Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKIJCInternational Journal of Consumer Studies1470-6431Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2004282168177Original ArticleConsumer value conflicts

M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern

Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase

decisions: a focus on animal welfare
Monika J.A. Schröder1 and Morven G. McEachern2
1 School of Business and Enterprise, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, UK
2 School of Management, University of Salford, Salford, UK

Abstract Introduction
Ethical attitudes in relation to meat purchases were studied In order to be traded legally, food must be ‘of the sub-
among urban and rural consumers in Scotland. All subjects stance, nature and quality demanded by the purchaser’.1
perceived at least some ethical issues in relation to animal This is a somewhat arcane conceptualization of food
production systems, in particular, systems keeping animals quality considering that modern food retailing affords
in close confinement. Welfare-friendly production systems few opportunities for a consumer to actively demand
were viewed as adding value to a food, but this value was food products with attributes defined by that consumer.
not necessarily realizable to producers if purchases Food tends to be prepackaged and even if it is not,
occurred only when foods were on special offer. Statements supermarket counter staff are, on the whole, ill-
made by individuals were often contradictory, revealing equipped to provide accurate, meaningful product
ambivalence, unresolved value conflicts and a general lack information. Consequently, food standards and food
of involvement in the nature of meat production. A number labelling have emerged as key methods of communica-
of barriers to the establishment of stable attitudes and tion between food supply chains and their ultimate cus-
behaviours in relation to the ethical treatment of food ani- tomers. Some food quality attributes and claims can be
mals were also identified. A key finding of the study is that verified in the course of consumption, for example, sen-
individuals can hold two views on animal welfare. On the sory attributes, storage quality, convenience and reli-
one hand, they may think as citizens influencing societal ability. However, these are not the only attributes that
standards, and on the other, as consumers at the point of determine the overall palatability of foods. Quality-of-
purchase. As citizens, they support the notion of animals life issues, such as food ethics and aesthetics, play an
being entitled to a good life; as meat consumers, they avoid increasingly important role, but these cannot be verified
the cognitive connection with the live animal. This paper by consuming a product. Attributes such as provenance
explores both the citizen–consumer relationship and pur- and production processes are therefore classed as cre-
chase strategies used by consumers to resolve value dence, as opposed to experience, attributes. Consumers
conflicts. Lessons for public and commercial policy are may find it difficult to establish confidence in products
highlighted in the context of the Curry Report (2002) which where credence attributes are concerned, with frequent
advocates more effective market segmentation where mar- media exposées fostering cynicism about the ethical
kets are finely attuned to their customers, with the develop- standards of supply chain players and the honesty of
ment of a number of assurance schemes discussed in the government.
article. Whilst the law takes care of obligatory requirements
for food quality, such as food safety and food standards
Keywords Animal welfare, citizens, consumers, labelling, – as well as animal welfare in a wider context2 – market
meat, value conflicts. mechanisms allow added value to be delivered where
personal standards are dissatisfied by the minimum set
by the law. As a general principle, law can only be con-
cerned with minimum standards, and baseline public
Correspondence morality therefore involves compromise.3 In the UK,
Dr Monika J.A. Schröder, School of Business and Enterprise, Queen
Margaret University College, Clerwood Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 8TS, ethics as a component of consumer value has come to
UK. E-mail: mschroder@qmuc.ac.uk the fore in recent years. In the food arena, this has found

168 International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177 © 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern • Consumer value conflicts
expression in a wide range of value-based labelling for-
mats, for example, quality-assured logos. These logos
appear to differentiate products based on (relatively)
ethical production methods. Such logos have been given
positive frames (e.g. ‘dolphin-friendly’ tuna), negative
frames [e.g. genetic modification (GM)-free] or value
neutral frames, where the claim is used to identify a
specified production system (e.g. organic or free-range
pork). Negative framing, as well as highlighting positive
aspects of a particular product, may be interpreted as a
warning against competitors’ products. Ethics codify
both behaviours that are sanctioned and behaviours
that are prohibited, and are linked with notions of lead-
ing a good life.4 Food market ethics are segmented to
reflect the ethics of groups of consumers, who are typi-
cally concerned about human welfare, animal welfare
and/or environmental (‘green’) issues. For example, the
Fairtrade Mark provides assurances about the welfare
of food workers in developing countries who are likely
to be involved in the production of commodities such
as coffee, tea, cocoa and bananas.5 For meat Freedom
Food is an animal welfare assurance scheme set up by
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani-
mals (RSPCA) in 1994 in order to raise standards of
animal welfare on the farm, in transit and at the abat-
toir.6 Additionally the Marine Stewardship Council pro-
vides a logo to allow consumers to identify fish obtained
from sustainable fisheries.7 Ethical motivations under-
pinning the purchasing of organic foods encompass both
animal welfare and green consumption.8 Such schemes
are clearly popular and, in particular, the market for
organic food has experienced rapid growth over a num-
ber of years.9
Connors et al.10 investigated the way in which con-
sumers manage food-related values. Firstly, they identi-
fied five main values (taste, health, cost, time and social
relationships) and some secondary values, including
ethics. The saliency of these values differed with the
individual consumer and with the context of consump-
tion. Their subjects categorized both foods and eating
events, and prioritized consumption values with refer-
ence to specific categorization. In food consumption, it
is common for individual types of consumer value to be
in conflict with each other, hedonistic vs. health value
being a widely recognized example of this. Meat con-
sumption is perhaps an even more obvious illustration.
