top of page
Search

Tiered certification schemes for slower-growing chicken

  • Writer: Ren Ryba
    Ren Ryba
  • Oct 8
  • 29 min read

Author: Ren Ryba, PhD

Adelaide, Australia


Executive summary

A tiered certification and labelling scheme is a system where products are assigned different labels, depending on each product's performance on a particular attribute. A product's label can indicate one of multiple levels—for animal welfare, a tiered system assigns each product to one of multiple different categories of welfare conditions during farming. Tiered schemes can be contrasted with binary schemes, in which there is only one label and each product is simply labelled or not labelled. Tiered labelling schemes can also be called graded, multi-tier or multi-level labelling schemes.


In this report, we evaluate whether a tiered certification scheme can help increase the market share of slower-growing chickens in high-income (developed) countries. We address this question by reviewing the academic literature on tiered certification schemes and examining cases where tiered certification schemes have been used for marketing slower-growing chicken in other countries. This report is motivated by the observation that slower-growing chicken breeds is the most significant component of the BCC in terms of both animal welfare and industry investment, but that the lack of breed availability is the biggest current challenge to rearing chickens to meet the BCC in some countries.


Our key findings are:

  • Market share: It is reasonable to expect a well-designed tiered labelling scheme to achieve initial market shares between 10 and 25% for slower-growing chicken (i.e. the higher tier of a tiered scheme). It is also reasonable to expect this market share to increase over time. This is the range of market shares observed for the slower-growing levels of well-designed tiered labelling schemes in other countries under normal market conditions (e.g. Germany, France, and Denmark). That said, a scheme may achieve a lower market share if it is poorly designed and not well-promoted (e.g. 3.5% in the UK). Alternatively, the slower-growing levels of a scheme can achieve a higher market share if it is well-supported (e.g. 55-60% for the Beter Leven scheme in the Netherlands, for which all tiers require slower-growing breeds).

  • Price premium: The level of a tiered certification scheme that requires slower-growing breeds would probably attract a price premium somewhere in the vicinity of +27 to 110%. This is the range of price premiums observed in other countries for the lowest tier of the tiered schemes that still require the use of slower-growing chickens. The evidence suggests that the price premium is influenced more strongly by retailer pricing strategies than by production costs per se.

  • Good design: It is critical for a tiered labelling scheme to be well-designed. This includes visual design (e.g. large, attractive logos, ideally with traffic light colours and a simple, standardised grading system using numbers or letters) and marketing (e.g. an appropriate advertising campaign and good shelf placement). To emphasise, the visual design and marketing can be a fulcrum for success or failure—in some tiered labelling schemes (e.g. Germany's Für Mehr Tierschutz scheme), poor visual design has been a key reason for the failure of the scheme to achieve a meaningful market share.


We also emphasise that the countries where slower-growing chicken has achieved the highest market share have used tiered certification schemes where all levels of the scheme require slower-growing chicken (e.g. Beter Leven in the Netherlands).



1. Introduction to tiered certification and labelling schemes

A tiered certification and labelling scheme is a system where products are assigned different labels, depending on each product's performance on a particular attribute (1–3). A product's label can indicate one of multiple levels. Tiered schemes can be contrasted with binary schemes, in which there is only one label and each product is simply labelled or not labelled. Tiered labelling schemes can also be called graded, multi-tier or multi-level labelling schemes.


Tiered labelling schemes are used for a wide variety of attributes. For example, tiered labelling schemes have been used for nutrition (e.g. the Health Star Rating in Australia and New Zealand), environmental sustainability (e.g. Sustainable Forestry Initiative), organic (e.g. USDA Organic), energy efficiency (e.g. the United States's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design; China's Energy Efficiency Labelling Scheme), and many others (3–5).


The visual design of tiered labelling schemes may involve traffic lights, coloured boxes, numbers, grade letters, stars, and so on. There is a highly informative body of literature on the visual design of tiered labelling schemes (see below, "The importance of visual design").


1.1. Studies on tiered schemes for animal welfare

Tiered labelling schemes are frequently used for labelling the animal welfare performance of food products. In fact, we have identified around a dozen tiered labelling schemes used for animal welfare around the world—we describe each of these schemes in the following section of the report.


