As investors and other stakeholders start to pay greater attention to farm animal welfare-related issues, the agriculture sector needs to report effectively and provide reassurance that these issues are being properly managed

Despite some exceptions among UK food retailers, corporate reporting on farm animal welfare is in its infancy. Yet, at the same time, investors and other stakeholders are starting to pay much greater attention to corporate performance on farm animal welfare, and are looking for companies to report on their performance in a way that provides reassurance that animal welfare issues are being effectively managed.

Reflecting the way in which other corporate responsibility issues are managed and reported, the briefing paper suggests that companies should start by setting out – in a policy statement or equivalent – their core principles and beliefs on farm animal welfare.

The policy should include a clear statement of the reasons why farm animal welfare is important (including both the business and the ethical case for action), the standards of farm animal welfare that they are seeking to achieve, and a description of the processes in place to ensure that the policy is effectively implemented.

A clear scope

Importantly, the policy should be clear about its scope in terms of species, geographic regions and products covered.

• In addition to a policy statement, companies should also set out their positions on the following non-humane practices:
• The close confinement of livestock (eg the use of sow stalls, farrowing crates, battery cages and veal crates).
• The use of genetically modified or cloned animals or their progeny.
• Routine mutilations such as teeth clipping, tail docking and beak trimming.
• The use of meat from animals that have not been subjected to pre-slaughter stunning.
• Long-distance live transportation.
• The sale or manufacture of controversial products such as foie gras, white veal and barren battery eggs.

Policy implementation

Clearly, the existence of a policy is no guarantee that the policy will be implemented. Therefore, once a policy has been published, investors will seek to understand how the policy is implemented.

First, they will want confirmation that an appropriately qualified, senior manager has responsibility for farm animal welfare on a day-to-day basis.

Second, investors will want to know how the policy is to be delivered. That is, they will want to know the actions that will be taken, the capital and other costs will be incurred, the timeframe for the delivery of objectives and targets, and who is responsible for delivering them . 

Third, they will want to know how the company is performing against its objectives and targets and, importantly, what welfare outcomes are being achieved. Performance reporting is complicated by the fact that companies generally have multiple animal species, by the reality that companies frequently manage these to different standards, and by the absence of global performance standards.

The briefing paper, therefore, suggests that companies should, where relevant, specify the proportion of their animals certified to specific welfare schemes and, if relevant, explain exactly how their own, company-specific standards compare to formally recognised standards.

Fourth, investors will want to know how companies implement their farm animal welfare policy through their supply chains through, for example, supplier contracts, performance reviews, monitoring and auditing, incentives, and capacity-building in their supply chains.

Leadership

As with other corporate responsibility issues, the debate on farm animal welfare is continuously evolving. It is therefore important that companies explain how they are future proofing their businesses to take advantage of new opportunities and to make a wider contribution to farm animal welfare through their involvement in research and development programmes through their participation in initiatives aimed at advancing farm animal welfare, and through their efforts to promote farm animal welfare amongst their customers and clients.

Many of the proposals above align with how companies manage and report on other corporate responsibility issues. As such, with the possible exception of performance reporting, they should not present a major challenge for companies that already produce corporate responsibility reports.

Dr Rory Sullivan is an expert adviser to the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare.  He is an internationally recognised expert on corporate responsibility, climate change and investment-related issues. He is strategic adviser at Ethix SRI Advisers, a senior research fellow at the University of Leeds and a member of the Ethical Corporation advisory board.

Nicky Amos is the project director of the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare. She has over 20 years’ experience in managing and directing corporate responsibility in global companies, including the Body Shop International. Should you have suggestions on how farm animal welfare performance can be measured and reported, please contact the BBFAW programme director, Nicky Amos.

This article is based on a Briefing Paper – Farm Animal Welfare Disclosure Framework (June 2012) – by Rory Sullivan and Nicky Amos and produced by the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, a joint initiative of Compassion in World Farming and the World Society for the Protection of Animals.