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177
Meat purchasing consumers typically believe meat to be
enjoyable as well as healthy, but they will know subcon-
sciously that the benefits of meat to them are paid for
by the animal involved. Connors et al.10 suggest that,
in any given choice scenario, a consumer’s attitude
towards some specific issue is likely to be modified, or
even cancelled, because they must attend to competing
issues. The following statements and statistics are taken
from a current RSPCA high-profile advertising cam-
paign promoting the welfare of laying hens (Table 1).
The statistics are based on a Market and Opinion
Research International (MORI) poll of 957 adults
throughout UK conducted in May 2002. One of the
images used in the campaign is that of a processed egg
masquerading as a white cupcake topped with a yellow
sugar-craft daffodil: a cleverly disguised egg! The image
is striking in that it shows a large proportion of consum-
ers purchasing eggs in clear contravention of their eth-
ical beliefs. There is an attitude–behaviour gap here that
needs to be explored further. Although battery cages
are widely regarded as unnatural and degrading, little
stigma appears to be attached to those consumers who
choose battery eggs. In fact, eggs produced from hens
housed in conventional cages are to be outlawed within
the European Union (EU) by the year 2012.11 Whether
in anticipation of this, or in order to satisfy the require-
ments of their current customers, some British food
retailers (e.g. Marks & Spencer, Selfridges and Harvey
Nichols) have already declared that they do not sell
battery eggs or processed foods using such eggs.12 Con-
sumer behaviour in the area of food ethics is surprising
and warrants to be examined in terms of the factors at
play in the weakening of the links between individual
beliefs and purchase actions. The view from the meat
Table 1 Statements and statistics from a current Royal Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) campaign*
78% want to ban battery cages
86% say that battery cages are cruel
32% of eggs sold in Britain are barn or free-range eggs
80% of eggs used by food industry are battery eggs
‘Opponents of battery eggs be vigilant. Most of the food products that
contain eggs actually contain battery eggs.’
*Market and Opinion Research International (MORI) poll of 957 adults
throughout UK, 23–28 May 2002.
169
Consumer value conflicts • M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern
supply chain is that consumer education is problematic
because consumers are perceived to avoid the link
between animals and meat.13 An alternative view is that
consumers in the UK desire more accurate information
about the nature of the food supply to make informed
purchase decisions. However, only 10% currently
search for this information and, furthermore, 48% pro-
fess a lack of interest in this.14 The remainder attribute
their lack of involvement in their food choices to the
high search costs in obtaining relevant information.
Another value conflict relating to animal products
suggests that consumers are liable to relegate animal
welfare aspects of quality to the sphere of regulation,
whilst focusing on price and on experience attributes
such as appearance and taste.15 Davidson et al.16 also
found that animal welfare as a meat choice criterion
ranks behind appearance and price. On a scale of 0–100,
animal welfare received an average importance rating
of 60, just below price but well below colour (71) and
visible leanness (75). The current paper focuses on value
conflicts, in particular in relation to meat and other
animal products, animal production ethics and the way
in which consumers prioritize consumer value. It con-
siders the nature of the information that consumers can
access to support their choices and the role of various
agents whom consumers rely on to provide this infor-
mation. Prominent among these agents is the UK Food
Standards Agency (http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk),
set up in 2000 specifically to redress perceived power
imbalances between food supply chain players and con-
sumers. Additionally the paper shows how value con-
flicts occur, the methods adopted by individual
consumers to tackle such conflicts and how consumer
agents within food supply chains can assist consumers
in facing choices that are less conflict-ridden.
