One of the more effective tactics of those who oppose modern animal production has been to threaten the global brand of final processors and retailers in order to gain negotiating power in attempts to change production methods. By raising an ethical argument to modern production they have buttressed their assertions against the counter argument from science.
This is a very efficient approach since once their notions are accepted by major retailers like Wal-Mart, forcing change down the chain is greatly facilitated.
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published the results of an experiment conducted by a doctoral student from the University of Western Ontario. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121018735490274425.html)
Essentially, what the experiment shows is that consumers will marginally reward a company for perceived social responsibility through a willingness to pay extra for goods produced under ethical standards, however, the punishment for less than socially reponsible practices was not symmetric. (the criteria were around relations with stakeholders, respect for human rights and an environmentally friendly technology used in production of the goods). The interesting part of this study is that only very small investments in social responsibility reaped most of the benefits of higher willingness to pay but an asymmetrical and steep punishment in terms of willingness to pay would be visited on unethical production practices and employee relations.
This seems to be illustrated by the "greening" of many major US companies well ahead of the science, especially with respect to green house gas mitigation and animal welfare concerns. Since the punishment is steeper than the reward, a kind of risk averse driver is likely to force unnecessary costs into the system. That is, more cost than is justified by whatever benefits are received.
Since industrial animal production has now been largely defined as illegitimate per se, that is, it cannot be fixed by rearranging the furniture in the gestation barn etc., the risk averse behavior of brand owners coupled with the asymmetric rewards of perceived ethical behavior is starting to result in a kind of retail tyranny with respect to suppliers. Retailers are supposed to be the keepers of the knowledge of consumer demand since they are at the table for the final purchase. If they are threatened with brand tarnishing, regardless of the truth of the underlying complaint, they are likely to cave farther and quicker than is rational rather than risk the punishment that can come from the smear.
