When I say the opposition by companies is included in the cost effectiveness analysis, I mean that most of the cost of dedicated for, say, cage free campaigns, is dedicated to convince companies (through different tactics, from négociation to pressure campaigns).
When someone says “cage free campaigns are cost effective” they mean “paying people to influence large companies brings out enough positive effects to be effective, despite opposition”
I see what you’re saying. It might be worth noting that the companies that are hopefully being convinced by these campaigns (such as companies like McDonalds or Walmart that sell food directly to consumers) are not the companies I have in mind as being both politically powerful and vehemently opposed to change (meat “producers” like JBS, Tyson, Smithfield).
When I say the opposition by companies is included in the cost effectiveness analysis, I mean that most of the cost of dedicated for, say, cage free campaigns, is dedicated to convince companies (through different tactics, from négociation to pressure campaigns).
When someone says “cage free campaigns are cost effective” they mean “paying people to influence large companies brings out enough positive effects to be effective, despite opposition”
I see what you’re saying. It might be worth noting that the companies that are hopefully being convinced by these campaigns (such as companies like McDonalds or Walmart that sell food directly to consumers) are not the companies I have in mind as being both politically powerful and vehemently opposed to change (meat “producers” like JBS, Tyson, Smithfield).