Methodology
The results reported here were obtained in the course
of a larger study of consumer purchasing motives
regarding meat and other animal products. They high-
light value conflicts that were uncovered relating, in
particular, to animal welfare in production. Respon-
dents’ perceptions of organic meat production also
emerged from the overall study and have been reported
elsewhere.15 The project was carried out in the spring of
170 International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177
2000 in Scotland. Consumer purchase behaviour of
fresh meat in Scotland is representative in terms of both
consumption and expenditure trends found across the
rest of the UK.17
Thirty meat consumers took part in semi-structured,
in-depth interviews. Interviews were structured accord-
ing to a series of discussion topics, such as meat purchas-
ing, beliefs and attitudes in relation to meat and quality
logos for meat. The sample size is considered acceptable
given that no additional themes were generated. A
strong influencing factor on the knowledge of, and inter-
est in, food production is where the consumer lives, in
particular, their rural or urban origin.14 A quota sam-
pling method (i.e. form of judgement sampling, con-
trolled by stratification), based on information supplied
by Argyll and Bute Council and City of Edinburgh
Council, was used for recruitment. The degree of rural-
ness and urbanity of respondents were classified accord-
ing to population density calculated at the postcode
level. The urban sample was recruited from an in-house
database that gave age and postal code information.
Because of the lack of existing database resources for
selection of the rural sample, a snowballing technique
was employed in a small West coast community to iden-
tify the rural sample. This offered the opportunity to
select respondents of a specific age. A final total sample
size of 30 females, half rural and half urban, was
recruited from both regions, with only four urban pro-
spective candidates declining to participate. Only
female respondents were sought because over 90% of
women in the UK continue to be the main shoppers and
gatekeepers for food purchasing.14
Results
Respondent profile
Respondent profiles were broken down by age, loca-
tion, marital status, number of children in the house-
hold, and socio-economic and educational status.
Twenty-four respondents were married or cohabiting
with their partner, whilst six were single. Sixteen house-
holds included children, five including one child, seven
with two children, and two each with three and four
children. The respondents’ age breakdown showed that
three were aged 20–29 years, seven 30–39 years, five 40–
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern • Consumer value conflicts
49 years, eight 50–59 years, and seven 60 years old and
over. Socio-economic scales were identified on the basis
of the respondent’s and/or their partner’s occupation.
Six were from social group A, eight from B, seven from
C1, five from C2 and four from D. None of the respon-
dents belonged to category E. Half of all respondents
possessed a national qualification. Seven had a City &
Guilds qualification, four a National Certificate, one a
Higher National Certificate, five a National Diploma,
11 a degree, one a Post-Graduate Diploma and one a
National Vocational Qualification. Rural consumers
were more likely to be married or cohabiting, have chil-
dren, be of higher socio-economic status and possess a
qualification.
Attitudes towards meat production
There was agreement on the principle that farmed ani-
mals should be treated humanely and that cruelty
towards them was unacceptable. Extensive production
systems, such as organic food production and the out-
door-rearing of pigs, were favoured. However, although
all the women would gladly buy from such systems, the
proportion willing to pay a price premium for this was
considerably smaller. Perceptions of what constitutes
acceptable treatment of farmed animals varied between
individuals and animal species. The following comments
typify the more generous end of the attitude scale
towards farm animal welfare:
I don’t like to see any of the intensive systems for
animals. Humans need their space and so do animals.
I hate seeing animals being mistreated of any kind.
At the other end of the scale, individuals denied any
significant affinity with animals and, in one (urban) case,
purported to ‘hate live chickens’. Another view was
that, as the animals concerned ‘do not know any differ-
ent’, they will just accept their fate and that, in any case,
any ‘suffering will be short because the life of the animal
is short’. One woman stated that animals were ‘lower
species’ and hence did not require to be treated ‘with
the same responsibilities’ as humans.
Consciously suppressing thoughts about animal pro-
duction and slaughter was common. A widespread fear
expressed was that, if they allowed themselves to think
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177
about these aspects, the women would ‘go off’ meat
altogether.
I had the opportunity to visit an abattoir and I didn’t
want to go because I didn’t want those images in my
head.
When I’m buying chicken it (being from intensive
production) doesn’t enter my head. I think you block
it out.
A butcher’s van with animal carcasses on public view
gave offence to one woman (urban). Responses from
both urban and rural consumers of meat indicated that
a key role of meat presentation and packaging is to
mentally sanitize meat by severing, as far as possible,
the link between the live and the slaughtered animal.
