gender groups, suggesting 34.8% are Spanish and 19.1% are Italian) who believe that there that country, age, education, or gender are not the only are too many labels that sometimes confuses them. Nevertheless, discriminating factors, but that there might be other consumers assigned to this cluster display a high believe that the influencing factors, such as income or individual consumer labelling approaches protects farm animals and that they are perceptions. This means that policies to improve AW labelling consistent in the way farm animals should be kept. They also may not need a nationality, age, gender, or education dependent believe that both the dairy and pig sector are innovative, but also approach, but rather a segmented marketing approach in which admit being price sensitive in their shopping decisions for various market segments are addressed that live in different parts AW products. of the EU and that may have more in common (i.e., a similar The results confirm that interpreting country-specific results perception of AW labelling) with each other than with other alone can be misleading, as the way consumers view AW labels segments that happen to live in the same country or be in the also differs between cross-border consumer segments. However, same age group. some country-driven findings return in the cluster analysis. For the EU initiative to implement a new AW label, our Consumers from Spain are, for example, more present in the results present both promising news, but they also cast a few clusters that perceive animal husbandry as more innovative and doubts. First, as our results indicate that opinions on AW are not who believe that the labelling standards are consistent with the strongly country-dependent, a European cross-country initiative way they would like farm animals to be kept. Finally, consumers’ seems a logical direction to take. At the same time, a warning age, gender and education do not seem to be driving forces in the should be placed about high within-country variance, which is labelling perception, given that age and gender are evenly not dependent on demographical variables, such as age and Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 7 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? gender. A new label is unlikely to have the desired effect on all therefore, have the autonomy to monitor compliance with AW consumers. In particular, concerning the results regarding standards themselves at any time in the (pre, during and post) confusion, one may question whether adding a new label to purchase process, or an animal welfare organisation they support the existing set of labels is the right approach, or whether and trust can do so on their behalf. This secures trust in the integrating AW in broader labelling approaches is likely to be labelling and food system as a whole (Kang and Hustvedt, 2014), more fruitful. Finally, our study indicated some problems that a as consumers have the possibility to access validated PLF-based new label is unlikely to address, such as the price sensitivity issue. information at any time via the system. Even if the new label were to be successfully implemented, it would be unlikely to solve all persisting problems regarding AW Overcoming the Mismatch Between labelling at the consumer-level simply because it would add an Consumer Preferences and AW Standards instrument that, overall, would likely have more similarities than The use of PLF data converted into meaningful information at differences with existing labels on the market. Therefore, it would the consumer level can potentially solve another persistent likely encounter the same problems as already existing labels. problem: the mismatch between the standards used by Hence, in general, the results cast doubt on the idea that AW labelling systems and the way consumers perceive how animals labels in their current form can increase their effect on the should be treated. Our data indicates that there are still market substantially. substantial groups of consumers who see this as a problem. Therefore, below, we explore how AW related data converted The solution to this problem can be found by simply allowing into information and integrated with e-commerce can provide consumers to set their own AW standards, if they want to. In a opportunities for ensuring trust in labelling systems, bridging the system that is based on PLF data, all that is needed is an gap between consumer preferences and AW standards, end application based on a database in which consumers can set consumers confusion about labelling, solve the problem of their individual AW preferences. The parameters may include price sensitivity and develop AW innovation