The effectiveness of tiered labelling schemes for animal welfare has been confirmed by multiple scientific studies:

  • An online survey of 1,200 German meat consumers tested Germany's tiered Haltungsform (Housing type) label. This study found that consumers were willing to pay progressively higher prices for chicken breast fillets labelled with higher tiers of the Haltungsform label. Furthermore, 89 percent of participants reported finding the label helpful, and 91 percent of participants reported liking the label (6).

  • An online questionnaire of 396 Danish pork consumers also found that respondents were able to distinguish between multiple levels of pig welfare. This supports the conclusion that it is possible for a market to support multiple, distinct levels of animal welfare in food products (7).

  • A study of 1,500 German consumers compared the market shares that could be obtained by a five-star animal welfare label, compared to a simple binary label. This study found that when participants were faced with a binary label, 30.1 percent purchased the labelled product. However, when consumers were instead faced with the five-star tiered label, the market share of the labelled products as a whole increased to 76.3 percent. This indicates that the additional choice can boost the market presence of animal welfare-labelled food products as a whole (8).


Ideally, all chickens would be reared to meet the Better Chicken Commitment. However, the larger the market share of the Better Chicken Commitment, the less chickens suffer. The Welfare Footprint Project has calculated that an average slower-growing broiler chicken can expect to experience about 96 fewer hours of suffering—especially intense suffering—than an average conventional chicken. A tiered certification scheme can help to overcome the biggest barrier to the Better Chicken Commitment in many countries: achieving a significant market share of slower-growing breeds. 


When contemplating the introduction of a tiered chicken welfare scheme into a new market, what would be the key things to consider?


Most importantly, it is reasonable to expect that a tiered chicken welfare scheme in a high-income country will perform similarly to the tiered chicken welfare schemes that have been introduced in other high-income countries. 


Nevertheless, when interpreting the evidence from other contexts, there are some nuances to the way that we interpret evidence. These are as follows:

  1. The best evidence comes from observed market shares and observed price differences. Studies in psychology and economics have frequently shown that observed market shares and prices of products tend to differ from the preferences stated by consumers in hypothetical surveys (9,10). This result has also been demonstrated for animal welfare labels in particular (though, strangely, in the opposite direction—for animal welfare, revealed preference studies tend to report a higher willingness-to-pay than stated preference studies do!) (11). In any case, theoretical research has highlighted that the market share of certification labels is not determined by consumer preferences alone; there are important social, economic, and political pathways beyond what consumers buy (12,13). As such, if we want to project the market share or price premium of a tiered animal welfare label in a new country, the most reliable evidence will come from examining the market share or price premium of similar labels elsewhere.

  2. Scientific evidence from food products is more applicable than scientific evidence from non-food products. Food purchasing decisions tend to use fast/heuristic thinking, which is different from the slow/reasoned thinking that consumers tend to purchase durable goods (e.g. white goods, building materials) (14). As such, evidence from food markets is more likely than evidence from non-food markets to apply to the case of animal welfare-labelled meat. For analogous reasons, scientific evidence on public benefits (e.g. climate, working conditions, fair trade) may be more applicable than evidence on private benefits (e.g. nutrition), as mental processes may be different for public versus private goods (15).

  3. Within food, evidence from chicken is more applicable than evidence from other meat products. Economically, the chicken market is distinct from other meat markets—the demand for chicken tends to be less responsive, compared to other types of meat, when consumers face changes in prices or income (16–18). One reason is that, while there is a market for premium chicken with various quality attributes (e.g. higher-welfare, free range, organic), chicken as a whole is treated as a commodity good in a way that other meats are not (19,20). That said, these dynamics are also observed in the markets for eggs and milk (20).

  4. Within higher-welfare chicken, there is an important distinction between retail prices and farm prices. While there are high-quality studies on the effect of animal welfare regulations on farm economics (1,21–24), the market price of higher-welfare food products tends to be determined by factors other than the farm price. In particular, while farmers do indeed get compensated for the higher-welfare production practices, retailers seem to capture the majority of the price difference between conventional and higher-welfare meat (1). As such, if we are interested in projecting the retail price of higher-welfare chicken after the introduction of a tiered labelling system in a new country, knowledge of production costs is insufficient—rather, it is more appropriate to examine the retail price of higher-welfare chicken sold under similar tiered systems in other countries.