The English language already provides convenient
euphemisms, with ‘flesh’ being transformed into ‘meat’
and ‘animals’ raised for food production referred to as
‘livestock’. Perhaps guilt associated with meat consump-
tion is a universal, rather than just a modern, phenom-
enon. Some currently sanctioned and legal animal
production systems are clearly considered to be cruel.
There are a lot of things I wouldn’t buy, because of
the process.
I think there is a lot of cruelty in things like battery
farms.
The acceptability of different production systems
again varied, with broad agreement about the most and
the least acceptable. Veal crates elicited the most pas-
sionately negative responses, whilst battery cages and
live animal transport were mentioned most often. How-
ever, some of the rural women emphasized that live
animal transport was not an important issue to them as
long as haulage operators met legal standards. Rural
consumers tended to have ready access to free-range
eggs and therefore considered this to be a natural, as
well as an ethical, system. Some of the urban women
admitted that they bought battery eggs when picturing
laying hens running around a field or farmyard. Pig stalls
and tethers were also disdained by respondents who
mentioned these particular systems. There was some
evidence of inaccurate perceptions among consumers
171
Consumer value conflicts • M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern
regarding food production. For example, the function of
prophylactic antibiotic feeding was not recognized as an
essential practice within intensive animal production. In
addition, several women mistakenly thought that cages
were used for broiler, as well as egg, production. One
rural woman boycotted tinned tuna which did not carry
a ‘dolphin-friendly’ label. Interestingly, if cartons of bat-
tery eggs had to carry pictures of caged hens, and pork
packaging illustrations of pigs kept tethered or in stalls,
respondents thought that they would not continue to
purchase the products in question.
Value conflict management
Meat consumption almost universally generated value
conflicts for respondents, especially in respect of ethi-
cal value. Feelings of guilt reduce the palatability of a
food, and in order to prevent or ameliorate guilt, con-
sumers may avoid certain meats (e.g. veal) or specific
production systems (e.g. battery cages). Individual
strategies also varied according to the type of food
event. Some of the women upgraded their meat pur-
chasing to products from organic or free-range systems
for special occasions, e.g. when entertaining guests.
However, reasons given for this were largely to do
with flavour and texture rather than with safeguarding
their guests’ moral sensitivities. Table 2 represents
Table 2 Respondents’ coping with animal welfare-related
value conflicts
As a teenager, Urban 1 became upset about meat production and turned
vegetarian. She took a job at McDonald’s when at university, causing
her to abandon both her vegetarianism and her self-perception as a
caring person. Intends to resume ethical consumption as soon as
finances permit.
Urban 5 buys battery eggs despite a belief that battery egg production is
‘barbaric’. Speaks of herself as a ‘harsh woman’.
Urban 8 favours animal welfare-friendly production but shopping ‘in a rush’
causes her to forget about choosing appropriately.
Urban 9 buys what she has always bought. Believes that if people accept
meat eating, they need to accept that animals will suffer as a result.
Rural 2 expects that certain standards will have been met for the meat she
buys.
Rural 4 has to buy what is available there being less choice to her than to
urban consumers.
Rural 5 believes that Scotland is free from intensive farm animal
production.
172 International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177
value conflict management approaches by the subjects
in this study.
A purchase strategy commonly adopted was to sup-
press thoughts about all production systems altogether.
Urban consumers 1 and 5 can be seen to have framed
their personality as harsh and uncaring in order to
accommodate their current choices of animal products.
Urban consumer 1 has even gone so far as to abandon
vegetarianism. Urban consumer 8, who says she always
shops ‘in a rush’, may well be expressing how the gen-
eral strategy of avoiding thoughts about animals when
buying meat actually operates in the choice environ-
ment. Urban consumer 9 has resigned herself to the
view that meat eating is inevitably associated with ani-
mal suffering. By adhering to long-established purchas-
ing routines, she refuses to examine, and compare,
production systems for their performance in terms of
animal welfare. Rural consumer 2 does not enquire into
how meat might be produced, and reassures herself that
the supply chain is implementing the sorts of standards
that she would like. Similarly and despite residing in a
rural community, rural consumer 5 has (erroneously)
persuaded herself that Scotland is free from intensive
animal production. She too illustrates low involvement.
Yet another respondent was found to cope with ethical
conflict by arguing that the meat she buys is already in
the shops and that individual food choices/boycotts will
make no significant difference in terms of improved
welfare standards for animals.