in the supply the traditional factors that certification systems use to determine chain, thus offering contemporary solutions to the problems whether a farm qualifies for a label, but they may also include that still exist in relation to AW labelling. It should therefore be indicators that are of individual relevance for consumers to find evident that our study broadens the scope of using PLF (data) to the products, providers, or livestock systems that stand out manage and optimise on-farm processes, demonstrating the positively, as proposed in the concept of positive welfare benefits to integrate these data to inform consumers and other (Yeates and Main, 2008). The consumers’ personal standards stakeholders in the value chain. can then be compared to the actual AW performance of an underlying product in the database. This may be done at the level of a supply chain, farm or even the individual farm animal, depending on the data that are available. Hereafter, we refer to IMPLICATIONS: DATA-BASED this as a selection system. SOLUTIONS FOR PERSISTING In the supermarket setting, the results of the comparison in the LABELLING PROBLEMS selection system may be communicated by a simple green or red light on a mobile phone application that consumers use to scan Securing Trust products. This reduces the complexity of AW information provided Although trust does not seem to be the most widespread problem at the point-of-sale. Alternatively, retailers could build such systems in our data, the results on trust are alarming in that despite all the inside smart shopping trollies or self-service price scanning devices efforts to establish AW assurance schemes, a substantial share of to account for individual consumer demands (Larson, 2019). In an the consumers still do not trust them. A likely explanation is that online environment, the comparison between preferences for AW the incidents and excesses of violations of AW standards are and performance in AW would be even easier to establish because often brought to the attention of the public without further the entire purchasing process occurs online, allowing consumers to context. The underlying problem of why such incidents occur is ‘filter’ their shopping baskets based on the indicated, personalised that control of compliance with standards that are mostly based preferences. Considering that filtering based on personal on housing systems and management is still labour-intensive and preferences is already a common service for customers in other expensive (cf., Woodhouse, 2010). The data from the farming areas of e-commerce, such as insurance, energy, finance, environment can create a solution here. Through such data the telecommunication, and travel; and the fact that about 36% of claims of AW labels can be substantiated by precise (real-time) Dutch consumers do their grocery shopping online even before the information on AW parameters at the farm-level or even at the Covid-19 pandemic (Statista, 2022), online shopping might be the level of the individual animals by providing consumers status quo in future retailing, once again pointing to the need for information before, during or after purchase (e.g., using innovative, technology-based labelling solutions. A potential pitfall smartphones or in-store terminal applications). Given the ways of the solution, of course, is that it requires consumers to actively in which consumers make decisions about food products, it is input and indicate their preferences in the selection system on topics unlikely that many consumers will make frequent use of the they are unlikely to have heard of, let alone have opinions on, like information provided, but perhaps that is not the point. The tail-biting pigs, lameness in cows and stress levels in laying hens, for point is that they can use the information if they want to and, example. Here, a simple solution is that consumers need not form Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 8 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? opinions about each parameter themselves, but adopt the standards First, after entering their preferences in the selection system, of organisations, institutions, or someone they trust (cf., Cheung and consumers may see a restricted number of products for them to Lee, 2006). This can be the organic community, the RSPCA, Jamie consider. This probably works particularly well in an online Oliver, Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, Greta Thunberg or any other context, which is usually designed for consumers to make their organisation or role model that people respect and identify with. purchases as efficiently as possible. If they voluntarily agree to With a simple click, these