With these considerations in mind, we now turn to a review of tiered animal welfare labelling schemes that have been successful around the world.


2. Successful tiered animal welfare schemes from around the world


There are about a dozen tiered certification and labelling schemes applied to chicken meat around the world. For five of these, there is data on market share. We will briefly describe these scenes, and then give a more detailed analysis of their market shares of prices in the following section of this report. 


To enable a straightforward comparison, the following analysis focuses on slower-growing breeds. Slower-growing breeds represent the most significant aspect of the Better Chicken Commitment in terms of welfare outcomes (25–29) and requirement for investment from industry (22,30,31). Generally speaking, the tiers that require slower-growing breeds also meet the other requirements of the Better Chicken Commitment (32). As such, while focusing on slower-growing breeds enables a more straightforward analysis, the conclusions are generalisable to the Better Chicken Commitment as a whole.


These five key schemes, which apply to chicken meat and have available data on market shares, are:

  • Red Tractor (UK). The Red Tractor label is owned by the industry company Assured Food Standards. The Red Tractor label is notable in its overall market coverage—across all categories (including the categories that apply to conventional chicken), about 95% of chicken in the UK is sold under the Red Tractor label (19). For chicken, the label is divided into seven unordered categories called "enterprises". Two of these (Enhanced Welfare and Free Range) require the use of slower-growing breeds, among other requirements.

  • Haltungsform (Housing Type; Germany). The Haltungsform label is owned by Initiative Tierwohl, a company affiliated with retailers and industry. The label has four tiers (Haltungsform 1 to Haltungsform 4), though the label will be transitioning towards five tiers to be easily comparable to the German state animal welfare label (see below). For chicken, slower-growing breeds are required at Haltungsform 3 and Haltungsform 4 (defined as maximum weight gain of 45 g per day, though 51 g per day is permitted at Haltungsform 3 subject to appropriate gait scores). Haltungsform 1 corresponds to the legal minimum standard (6). The standards are available here.

  • Bedre Dyrevelfærd (Better Animal Welfare; Denmark). The Bedre Dyrevelfærd label is a voluntary label managed by the government of Denmark (33). The label has three tiers, represented visually on the label using hearts. For chicken, slower-growing breeds are required at all three levels. "Slower-growing" is defined as an average daily weight gain at least 25% lower than that of Ross 308 broilers. In 2022, Ross 308 broilers had an average weight gain of around 76 g per day (34), which would indicate that the Bedre Dyrevelfærd requirement is equivalent to a maximum average weight gain of around 57 grams per day. The standards are available here. 

  • Beter Leven (Better Life; Netherlands). This label is owned by the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals. The label has three levels: one star, two stars, and three stars (33). For chicken, slower-growing breeds are required at all three levels (32,35) (defined as a maximum average daily growth rate of 45 g per day, e.g. Hubbard JA 957, 757, Rowan Ranger, Cobb Sasso 150, Sasso SA 451 N, Ranger Gold, Rambler Ranger, Hubbard JA257, Hubbard JACY57). The standards are available here.

  • Etiquette Bien-être Animal (Animal Welfare Label; France). This label is owned by l'Association Étiquette Bien-Être Animal, an association between NGOs, retailers, and producers. The label has five tiers (A through E) (33). For chicken, slower-growing breeds are required at level A (Supérieur; superior); B (Bien; good), and level C (Assez bien; pretty good). Permitted breeds are those approved under the Better Chicken Commitment (intermediate growth permitted under tier C and tier B, including Hubbard JA 757, 957, 787, 987, Rowna Ranger, Ranger Classic, Ranger Gold, Cobb Sasso 150, Norfolk Black; slow growth required under tier A, including Rambler Rambler, T44NI – T44 – T55, T77N – T88N –T44N, T55NPB – T88 – T77) The standards are available here.