Several significant barriers that may prevent consum-
ers from choosing meat ethically, and/or from choosing
ethically in a consistent manner, were also revealed dur-
ing the interviews (Table 3).
The near-inevitability of intermittent breaking of
ethical consumption rules may detrimentally affect the
stability of ethical attitudes.
Table 3 Barriers towards the establishing of stable ethical
attitudes and behaviours in choosing animal products
• Lack of understanding of production systems (standards and labels)
• Financial constraints
• Limited availability (rural shops)
• Limited availability (convenience foods such as chicken pieces)
• Consumption contexts in which individuals are not in control (eating out;
processed foods containing egg, gelatine, etc.)
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Table 4 Complaints about meat labelling
• The proliferation of marketing claims is undesirable.
• Labels are not explained.
• Information overload confuses and irritates.
• Information is biased, with ‘nobody telling the truth anymore’.
Label knowledge
Meat quality logos highlighting production systems
were poorly understood among urban and rural respon-
dents. Individuals found themselves misled by labels
and believed this was, at least in part, because of the
supply chain deliberately trying to dupe them. Farm
and/or Quality Assurance logos are widely held as not
being backed by any statutory standards, and consumers
therefore concluded that they meant little. However,
respondents appeared to be influenced in their buying
decisions by quality logos even if they did not under-
stand them. Despite positive marketing claims from UK
meat logos (e.g. Little Red Tractor – ‘Kind to Animals’),
many are seen as symbols of bottom-line practices
rather than genuine added value. Some of the respon-
dents felt doubtful about the quality of meat that did
not have any quality logo on the pack. Compared with
other quality logos, there was less confusion about
organic production systems. Table 4 lists complaints
about meat labelling.
All respondents expressed the wish to be properly
informed both by the government and by food retailers,
the emphasis here being on information rather than
prescriptive advice.
Trustworthiness of consumers’ agents
No one agent emerged as being trusted universally by
consumers to provide them with honest and meaningful
information about food quality. Several rural women
mentioned butchers, farmers and the press as reliable
sources of information; presumably, the farming press
is especially trusted. Among retailers, Marks & Spencer
received unprompted mention as a trusted agent, both
from urban and rural consumers. Iceland was men-
tioned by one urban woman as a result of their policy
relating to the prohibition of GM food products in their
stores. However, retailers were widely distrusted, as
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern • Consumer value conflicts
were their meat labelling policies. Local butchers were
trusted by four of the rural women. Notably, govern-
ment advice was widely distrusted, a view that was par-
ticularly common among the rural interviewees. Nine of
the 15 rural respondents specifically mentioned govern-
ment as a distrusted agent of the consumer, and only
one viewed them as a trusted agent. These rural con-
sumers were, in some cases, food producers, or counted
food producers among family and friends, and this may
have influenced their strongly negative attitude towards
government. Their negative views of government may
thus have been coloured by the generally difficult situ-
ation of agriculture in the UK at the present time,
including breakdowns in animal health such as BSE
and a recent foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. Among
urban respondents, unprompted attitudes towards gov-
ernment were slightly more balanced, with only five
distrusting and three trusting.
Discussion
UK consumers generally appear to care about the way
in which animals are treated, and do not condone cru-
elty, whether by commission or omission. There are
particular concerns about the more intensive forms of
agricultural production, notably in the pig and poultry
sectors. Animals are recognized as sentient beings
although, being perceived to be below humans in the
universal ‘pecking order’, their needs may be seen as
secondary to human needs. Individuals do evaluate ani-
mal production systems in terms of their ethics. How-
ever, the current study shows that consumers do not
necessarily act in accordance with their ethical beliefs.
In the present study, farm animal welfare clearly
emerged as an aspect of palatability. There was a gen-
eral sense that if you chose to eat meat, you were likely
to be the source of some cruelty to some animal at some
point. There was a shared concern that animals pro-
duced through highly intensive systems were likely to
suffer deprivation and a poor quality of life. It is well
known that people strive to interpret their environment
in a coherent manner and to act in accordance with their
beliefs. Where this coherence is lacking, psychological
discomfort ensues. In this study, three main strategies
emerged for meat eaters to cope with the problematic
aspects of animal production and slaughter. The first
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177 173
Consumer value conflicts • M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern
involved a reframing of one’s personality. One woman
described herself as ‘harsh’, another as ‘uncaring’, and
a third said that meat eaters must accept the costs to the
animals involved. None of these women could be cate-
gorized as ‘uninvolved’ consumers. In fact, their present
strategies tended to be associated with financial, rather
than cognitive, constraints in relation to ethical meat
consumption. If they had more money, they might adopt
the second strategy identified here, namely, to actively
search out products from more contented animals,
in particular, those reared organically. Surprisingly
throughout the interviews, nobody mentioned the obvi-
ous fact that farm animals can only expect an existence
in exchange for their ultimate death. This suggests that
people think about ethical issues on a superficial level.