pre-defined sets of preferences may be limit their options to those that meet their preferences, they can adopted and used, and at whatever point in time a consumer wishes easily pick their products from the options available without later to deviate, they can change back to their personal preferences. An regretting their decisions. In a physical, offline supermarket, this interesting side-effect is that farmers and companies in the chain can process will be more difficult. Stores are often designed to keep use the information form the selection system to obtain a better consumers in the supermarket as long as possible to bring understanding of their customers’ preferences, allowing them to promotions and more expensive products to their attention. produce matching AW levels and predict demands. Being confronted with one’s self-determined limitations may then be perceived as annoying. Those who persist purchasing the Ending the Confusion items that fit their AW preferences may, over time, develop A selection system will solve at least some of the confusion purchasing routines, thus leading to the desired behaviour pertaining to labels (Krampe, et al., 2021). This is for the simple change. Retailers can also foster those developments by reason that labels as we know them would cease to exist. They integrating innovative technology at the point-of-sale, which might transform into organisations that advise consumers about allow consumers to select their preferred products via their the standards that they may use in their selection system. At the smartphone devices, for example using the beacon technology same time, when the confusion about labels is removed, it can that allows to transmit Bluetooth signals/information to give way to another source of confusion, namely, between consumers’ mobile smart(phone) devices in a specific area, organisations and individuals that inform consumers on which such as in the supermarket (van De Sanden, et al., 2019). standards to use. The underlying problem, that AW is in fact too The system may potentially offer another incentive to help technical for most consumers to form opinions about, is after all consumers stick to their indicated preferences, namely by not solved and probably inevitable to some extent. There could providing feedback after purchases, for example by sending potentially be many influencers. One way to prevent new them weekly or bi-weekly feedback reports about how their confusion is to allow only a limited number of advisory purchases match their criteria and giving them concrete ‘standard setters’ in the selection system that consumers can suggestions for alternative products to improve their (AW) choose from. The debate will than focus more on which performance. Currently, however, AW labels are mostly ‘standard setters’ should have access to the system than on the presented to consumers in the purchase stage. So, adding a standards themselves. The system would become less selection system to increase the emphasis or even shift it to the democratic though. pre-purchase stage might complete the customer journey (cf., Our results on confusion about AW labels may be affected by Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). The post-purchase stage is also an the presence of many other labels in the market, pertaining to the unexplored territory where AW and other sustainability aspects environment, fair trade, nutritional value, food safety and other could also play a role through the provision of the feedback aspects. The selection systems sketched out above are not limited reports. Consumers could share their performance on social to AW, of course, but are much more likely to succeed if they media. By showing how well they perform, they could inspire incorporate all important aspects of nutritious, healthy their friends and acquaintances to improve their performances sustainable food or price issues. Having one system that and establish new social norms about what is acceptable in terms includes different sections in which consumers can indicate of AW (cf., Melnyk et al., 2019). their preferences will probably limit the confusion. Currently, an eco-score system for food is being developed along the same Innovation to Trade AW Up lines as the nutri-score system, which has been implemented in According to our findings, consumers perceive the innovative several European countries (Chantal and Hercberg, 2017; De capacity of the dairy and pig sectors as moderate. The selection Bauw et al., 2021). The integration of such a system leads to system as described above can provide another push to debates that focus on whether or not, and if so how, the different innovation, not only on the