To our knowledge, beyond those five key schemes, there exist a further seven tiered chicken welfare schemes. Market share data for these schemes are not available, but we briefly highlight them to illustrate the variety of ways in which tiered certification and labelling schemes are used for chicken welfare around the world.

  • Global Animal Partnership (North America). The Animal Welfare Certified label, owned by the NGO Global Animal Partnership though affiliated with the retailer Whole Foods Market, provides a tiered certification system for a variety of meat and animal products (36,37). This label has mostly been adopted in the United States. The chicken welfare label has six levels, ranging from level 1 to level 5+. Slower-growing breeds are required at level 4, level 5, and level 5+. The chicken standards are available here.

  • European Union marketing standards. The Commission Regulation (EC) 543/2008 governs the marketing and sale of poultry meat. This Regulation lists several terms that, for marketing and sales in the EU, can only be used on poultry products that meet certain criteria. As such, these terms can be viewed as a de facto tiered labelling scheme. Two of the restricted terms ("Traditional free range" and "Free range—total freedom") require the use of slower-growing breeds. While data on market shares are unavailable, experts estimate that roughly 5 to 10% of chicken in the EU is produced under alternative production systems (which includes those two terms, plus two others that do not require slower-growing breeds) (38). The regulation can be accessed here.

  • Dyrevelfærd (Animal Welfare; Denmark). This is a private label owned by the retailer Coop Denmark for use on its products, not to be confused with the Bedre Dyrevelfærd label described above (39). Coop's Dyrevelfærd label contained four levels for chickens, and slower-growing breeds were required at the second level and above (40). The label was discontinued in 2022 due to the introduction of the Bedre Dyrevelfærd label. However, Coop reported that sales of products with its Dyrevelfærd label, after the label was introduced, increased by 5% and that this was significantly better than the average market performance. This suggests that the label succeeded in changing shoppers' habits (41,42).

  • LIDL Welfare Windows (UK). This is a private initiative of the retailer LIDL for use on its products. The LIDL Welfare Windows offers five labels for chicken, and slower-growing breeds are required for three of these (British Indoor+, British Free Range, and British Organic). The chicken standards are available here.

  • Tierschutz-Kontrolliert (Animal Welfare Controlled; Germany and Austria). This label, owned by the NGO Four Paws, was discontinued in 2022 due to the abundance of other animal welfare certification schemes that had appeared on the market (43,44).

  • Für Mehr Tierschutz (For More Animal Welfare; Germany). This label is owned by the NGO Deutschen Tierschutzbundes (German Animal Welfare Association). The scheme has two tiers: Einstiegsstufe (entry-level; one star) and Premiumstufe (premium-level; two stars). When applied to chicken, slower-growing breeds are required at both levels (32). A representative of the label told us that, as of July 2024, there are 143 broiler farms certified by this label (137 entry-level and 6 premium-level). The standards are available here. The visual appearance of this label is critiqued in this report (see below, "The importance of visual design").

  • Staatliches Tierwohlkennzeichen (State Animal Welfare Label; Germany). This is a mandatory label introduced by the German government. The requirement to use this label entered into force in August 2023, though the requirement only applies to pig meat  (45). The label for pig meat offers five tiers. While this label does not currently apply to chicken, we mention it because the government intends to expand the label to many different animal species (45). Furthermore, this label is exceptional as an example of a mandatory tiered animal welfare label. As such, if the government achieves its intent, then Germany may become the first country with a mandatory tiered chicken welfare label. 


3. Market share


Of the many tiered chicken welfare schemes listed above, we have found data on the market share of five schemes (Fig. 1):

  • In the Netherlands, the Beter Leven label covers all fresh chicken sold in supermarkets (1,36). A Dutch industry expert confirmed to us that all supermarkets did indeed, by January 2024, switch to selling only Beter Leven-certified fresh chicken. Non-certified chicken is still sold as processed products, via butchers and other retailers, and in the food service industry. The split between slower-growing and fast-growing chicks raised in the Netherlands is about 50/50. Therefore, the expert estimated that the overall market share of Beter Leven-certified chicken is 55 to 60%. While the Beter Leven label has three levels, all three levels require the use of slower-growing breeds. At least in 2018, the vast majority (~95%) of Beter Leven-certified chicken was certified to the lowest of the three levels (46). However, even this lowest level still requires the use of slower-growing chicken breeds.

