
This paper examines how different ethical positions view various types of animal advocacy campaigns concerning a product made using animals as an input. The ethical positions represent common company, society, and animal advocate viewpoints. We adopt an industrial economics approach, modelling a market with a monopolistic supplier and subject to consumer-oriented, technological, collaborative, and direct action campaigns. We determine whether the ethical positions support or oppose each campaign, and in what conditions. We find that animal welfare and rights goals are simultaneously satisfied by three campaigns: negotiation, targeted direct action, and awareness raising that condemns low welfare standards.
Campaigns; ethics; animal rights; animal welfare; welfare, HF, BJ, jel: jel:Q51, jel: jel:L31, jel: jel:D63, jel: jel:Q13, jel: jel:Q57
Campaigns; ethics; animal rights; animal welfare; welfare, HF, BJ, jel: jel:Q51, jel: jel:L31, jel: jel:D63, jel: jel:Q13, jel: jel:Q57
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