The third overall strategy adopted was to simply dele-
gate responsibility for ethical standards and conform-
ance to those standards to the supply chain, including
the regulatory controls placed upon it by government.
It was found that respondents who tended to delegate
responsibility for animal welfare in this way had various
motives. The first of these may be defined as frustration,
with individuals having tried, unsuccessfully, to make
sense of meat advertising, labelling and claims. The sec-
ond reason for delegating responsibility might be
described as resignation, where a consumer feels pow-
erless to effect change, believing that their individual
consumption habits will not make any difference to the
status of animals within society. Thirdly, many individu-
als lack any involvement and feel that animal welfare is
principally an issue for government and not for consum-
ers. In fact, this may be a rational stance to adopt, espe-
cially because there are consumer and animal welfare
watchdogs whose business it is to highlight shortcom-
ings within the system. Quality theory also supports this
perspective. As defined in the International Standards
Organization’s (ISO) quality management system stan-
dard BS EN ISO9000,18 animal welfare may take on the
guise of an ‘implied’, rather than a ‘stated’, quality
attribute. Quality theory posits that the suppliers of a
product must fulfil their customers’ quality expectations
as well as any ‘stated’ and ‘obligatory’ requirements.
According to Webster’s19 ‘pragmatic’ approach to
farm animal welfare, it does not matter to an animal
how we feel but what we do. This assertion may be
challenged. Farm animals that are well cared for will
174 International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177
relate to the stockman, and the latter’s feelings towards
them will, in turn, affect how they treat them. Several
of the women in this study suggested that they had been
desensitized by the need to choose meat and eggs from
production systems that they did not approve of. It is
reasonable to extrapolate this to the people employed
within intensive production systems who, in the course
of their daily duties, face animals that may be suffering
as a result of these systems. In parallel with consumers,
livestock producers may also develop coping mecha-
nisms, therefore leading them to view animals as objects
(‘stock’) rather than living creatures. In their marketing
approaches, the pioneering UK organic livestock farm-
ers’ care for their charges readily communicates itself.
Some of these, like Helen Browning and the Prince of
Wales, are prepared to personally front these cam-
paigns, so that their faces and their farms have become
familiar to many of the consumers they sell to. This is
despite the fact that the actual selling may take place
via major UK food retailers. In this way, producers’
motivations are incorporated, as a trust value, within the
overall product value communicated to consumers. In
contrast, conventionally produced meat promotions
rarely focus on individual farms or producers, instead
using blander, more conventional corporate communi-
cation approaches. For example, Quality Meat Scot-
land’s current marketing campaign for Scottish beef
associates a handsome highlander with beef, the con-
nection with actual animals on actual farms being rather
tenuous. All farmers, whether conventional or organic,
who believe that they care for their animals, should be
able to project these beliefs on the wider public. How-
ever, the effectiveness of current communication mech-
anisms in achieving this must be questioned.
Consumers may hold seemingly incompatible views
simultaneously. In the context of farm animal welfare,
on the one hand they may think as citizens influencing
societal standards, and on the other, they see themselves
at the point of purchase, as consumers. As citizens, they
support the notion of animals being entitled to a good
life, as meat consumers, they avoid the cognitive link
with the live animal. Although animal welfare is a con-
cern in general terms, it may be associated more with
citizenship issues than specifically relating to consump-
tion, and therefore delegated to the sphere of govern-
ment. People who allow government to determine
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern • Consumer value conflicts
standards trust government implicitly to represent them
well. Yet the current research shows low confidence in
government. This is yet another contradiction identified.
Figure 1 provides an illustration of the relationship
between markets and societies, consumers and citizens
and the agents acting on behalf of, on the one hand,
consumers and on the other, citizens. Modern consumer
markets tend to be highly segmented, as is the case with
food. Whilst the food market represents consumers, and
market segments represent different consumer catego-
ries, consumers also grow up to become citizens. As
citizens they elect politicians to represent them and, in
particular, to pass the necessary laws. Producers and
Market demand
Consumers
Food producers
Food retailers
A
G
Consumer food lobbies
E
Animal welfare and
N environmental lobbies
T
S Government/legislation
Food Standards Agency
Media
Citizens
Democratic society
Figure 1 Consumers and citizens and their agents in the food
system.