  • In Denmark, government data shows that the Bedre Dyrevelfærd label is applied to 5.58 million broilers (47). This corresponds to about 25% of the 22.6 million broilers alive at any one time in Denmark (48). Since all three levels of the Bedre Dyrevelfærd require the use of slower-growing chicken breeds, this means the coverage of slower-growing chicken with the Bedre Dyrevelfærd label is around 25%. This 25% is broken down into the three tiers as follows: 16% for one heart. 6.4% for two hearts, and 2.3% for three hearts (47). However, slower-growing breeds are required at all three levels.

  • In France, the Étiquette Bien-être Animal label covers about 12–15% of chicken (1,49). There is no data that shows the distribution of this 12–15% by the five tiers of this label (A through E). However, it was reported in 2021 that labels D and E have not been assigned to any products (50). Thus, since slower-growing breeds are required at level C and above, we can conclude that the coverage of the tiers of this scheme that require slower-growing breeds is around 12–15% of broilers farmed in France.

  • In Germany, evidence on the market coverage of the Haltungsform label comes from an annual survey of supermarkets conducted by Greenpeace (51). This survey covers eight supermarket chains that, together, control about three-quarters of retail sales in Germany (52). As of the most recent survey (2022), supermarkets reported that no poultry meat was sold under Haltungsform 1; 90% was sold under Haltungsform 2; 5.9% was sold under Haltungsform 3; and 4.4% was sold under Haltungsform 4 (51). Since slower-growing breeds are required under Haltungsform 3 and 4, we can conclude that (at least for these eight supermarket chains), the coverage of the slower-growing tiers of Haltungsform is about 10.3% of chicken sold in Germany.

  • In the UK, the Red Tractor label is applied to about 95% of chicken sold. However, slower-growing breeds are only required under the additional modules "Enhanced Welfare" and "Free Range". The market share of the former has not been published; the market share of the latter is around 3.5% (19,53). Therefore, the market share of slower-growing chicken as certified by Red Tractor is about 3.5% at minimum.



These five data points are represented visually below. This gives a useful guide for projecting the market share of a new chicken labelling tier that requires slower-growing breeds.

ree

Fig 1. Market shares of slower-growing chicken sold under tiered certification schemes around the world.


What explains this variation in the market share across these five different certification schemes? Firstly, we note that Red Tractor is a label owned by the farming industry. The UK poultry industry has repeatedly objected to slower-growing breeds (e.g. 54)—the Enhanced Welfare and Free Range modules are poorly designed and have not been well-promoted, which may explain why retailers have not expressed much interest in them. In this unfavourable environment, the fact that these higher-welfare modules have only achieved a small market share is unsurprising. As such, it is reasonable to view the Red Tractor market share as the worst case scenario.


On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Beter Leven scheme. This scheme has achieved an enormous market share of 55–60% because all of the supermarkets in the Netherlands committed to only sell fresh chicken meat with the label (1,36). This is an unusually favourable market environment for the Beter Leven scheme. As such, it is reasonable to view the Beter Leven market share as the best case scenario.


The two schemes with the highest market share for the slower-growing tiers—Beter Leven in the Netherlands with 55-60% and Bedre Dyrevelfærd in Denmark with 25%—are also those schemes that require slower-growing breeds at all levels. These two schemes demonstrate that a strong scheme, when implemented with support from retailers and other stakeholders, can achieve a vast market share for slower-growing chicken.


The three middle schemes provide a reasonable expectation for the market share that can be initially achieved by a well-designed scheme in normal circumstances (10% for Germany's Haltungsform; 12–15% for France's Étiquette Bien-être Animal; and 25% for Denmark's Bedre Dyrevelfærd). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that a new, well-designed scheme in a high-income country will achieve an initial market share somewhere in the 10 to 25% range. This market share is also likely to increase over time, as demonstrated by the gradual growth of all schemes and the particular success of the Beter Leven scheme.


