Congrats on the big win! Do you think that companies that export animal products are more willing to adopt cage-free practices? What I’m curious about is whether a fully domestic supplier would be less willing to go cage-free.
I think the article you mentioned you’ll publish in response to @Thomas B. ’s comment would likely shed some light.
But here’s what I’m wondering at the moment (and I may not be representing the argument 100% accurately):
What ACTAsia found was that corporate cage-free policy requires the end-consumer to have some sort of baseline concern for the welfare conditions of their eggs. Of which, they argue, there’s a lack in China.
Without a large enough baseline care for welfare conditions, there isn’t much pressure on the corporation, and there’s more social ostracization pressure on activists trying to make cage-free happen. However, ACTAsia found that a fur-free intervention through the fashion industry was a pullable lever to start cementing an animal welfare foundation in China.
Interesting observation reg. end-consumer’s concern for welfare and the lack thereof in China—what’s the research you’re basing this on? What’s the year, sample size, city, and research methodology? Note that I’m not discrediting your statement; I just want to understand the context and details that led to such a conclusion.
Very happy to hear that ACTAsia found an angle that works to 1) combat animal fur in the fashion industry and 2) raise awareness of animal welfare in China!!
Congrats on the big win! Do you think that companies that export animal products are more willing to adopt cage-free practices? What I’m curious about is whether a fully domestic supplier would be less willing to go cage-free.
Hi Shanil! Great seeing you at AVA! As far as I know, there hasn’t been a huge difference. Is there anything you saw that shows otherwise?
Great seeing you at AVA too Whitney!
I think the article you mentioned you’ll publish in response to @Thomas B. ’s comment would likely shed some light.
But here’s what I’m wondering at the moment (and I may not be representing the argument 100% accurately):
What ACTAsia found was that corporate cage-free policy requires the end-consumer to have some sort of baseline concern for the welfare conditions of their eggs. Of which, they argue, there’s a lack in China.
Without a large enough baseline care for welfare conditions, there isn’t much pressure on the corporation, and there’s more social ostracization pressure on activists trying to make cage-free happen. However, ACTAsia found that a fur-free intervention through the fashion industry was a pullable lever to start cementing an animal welfare foundation in China.
Looking forward to learning more!
Hi Shanil—hope this finds you well! Appreciate your patience—please check out my latest post here: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/KFxtrXLByPfWBtEmz/85-of-major-hotels-groups-and-80-of-restaurant-chains?utm_campaign=post_share&utm_source=link
Interesting observation reg. end-consumer’s concern for welfare and the lack thereof in China—what’s the research you’re basing this on? What’s the year, sample size, city, and research methodology? Note that I’m not discrediting your statement; I just want to understand the context and details that led to such a conclusion.
Very happy to hear that ACTAsia found an angle that works to 1) combat animal fur in the fashion industry and 2) raise awareness of animal welfare in China!!