consumer side, but also along the scores should be presented or merged into a single score (Julia, supply chain. If companies in the supply chain were to get access 2020). This movement (the integration of additional consumer to the information from the selection system and consumers demands related to sustainability) seems a logical candidate to would at least stick to what they promised to a reasonable extent, evolve into a selection system that could also include AW scores. companies would know what to bring to markets and farmers would know at which welfare levels they should keep their Bringing the Price-Sensitivity Problem animals without wondering too much whether there would be to a Halt a market for their products. Such information, therefore, The price sensitivity of ‘hypocritic’ consumers that want animals considerably lower the investment risks for farmers and other to be treated well but do not want to pay for it in a shopping companies along the value chain. In addition, the information context is perhaps the most persistent problem. The selection may help them to find new market segments. For example, system can potentially help to solve the price sensitivity problem. farmers can possibly discover a group of consumers in their Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 9 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? neighbourhood with AW demands that are too specific for sales new solutions to incorporate animal product labelling into the through a supermarket, but feasible for sales through local entire consumer purchase process (including the pre-, during butchers. This would create shorter supply chains and involve and post-purchase phases). Companies, governments, NGOs, direct connections between consumers and farmers as an farmers, and other supply chain actors together have the agency innovative business model. Such innovations could therefore to bend the process of market innovation in different directions, create upward competition in which welfare standards increase leading to different outcomes with different roles of AW every time an entrepreneur found another market segment to labelling. To accomplish their mission more successfully, serve at higher standards. perhaps AW labels should evolve into something that we would no longer recognise as AW labels. FUTURE RESEARCH AND FINAL CONSIDERATIONS DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Our study also raises some additional questions that can be explored in future research. Although some potential PLF-based The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be indicators have been identified that could be incorporated into the made available by the authors, without undue reservation. selection system, the question remains whether and how the data generated can provide reliable and validated information. In addition, future research should identify the ‘standard setters’ ETHICS STATEMENT that should have access to the selection system. From a traditional economic perspective, the added value of sharing PLF Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on data is benefits minus costs, a view that indicates the importance of human participants in accordance with the local legislation and perceived costs and risks in explaining the primary (data) institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided producers’ preference formation for adopting innovations. It is their written informed consent to participate in this study. therefore crucial to also consider the perspective of primary (data) producers on the selection system in future research. The scenario outlined here for overcoming the persistent AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS problems at consumer level related to AW labelling is undoubtedly futuristic. For supermarkets, cheap meat can, for Conceptualisation, PI and CK; methodology, CK and PI; formal example, be a strong instrument for attracting consumers to their analysis, CK and PI; writing, PI and CK. Both authors have read stores. Supermarkets are currently in a position in the chain that and agreed to the current version of the manuscript. allows them to ignore or even obstruct the implementation of a selection system. In addition, many consumers will not be eager to adopt a selection system right away, as they may consider it FUNDING too different from their current ways of purchasing groceries. Traditionally, such radical innovations would be implemented The project was part of the ClearFarm project and has received from north to south as a ‘waterfall’ strategy, assuming that the funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and most innovative consumers are in the north and the