It is important to keep in mind that these are substantial achievements for animal welfare. For example, consider the 55–60% market share of the Beter Leven scheme in the Netherlands. Government data shows that 517,709,000 chickens were slaughtered for meat in the Netherlands in 2022 (55). Recall that the Welfare Footprint Project estimated that a slower-growing broiler chicken experiences, on average, around 96 fewer hours of pain than a conventional chicken (56). As such, a 55% market share means that there are approximately 27.3 billion fewer hours—the equivalent of over 3 million chicken-years—of animal suffering in the Dutch poultry industry every year.


4. Retail prices

Beyond the market share, it is also helpful to know what price premium is generally charged by retailers for slower-growing chicken. In any given country, the price premium changes over time and between local regions, so it can be a bit trickier to estimate than the overall market share. The most useful piece of evidence is the price premium from conventional chicken to the lowest tier of slower-growing chicken. This is because the higher tiers of labels typically require slower-growing chicken plus many other requirements (e.g. outdoor access). To enable a straightforward comparison, we focus on slower-growing breeds as they represent the most significant aspect of the Better Chicken Commitment in terms of welfare outcomes and requirement for investment from industry (discussed above). However, the tiers that require slower-growing breeds also generally meet the other requirements of the Better Chicken Commitment (32).


The table below gives an indication of the price premium using the best available information. In any given country, the price premium changes over time and from place to place, so it can be a bit trickier to estimate than the overall market share. The table refers to indicative supermarket offers at the time of writing (July 2024) or, in the case of the Dutch label Beter Leven, market research conducted by the European Commission in 2021. Note that the French label Étiquette Bien-être Animal is not listed in the table, as we were unable to find reliable prices for chicken sold under this label.


Country

Scheme

Price of conventional chicken in the country

Price of slower-growing chicken under the scheme

Price premium (%)

Source

Netherlands

Beter Leven

7.00 EUR/kg

(non-labelled)

8.90 EUR/kg

(one star)

+27%

European Commission (1)

Denmark

Bedre Dyrevelfærd

~27 DKK/kg (non-labelled)

44.41 DKK/kg

(one star)

+65%

Selina Wamucii market analysis; Rema 1000 supermarket

Germany

Haltungsform

9.98 EUR/kg

(Haltungsform 2, breast fillets)

~21 EUR/kg

(Haltungsform 3, breast fillets)

+110%

Rewe supermarket (Haltungsform 2; Haltungsform 3; Haltungsform 3)

UK

Red Tractor

3.20 GBP/kg

(Red Tractor conventional)

4.75 GBP/kg

(Enhanced Welfare)

+48%

Tesco supermarket (conventional; Enhanced Welfare)

Note: Prices are given in local currencies and for whole chicken unless otherwise noted.



From this table, we can see that the price premium for the lowest tier of slower-growing chicken ranges from 27 to 110%, with a median of about 57%. This reinforces the conclusion drawn by the European Commission—in their study, the Commission documented price premiums between 18 and 94% (1). 


Furthermore, the Commission emphasised that price premiums are not always caused by higher production costs (1). Rather, the price premiums are usually caused by retail pricing strategies, supply chain dynamics, and market demand. While farmers do indeed get compensated for the higher-welfare production practices, retailers seem to capture the majority of the price difference between conventional and higher-welfare meat (1). This would suggest that there is some flexibility when it comes to retail pricing strategies for a slower-growing tier of chicken.


There is one interesting pattern that applies to multi-tiered animal welfare labelling schemes—that is, schemes that have three or more levels. Scientific studies have identified that when consumers are willing to pay a particular price to move from the lowest welfare level to a higher welfare level, those consumers are typically willing to pay less to move to the next highest welfare level. In economic terms, consumers appear to have a diminishing marginal willingness-to-pay as the level of a tiered certification scheme increases (6). This pattern was documented in the aforementioned studies on demand for higher welfare meat (including chicken) in Western Australia, Germany, and Sweden (15,57,58). Notably, this pattern was not documented for chicken in a recent study of 1,200 German consumers (6), so it is unclear whether this is a universal trend. However, if this trend holds, then it means that a multi-tiered chicken welfare scheme (i.e., a scheme with 3+ levels) would benefit from having a smaller price gap between the top few levels than between the bottom few levels. Of course, this trend is irrelevant for the design of a tiered scheme with only two levels (e.g. a baseline animal welfare tier and a premium animal welfare tier).