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177
retailers act as consumer agents and, in order to fulfil
their role, use market research to ascertain require-
ments. Lobby groups such as Sustain, Linking Environ-
ment and Farming (LEAF) (http://www.leafuk.org) and
Friends of the Earth (http://www.foe.co.uk), typically
bridge the divide between societies and markets. Their
ultimate target in any given campaign may be govern-
ment, but campaigns often originate with consumption
issues. The term ‘consumer autonomy’ describes those
consumers who are confident and competent to choose
actively and rationally, and who can use information to
conduct their own cost-benefit analyses in any given
context. To them, delegation is a deliberate act and not
a giving up of control. On the other hand, ‘heteronomy’
applies to those consumers, and citizens, who are out of
control. According to its policy paper ‘Modern Markets
– Confident Consumers’,20 the present UK government
views consumer autonomy as a key component of any
modern, competitive market and, in particular, markets
within the so-called ‘knowledge economy’.
The Food Standards Agency, despite its stated focus
on standards, remains preoccupied with food safety,
appearing to neglect the right of individual consumers
to consume ethically. This is exemplified by the
agency’s current stance on the labelling of GM deriva-
tives, such as oils derived from GM crops. It considers
that such products need not be identified to consumers
through labelling21 and that environmental issues are
not within the remit of the board.22 This stance results
in consumers being let down, deprived of their ability
to boycott GM derived food if they so wish. Similar
attitudes also still prevail in wider government circles.
For example in the Organic Farming Report,9 quality
is viewed purely in terms of verifiable product at-
tributes, rather than as a combination of product and
process attributes.
A more recent report, by the Curry Committee,23 is
considerably better informed and more perceptive,
offering valuable advice for public and commercial pol-
icy. It acknowledges that animals do suffer in very close
confinement and advocates more effective market seg-
mentation, where markets are finely attuned to their
customers, including requirements for environmental
protection and animal welfare. It suggests development
of higher-level assurance schemes, starting from the
existing Little Red Tractor standard, but more clearly
175
Consumer value conflicts • M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern
defined and communicated to avoid present confusion.
The report also requires the food service sector to
ensure that its customers have access to the information
they need to make informed decisions. It concludes that
for consumers to be reconnected to the food industry,
they must be able to be confident that their views will
have an impact on the market. Currently, the food chain
is aware of consumers’ reluctance to acknowledge and
confront the animal origin of meat, and regards this as
a significant barrier against the promotion of differenti-
ated animal production systems.13
In the current study, where welfare-friendly pur-
chases occurred only when foods were on special offer,
these may not be attributed to ethical motivations.
However, consumers may wish to make, and pay for,
specifically ethical food choices but find this under-
mined by the absence of relevant information or prod-
uct availability. If ethical food choices cannot be made
consistently, it is not surprising that attitudes become
weakened. A drastic example of the weakening of an
ethical stance in the current study was the woman who,
after taking a job at McDonald’s, abandoned vegetari-
anism (cf. Table 2). Barriers to consuming ethically
that were highlighted by some of the respondents (cf.
Table 3) included a lack of transparency of quality and
farm assurance logos and limited (ethical) product
availability. A small rural supermarket might supply
whole free-range chicken, but perhaps not the conve-
nient chicken portions desired by consumers, with the
result that many ethical food choices are being routinely
weakened by the nature of the market place. The issue
of food ingredients, such as battery eggs, being hidden
in processed foods (see for example the RSPCA aware-
ness campaign)6 and of ingredients of unknown prove-
nance served in catering contexts is similarly important.
If a consumer cannot consume consistently according
their values and beliefs, these values and beliefs will be
weakened rather than reinforced. This is a bad outcome
from many points of view, including the likelihood of
meaningful product differentiation occurring in food
markets.
Conclusion
This paper focuses on animal welfare-related issues of
consumer value and purchase involvement, but in the
176 International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177
context of a broader research question. Differences
between urban and rural consumers were not as
marked as might have been expected. For obvious rea-
sons, rural consumers were more likely to purchase
local produce than were urban ones.15 But without
exception, respondents professed to care about animal
welfare to some extent. In both groups, respondents
exhibited limited knowledge about differences between
production systems, and of limited desire to choose
knowledgeably.
