INTERVIEW: Activists’ Increasing Focus on Animal Welfare in Food Production – What to Keep in Mind

By Kate Mei Lam Lai, Editor

[Kate Lai] Charlotte, how strong a voice have anti-meat activists had in the last few years? What is the main focus of their campaigns nowadays?

[Charlotte Moore] Activist campaigning levels have dropped across the board in the past few years. It is difficult to tell exactly what is causing this, but we suspect that online activism has dropped after a high, during and immediately after the pandemic; while the recent turbulence of food, energy, and cost of living crises has forced activists to pause and rethink their positioning on certain issues to avoid alienating the public and losing funding.

As such, campaigns calling for divestment from the agriculture industry have dipped significantly since 2021, following a peak in Q4 of that year. However, campaigning on agriculture’s contribution to climate change is picking up, and the issue appears to be regaining momentum. Several reports have been published in the past six months criticising major financial institutions for financing ‘destructive’ agriculture firms, and accusing GFANZ members of having increased their exposure to high-emitting agriculture companies since COP26. More generally, greenwashing has emerged as a significant campaigning issue over the past year, although the energy and retail industries have borne the brunt of this. Climate litigation is also becoming a much more common tactic for activists, with BNP Paribas being sued by French NGOs only several weeks ago over BNP Paribas’ exposure to Marfrig.

[Kate Lai] Have any of their campaigns resulted in a huge impact on the animal agriculture sector?

[Charlotte Moore] The real impact of divestment campaigning tends to be reputational and discursive rather than financial. For example, the proposal for the recently agreed EU deforestation due diligence regulation was introduced in November 2021 following two years of intense activist campaigning around deforestation. One could argue that it was this activism which moved the needle on this issue. Similarly, the launch of the Global Methane Pledge at COP26 could indicate that campaigning on agriculture’s contribution to climate change has started cutting through, while a recent report by the World Economic Forum showing that vegetarianism is on the rise in so-called developed economies could suggest that public diet choices are being influenced by activists.

(Data source: SIGWATCH)

[Kate Lai] SIGWATCH data shows that NGO criticism of animal welfare in food production is having a significant uptick at the moment and reached its highest levels ever in November 2022. In your view, why are food producers faced with more criticism on that topic?

[Charlotte Moore] I suspect we are seeing greater attention on animal welfare in food production due to changes in the activism landscape related to corporate responsibility and transparency. The 2022 Ukraine invasion led to an energy crisis and food shortages, which has contributed to greater attention on food security and supply chain due diligence. Some NGOs are already arguing that food shortages have led to reduced compliance with animal welfare regulations, and that this alleged lapse in state oversight will mean that activists will step into the roles of investigator and enforcer.

In terms of other issues driving this increase, the passage of Germany’s live transport ban has led to a spurt in demands for other countries to follow suit and ban the practice, while criticism of so-called ‘turbo chickens’ peaked in November 2022. Demands for companies to sign on to the Better Chicken Commitment are also prominent.

[Kate Lai] In the meat sector, which companies are facing the most NGO scrutiny, and why?

[Charlotte Moore] Unsurprisingly, the current most criticised company on meat is JBS. Criticism has targeted links to illegal farms and deforestation, accusations of unvaccinated cattle in the supply chain, sales of meat produced in environmentally at-risk areas, animal abuse in slaughterhouses, industrial agriculture’s contribution to climate change, and opacity around emissions reduction measures, amongst other issues.

On meat production and climate change, the Global Methane Pledge launched at COP26 has given activists a clear goal to point to, when criticising the emissions reduction efforts of meat producers, buyers, finances, and governments. The recent lawsuit filed by Comissão Pastoral da Terra and Notre Affaire à Tous against BNP Paribas over its financing of Marfrig shows that this remains a key area of scrutiny for NGOs.

[Kate Lai] For what reasons does the level of NGO criticism fluctuate from month to month?

[Charlotte Moore] NGO campaigning fluctuates for many reasons - January and February tend to be much quieter months across the board, while different issues flare up at different times of year depending on geopolitical events, weather events, discovery of new issues, or legislative opportunities. For the meat industry, we consistently see spikes in campaigning around August and September because these have been the months in which deforestation-related fires have happened in the Amazon. For agriculture more broadly, we have also seen higher levels of activity in November during COP26 and COP27. Activist campaigning is reactive - it responds to opportunities to make change and influence public opinion, and sometimes the timing of these opportunities can be difficult to predict.

[Kate Lai] What can explain the uptick in November 2022 and the low levels in the summer which compared with historical levels were pretty much the same as 10 years ago?

[Charlotte Moore] Campaigning on animal welfare in food production saw a significant increase from 2017 to 2019, it then dipped again and remained moderate from 2020 through to late 2022. We know that the high level of attention on the agriculture sector from 2019 onwards was driven primarily by the emissions issue, with activists linking the sector’s poor track record on biodiversity protection to climate change. Animal welfare was only a small aspect of this rhetoric, and did not feature significantly in agriculture divestment campaigning. Now, however, we are seeing greater attention on animal welfare in food production because the campaigning landscape has changed. The Ukraine invasion led to an energy crisis and food shortages, which has contributed to greater attention on food security and supply chain due diligence. As the food system in Europe shifts to accommodate this new reality, activists will play the role of inspector and enforcer - some NGOs are already arguing that food shortages have led to reduced compliance with animal welfare regulations.

(Data source: SIGWATCH)

[Kate Lai] SIGWATCH data shows that there are rare mentions of praise by NGOs for animal welfare in food production (e.g., Starbucks and Domino’s Pizza). What happened in these instances? Did those companies carry out something radical?

[Charlotte Moore] The most praised corporates on animal welfare in food production since 2021 are Yum! Brands, McDonald’s, and Restaurant Brands International. The actions that earned this praise were arguably not very radical - corporates are praised for signing on to welfare pledges such as the Better Chicken Commitment, cutting ties with suppliers accused of welfare violations, banning pig gestation crates from supply chains, and pledging to use only cage-free eggs. Surprisingly for some, fast food brands such as McDonald’s and Burger King have seen significant praise from PETA for including vegan options on their menus. As we know, McDonald’s has a chequered history with environmental activists, so its current position as second most praised company on animal welfare clearly demonstrates that NGOs will reward positive steps.

[Kate Lai] What are the main conclusions companies operating in the animal food production supply chain can come to based on SIGWATCH data?

[Charlotte Moore] Companies operating in this space should be aware that we are seeing a significant push for greater corporate transparency and supply chain due diligence, whether that is concerning scope 3 emissions, human rights violations, or animal rights violations. This will inevitably lead to more scrutiny of supply chains from activists, and the ongoing furore around greenwashing will mean that these groups won’t be thrown off the scent by opaque certification schemes or claims of ignorance from lead firms or buyers. It is vital that companies listen to activists, as they are often the first ones to spot an issue in a supply chain. If you know what other companies are being caught out on, you can be proactive about looking for and solving that issue in your own supply chain before it becomes a serious reputational risk.