most innovation program, under grant agreement No. 862919 (www. conservative in the south (Kalish et al., 1995). Our findings, cleafarm.eu). however, show that market segments exist across the four countries examined here, suggesting that innovativeness is not just determined by hemisphere, but by other factors. A ‘sprinkler’ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS strategy to disseminate the innovation therefore seems more fitting, introducing the innovation in several countries, in places The authors would like to thank the ClearFarm consortium for where it would be promising and grow further from these centres the interesting and fruitful discussions that took place over the out, towards the peripheries (Kalish et al., 1995). The course of developing the assigned research work. Especially, we transformation of markets for animal-based food will not would like to thank Jarkko Niemi, Greta Berteselli and Jordi happen overnight, but PLF and the integration of PLF-data Serratosa Vilageliu who were involved in translating and into e-commerce and supply chain management certainly offer validating the questionnaire in Finland, Spain, and Italy. REFERENCES Auger, P., and Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences With Unconstrained Ethical Intentions. Askegaard, S., and Madsen, T. K. (1998). The Local and the Global: Exploring J. Business Ethics 76 (4), 361–383. doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9287-y Traits of Homogeneity and Heterogeneity in European Food Cultures. Int. Benassi, M., Garofalo, S., Ambrosini, F., Sant’Angelo, R. P., Raggini, R., De Business Rev. 7 (6), 549–568. doi: 10.1016/S0969-5931(98)00028-6 Paoli, G., et al. (2020). Using Two-Step Cluster Analysis and Latent Class Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 10 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? Cluster Analysis to Classify the Cognitive Heterogeneity of Cross- Gier, N. R., Strelow, E., and Krampe, C. (2020). Measuring dlPFC Signals to Diagnostic Psychiatric Inpatients. Front. Psychol. 11.1085 doi: 10.3389/ Predict the Success of Merchandising Elements at the Point-Of-Sale–A fNIRS fpsyg.2020.01085 Approach. Front. Neurosci. 14. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.575494 Berckmans, D. (2017). General Introduction to Precision Livestock Farming. Goiana-da-Silva, F., Cruz-e-Silva, D., Miraldo, M., Calhau, C., Bento, A., Cruz, D., Anim. Front. 7 (1), 6–11. doi: 10.2527/af.2017.0102 et al. (2019). Front-Of-Pack Labelling Policies and the Need for Guidance. BEUC - the European Consumer Organisation (2021). Available at: https://www. Lancet Public Health 4 (1), 15. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30256-1 beuc.eu/publications/front-pack-nutrition-labelling-eu-member-states-fail- Gó mez, Y., Stygar, A. H., Boumans, I. J., Bokkers, E. A., Pedersen, L. J., Niemi, J. K., reach-consensus/html (Accessed November 1, 2021). et al. (2021). A Systematic Review on Validated Precision Livestock Farming Blandford, D., Bureau, J. C., Fulponi, L., and Henson, S. (2002). “Potential Technologies for Pig Production and its Potential to Assess Animal Welfare. Implications of Animal Welfare Concerns and Public Policies in Front. Veterinary Sci. 8. Industrialized Countries for International Trade,” in Global Food Trade and Gonyou, H. W. (1994). Why the Study of Animal Behavior is Associated With the Consumer Demand for Quality (Boston, MA: Springer), 77–99. Animal Welfare Issue. J. Anim. Sci. 72 (8), 2171–2177. doi: 10.2527/ Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., Bock, B. B., and Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2011). The 1994.7282171x Sociocultural Sustainability of Livestock Farming: An Inquiry Into Social Gracia, A., Loureiro, M. L., and Nayga, R. (2011). Valuing an EU Animal Welfare Perceptions of Dairy Farming. Animal 5 (9), 1458–1466. doi: 10.1017/ Label Using Experimental Auctions. Agric. Econ. 42 (6), 669–677. doi: 10.1111/ S1751731111000371 j.1574-0862.2011.00543.x Caswell, J. A., and Padberg, D. I. (1992). Toward A More Comprehensive Theory Grewal, D., Gauri, D. K., Roggeveen, A. L., and Sethuraman, R. (2021). Strategizing of Food Labels. American journal of agricultural economics 74 (2), 460–468. Retailing in the New Technology Era. J. Retailing 97 (1), 6–12. doi: 10.1016/ Chantal, J., and Hercberg, S. (2017). Development of a New Front-Of-Pack j.jretai.2021.02.004 Nutrition Label in France: The Five-Colour Nutri-Score. Public Health Grunert, K. G., Ferná ndez-Celemı́n, L., Wills, J. M., Storckdieck, S., and Nureeva, Panorama 3 (04), 712–725. L. (2010). Use and Understanding of Nutrition Information on Food Labels in Cheung, C. M., and Lee, M. K. (2006). Understanding Consumer Trust in Internet Six European Countries. J. Public Health 18 (3), 261–277. doi: 10.1007/s10389- Shopping: A Multidisciplinary Approach. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 57 (4), 009-0307-0 479–492. doi: 10.1002/asi.20312 Grunert, K. G., and Wills, J. M. (2007). A Review of European Research on Clark, B., Stewar, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., and Frewer, L. J. (2017). Consumer Response to Nutrition Information on Food Labels. J. Public Health Citizens, Consumers and Farm Animal Welfare: A Meta-Analysis of 15 (5), 385–399. doi: 10.1007/s10389-007-0101-9 Willingness-To-Pay Studies. Food Policy 68, 112–127. doi: 10.1016/ Hassan, L. M., Shiu, E., and Shaw, D. (2016). Who Says There is an Intention– j.foodpol.2017.01.006 Behaviour Gap? Assessing the Empirical Evidence of an Intention–Behaviour Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance Gap in Ethical Consumption. J. Business Ethics 136 (2), 219–236. doi: 10.1007/ of Information Technology. MIS Q. 13 (3), 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008 s10551-014-2440-0 De Bauw, M., Matthys, C., Poppe, V., Franssens, S., and Vranken, L. (2021). A Hawley, K. L., Roberto, C. A., Bragg, M. A., Liu, P. J., Schwartz, M. B., and Combined Nutri-Score and ‘Eco-Score’approach for More Nutritious and Brownell, K. D. (2013). The Science on Front-Of-Package Food Labels. Public More Environmentally Friendly Food Choices? Evidence From a Consumer Health Nutr. 16 (3), 430–439. doi: 10.1017/S1368980012000754 Experiment in Belgium. Food Qual. Pref. 93, 104276. doi: 10.1016/ Ingenbleek, P. T. (2011). Resource-Advantage Competition: Sustainable or Not, j.foodqual.2021.104276 Legends in Marketing. Resource-advantage Theory Dev. Period 9, 276–284. de Jonge, J., and van Trijp, H. C. (2013). The impact of Broiler Production System Ingenbleek, P., Binnekamp, M., and Goddijn, S. (2007). Setting Standards for CSR: Practices on Consumer Perceptions of Animal Welfare. Poultry Science. 92 A Comparative Case Study on Criteria-Formulating Organizations. J. Business (12), 3080–3095. Res. 60 (5), 539–548. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.01.004 Dutch government (2022). Available at: https://www.government.nl/topics/ Ingenbleek, P. T., Immink, V. M., Spoolder, H. A., Bokma, M. H., and Keeling, L. J. international-organisations/netherlands-as-host-country (Accessed March (2012). EU Animal Welfare Policy: Developing a Comprehensive Policy 18, 2022). Framework. Food Policy 37 (6), 690–699. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.001 eu2020.de (2021). Available at: https://www.eu2020.de/eu2020-en/news/ Ingenbleek, P., Harvey, D., Ilieski, V., Immink, V. M., De Roest, K., and Schmid, O. pressemitteilungen/animal-welfare-kloeckner-eu/2427904 (Accessed October (2013). The European Market for Animal-friendly Products in A Societal 3, 2021). Context. Animals. 3 (3), 808–829. Eurobarometer (2016). Available at: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/ Julia, C. (2020). The Nutri-Score in France and Beyond: Development, Validation detail/2096 (Accessed September 25, 2021). and Transfer. Eur. J. Public Health 30, 165–003. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ European Parliament and Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research ckaa165.003 Services, Karamfilova, E. (2021)Animal Welfare on the Farm, Ex-Post Kalish, S., Mahajan, V., and Muller, E. (1995). Waterfall and Sprinkler New- Evaluation of the EU Legislation: Prospects for Animal Welfare Labelling at Product Strategies in Competitive Global Markets. Int. J. Res. Marketing 12 (2), EU Level. In: (European Parliament) (Accessed March 29, 2022). 105–119. doi: 10.1016/0167-8116(94)00008-C Europe.eu (2021a). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/animal- Kang, J., and Hustvedt, G. (2014). Building Trust Between Consumers and welfare/other-aspects-animal-welfare/animal-welfare-labelling_en (Accessed Corporations: The Role of Consumer Perceptions of Transparency and September 28, 2021). Social Responsibility. J. Business Ethics 125 (2), 253–265. doi: 10.1007/ Europe.eu (2021b). Available at: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/about/ s10551-013-1916-7 eurobarometer (Accessed September, 28, 2021). Krampe, C., Gier, N. R., and Kenning, P. (2018). The Application of Mobile fNIRS Forbes (2021). Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/ in Marketing Research—Detecting the “First-Choice-Brand” Effect. Front. 04/18/the-surprising-failure-of-food-labeling/?sh=171221883f8b (Accessed Hum. Neurosci. 52, 12:244–259, 433. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00433 November 11, 2021). Krampe, C., Serratosa, J., Niemi, J. K., and Ingenbleek, P. (2021). Consumer Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica Perceptions of Precision Livestock Farming—a Qualitative Study in Three 50 (1), 1–7. doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1 European Countries. Animals 11 (5).1221 Fraser, D., Mench, J., and Millman, S. (2001). Farm Animals and Their Welfare in Krampe, C., Strelow, E., Haas, A., and Kenning, P. (2018). The Application of 2000. The State of the Animals 2001. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press. Mobile fNIRS to “Shopper Neuroscience”–First Insights From a 87–99. Merchandising Communication Study. Eur. J. Marketing. Frey, U. J., and Pirscher, F. (2018). Willingness to Pay and Moral Stance: The Case Lagerkvist, C. J., and Hess, S. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of Consumer Willingness to of Farm Animal Welfare in Germany. PLoS One 13 (8). doi: 10.1371/ Pay for Farm Animal Welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38 (1), 55–78. journal.pone.0202193 doi: 10.1093/erae/jbq043 Gawronski, B., and Creighton, L. A. (2013). “Dual Process Theories,” in Handbook Larson, R. B. (2019). Supermarket Self-Checkout Usage in the United States. Serv. of Social Cognition, Oxford University Press. 282–312. Marketing Q. 40 (2), 141–156. doi: 10.1080/15332969.2019.1592861 Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 11 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893 Ingenbleek and Krampe The End of Animal Welfare Labelling? Lemon, K. N., and Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding Customer Experience Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., and Tuyttens, F. A. (2007). Throughout the Customer Journey. J. Marketing 80 (6), 69–96. doi: 10.1509/ Segmentation Based on Consumers' Perceived Importance and Attitude jm.15.0420 Toward Farm Animal Welfare. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 15 (3), 91–107. Roosen, J., Lusk, J. L., and Fox, J. A. (2003). Consumer Demand for and Attitudes van Riemsdijk, L., Ingenbleek, P. T., Houthuijs, M., and van Trijp, H. C. (2017). Toward Alternative Beef Labeling Strategies in France, Germany, and the Strategies for Positioning Animal Welfare as Personally Relevant. Br. Food J. 7 United Kingdom. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 19 (1), 77–90. doi: 10.1111/1467-8276. (12), 98. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-10-2016-0514 00100 van Riemsdijk, L., Ingenbleek, P. T., van der Veen, G., and van Trijp, H. C. (2020). McInerney, J. (2004). Animal Welfare, Economics, and Policy. Rep. study Positioning Strategies for Animal-Friendly Products: A Social Dilemma undertaken Farm Anim. Health Econ. Division Defra 68. Approach. J. Consumer Affairs 54 (1), 100–129. doi: 10.1111/joca.12240 Melnyk, V., Van Herpen, E., Jak, S., and Van Trijp, H. C. (2019). The Mechanisms Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bock, B., and Roe, E. (2008) European Approaches to of Social Norms’ Influence on Consumer Decision Making. Z. für Psychologie. Ensure Good Animal Welfare. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 113, 279–297. Miele, M., and Evans, A. (2010). When Foods Become Animals: Ruminations on doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008 Ethics and Responsibility in Care-Full Practices of Consumption. Ethics Place Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the Food Industry in the Information Age. Environ. 13 (2), 171–190. doi: 10.1080/13668791003778842 Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 32 (3), 347–368. doi: 10.1093/eurrag/jbi017 Milanovic, B. (2019). “3. Political Capitalism,” in Capitalism, Alone (Harvard Verbeke, W. (2008). Impact of Communication on Consumers’ Food Choices. University Press), 67–128. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 67 (3), 281–288. doi: 10.1017/S0029665108007179 Neethirajan, S. (2020). Transforming the Adaptation Physiology of Farm Animals Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, Citizen and Consumer Interests in Farm Animal Through Sensors. Animals 10 (9)1512. doi: 10.3390/ani10091512 Welfare. Anim. Welfare 18 (4), 325–333. Promarket. Available at: https://promarket.org/2016/06/28/surprising-failure- Verhoef, P. C., Kannan, P. K., and Inman, J. J. (2015). From Multi-Channel food-labeling/ (Accessed November 2021). Retailing to Omni-Channel Retailing: Introduction to the Special Issue on RSPCA - Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (2021). Available Multi-Channel Retailing. J. Retailing 91 (2), 174–181. doi: 10.1016/ at: https://science.rspca.org.uk/documents/1494935/9042554/RSPCA+welfare j.jretai.2015.02.005 +standards+for+meat+chickens+%288.48+MB%29.pdf/e7f9830d-aa9e-0908- Verhoef, P. C., Lemon, K. N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., and aebd-2b8fbc6262ea?t=1557668435000 (Accessed October 29, 2021). Schlesinger, L. A. (2009). Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Siegrist, M., and Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer Acceptance of Novel Food Dynamics and Management Strategies. J. Retailing 85 (1), 31–41. Technologies. Nat. Food 1 (6), 343–350. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x doi: 10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.001 Sowery, K. (2018). Sentient Beings and Tradable Products: The Curious Vranken, E., and Berckmans, D. (2017). Precision Livestock Farming for Pigs. Constitutional Status of Animals Under Union Law. Common Market Law Anim. Front. 7 (1), 32–37. doi: 10.2527/af.2017.0106 Rev. 55 (1). doi: 10.54648/COLA2018003 Weinrich, R., and Spiller, A. (2016). Developing Food Labelling Strategies: Multi- Statista (2021). Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/984396/grocery- Level Labelling. J. Cleaner Prod. 137, 1138–1148. doi: 10.1016/ store-dwell-time-western-region-us/ (Accessed October 15, 2021). j.jclepro.2016.07.156 Statista (2022). Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/915391/e- Woodhouse, P. (2010). Beyond Industrial Agriculture? Some Questions About commerce-purchase-rate-of-food-or-groceries-in-europe-by-country/ Farm Size, Productivity and Sustainability. J. Agrarian Change 10 (3), 437–453. (Accessed May 12, 2022). doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0366.2010.00278.x Strack, F., and Deutsch, R. (2006). Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Xi, N., and Hamari, J. (2020). Does Gamification Affect Brand Engagement and Consumer Behavior. J. Consumer Psychol. 16 (3), 205–216. doi: 10.1207/ Equity? A Study in Online Brand Communities. J. Business Res. 109, 449–460. s15327663jcp1603_2 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.058 Stygar, A., Krampe, C., Llonch, P., and Niemi, J. (2022). How Far are We From Yeates, J. W., and Main, D. C. (2008). Assessment of Positive Welfare: A Review. Data-Driven and Animal-Based Welfare Assessment? A Critical Analysis of Veterinary J. 175 (3), 293–300. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009 European Quality Schemes. Front. Anim. Sci. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.874260 Zuolo, F. (2016). Dignity and Animals. Does It Make Sense to Apply the Concept of Tkaczynski, A. (2017). “Segmentation Using Two-Step Cluster Analysis,” in Dignity to All Sentient Beings? Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 19 (5), 1117–1130. Segmentation in Social Marketing (Singapore: Springer), 109–125. Tonkin, E., Meyer, S. B., Coveney, J., Webb, T., and Wilson, A. M. (2016). The Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the Process of Making Trust Related Judgements Through Interaction With Food absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a Labelling. Food Policy 63, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.06.007 potential conflict of interest. Tregidga, H., Kearins, K., and Collins, E. (2019). Towards Transparency? Analysing the Sustainability Governance Practices of Ethical Certification. Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors Soc. Environ. Account. J. 39 (1), 44–69. doi: 10.1080/0969160X.2019. and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of 1568276 the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in Trouw (2021). Available at: https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/veerman-ten-strijde- this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or tegen-hypocriete-burger~b4744687/ (Accessed November 19, 2021). endorsed by the publisher. Ufer, D., Ortega, D. L., and Wolf, C. A. (2019). Economic Foundations for the Use of Biotechnology to Improve Farm Animal Welfare. Trends Food Sci. Technol. Copyright © 2022 Ingenbleek and Krampe. This is an open-access article distributed 91, 129–138. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.002 under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, van De Sanden, S., Willems, K., and Brengman, M. (2019). In-Store Location- distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author Based Marketing With Beacons: From Inflated Expectations to Smart Use in (s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this Retailing. J. Marketing Manage. 35 (15-16), 1514–1541. doi: 10.1080/ journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or 0267257X.2019.1689154 reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Animal Science | www.frontiersin.org 12 June 2022 | Volume 3 | Article 819893