A substantial knowledge and learning deficit cur-
rently exists within UK food supply chains, affecting
producers, consumers and government. Producers and
government need to become much better informed
about, and take more seriously, the motivational sys-
tems involved in individual consumers’ food choices.
Process differentiation in the meat market is poor, and
weak quality signals are translated neither into profits
for producers nor into benefits for consumers. A general
state of confusion prevails and is causing some consum-
ers to feel that they are being deliberately misled.
Consumers require better information about food pro-
duction, and this needs to be presented to them in as
value-neutral a context as possible. The UK Food Stan-
dards Agency might consider balancing its output fur-
ther towards the provision of information rather than
the behavioural advice it currently favours. Giving blan-
ket advice tends to neglect the contexts in which con-
sumer decision-making must take place. Advice in the
absence of information is unlikely to nurture the auton-
omous consumers desired by government, who must
play their role in the modern UK economy. Advice can-
not be used as a factor in individual cost-benefit analy-
ses. In promoting the autonomous UK consumer, a
greater degree of joined-up thinking by government will
be required.
The present study illustrates that the consumption of
animal products can lead to value conflicts in consum-
ers. It also indicates that there are different approaches
adopted by consumers to deal with such conflicts. At this
point a larger, quantitative study would provide more
detailed data on the extent to which these conflicts and
strategies exist in the wider population. Such a study
could potentially benefit a range of supply chain players,
including its regulators and, ultimately, consumers
themselves.
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern • Consumer value conflicts
References
1. Her Majesty’s. Stationery Office (HMSO) (1990) Food
Safety Act. HMSO, London.
2. HMSO (1911) Protection of Animals Act (as amended).
HMSO, London.
3. Lee, S. (1986) Law and Morals. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
4. Stroll, A. & Popkin, R. (1961) Introduction to Philosophy.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
5. Anonymous (1998) The Fairtrade Foundation: Further
Details. [WWW document]. URL http://www.gn.apc.org/
fairtrade/foundatn.htm (accessed on 1 November 1998)
6. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (RSPCA) (2003) [WWW document]. URL
http://www.rspca.org.uk
7. Marine Stewardship Council (2003) About MSC.
[WWW document]. URL http://eng.msc.org/html/
content_527.htm (accessed on 14 Nay 1998)
8. Anonymous (1997) Why buy organic? Health Which?
April, 62–65.
9. House of Commons (2001) Select Committee on
Agriculture. Organic Farming. The Stationery Office,
London.
10. Connors, M., Bisogni, C.A., Sobal, J. & Devine, C.M.
(2001) Managing value in personal food systems. Appetite,
36, 189–200.
11. European Union (EU) (1999) EU Laying Hens Directive.
Official Journal of the European Communities, 1999/74/
EC.
12. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(RSPCA) (2002) Uncaged Egg Survey. RSPCA,
Horsham, UK.
13. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
(1999) Working Together for the Food Chain: Views from
the Food Chain Group. HMSO, London.
© 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177
14. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) (1999) The
Changing Consumer. Institute of Grocery Distribution,
Watford.
15. McEachern, M.G. & Schröder, M.J.A. (2002) The role of
livestock production ethics in consumer values towards
meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics ,
15, 221–237.
16. Davidson, A., Schröder, M.J.A. & Bower, J.A. (2003) The
importance of origin as a quality attribute for beef: results
from a Scottish consumer survey. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 27, 91–98.
17. Keynote (2003) Meat and Meat Producers. February.
Market Intelligence Report. Keynote Publications,
London.
18. International Standards Organization (ISO) (2000) BS
EN ISO 9000:2000 Quality Management Systems –
Fundamentals and Vocabulary. International Standards
Organization, Geneva.
19. Webster, J. (1995) Animal Welfare. A Cool Eye Towards
Eden. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
20. Department of Trade and Industry (2000) Modern
Markets: Confident Consumers. [WWW document]. URL
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumer/whitepaper/fprcons.htm
(accessed on 4 November 2003).
21. Anonymous (2002) Commission Proposals for a
Trustworthy and Environmentally Safe Approach to
GMOs and GM food and feed backed by the European
Parliament. IP/02/992.
22. Gibson, M. (2003) Food Safety and Improvement – Putting
the Consumer First. Joint Institute of Food Science and
Technology (IFST) /Scottish Food and Drink Federation
(SFDF) Symposium, Perth, UK.
23. Anonymous (2002) Farming & Food A Sustainable Future.
Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of
Farming and Food.
177
Copyright of International Journal of Consumer Studies is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.