5. The importance of visual design


The scientific literature on food labelling (e.g. eco-labels and nutrition labels) has shown that certification and labelling schemes are most successful when labels are well-designed. When time is limited, which is the case in supermarket shopping, design components have a particularly strong effect on what products shoppers choose to buy (59,60). 


While a detailed review on label design is beyond the scope of this report, we highlight a few key components and illustrate how these apply to animal welfare labels in practice. More detailed information can be found in the review on this topic by the European Commission (1 pp. 36-40).


There are several components that are involved in the quality design of successful tiered certification labels:

  • Colour coding. Colour is frequently identified as a way to both improve consumer understanding and increase purchases (1). Colour is particularly effective when it uses a symbolic colour scheme such as a traffic-light system (i.e. the tiers are labelled using colours ranging from red for the lowest level to green for the highest level)—the important role of symbolic colour schemes has been demonstrated for a variety of product attributes, including animal welfare (15,61). Eye tracking studies on nutritional labels have revealed that shoppers tend to look at coloured, traffic-light systems and to fixate on them for longer, when compared with grayscale systems or simple binary logos (62,63).

  • Simple and standardised grading system. The most successful labels are those that are clear and simple. This can be achieved using a standardised labelling scale, such as letter grades or numbered grades. For example, surveys involving many thousands of consumers in multiple countries have repeatedly shown that the best performance is achieved by labels that are both colour coded and graded on a standardised scale (e.g. ranked from A through E) (60,61,64,65). The use of a standardised format means that labels can be large, readable, and easy to understand—a crucial ingredient when shoppers are making time-limited decisions (61). As such, if text is used to describe the animal welfare conditions associated with the level, this information should be brief (66).

  • Brand awareness. Beyond visual appearance, the design of successful labels can also involve marketing and brand awareness (e.g. advertising, shelf placement). For example, advertising campaigns could help increase shoppers' awareness about the importance of a tiered certification system and the meaning of its tiers (7). This additional information can reinforce shoppers' motivation to purchase higher-welfare meat, which could help to increase the market share (13,67).


With this information in mind, we can evaluate the tiered chicken welfare labels from around the world (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).

  • Good visual design is demonstrated by labels from Germany and France. Germany's Haltungsform label is colour-coded using a symbolic colour scheme (red and green). It combines this colour scheme with number grades (1 through 5) and a very brief description (just one or two words) of the meaning of each grade. Similarly, France's Étiquette Bien-être Animal label uses a red-green colour scheme and letter grades (A through E), alongside one or two words for each category. Both labels are simple, clear, and easy to understand.

  • Poor visual design is demonstrated by labels from Germany and the UK. Germany's Für Mehr Tierschutz label uses stars to distinguish the two levels. However, the gold and blue colour scheme makes it difficult to tell the levels apart. The label is cluttered with irrelevant text. The absence of any number or letter grade means that people looking at one label might not even be aware that the label is using a graded system. The only hint at the grade comes in the form of text ("Entry-level" or "premium-level"), but this is small and located next to the certifier's website. This poor design may be the reason why two studies, each involving several hundred German consumers, have found that participants expressed the same willingness-to-pay for each level (i.e. they didn't value the premium-level label more highly than the entry-level label) (68,69). Similarly, the UK's Red Tractor label uses an entirely different logo for the Enhanced Welfare module; it would not be obvious to any shopper seeing one logo that other logos even exist. The entire point of a tiered system is to compare products, so a tiered system must highlight the inherent comparability of where any given product sits on the scale. The Red Tractor logos do not communicate to shoppers the key idea that a tiered scale exists, let alone where a particular product sits on that scale.

ree

Fig 2. Examples of strong visual design in tiered animal welfare labels.

ree

Fig 3. Examples of poor visual design in tiered animal welfare labels.


7. Key lessons for a tiered chicken welfare labelling scheme in a new country


Given the evidence discussed in this report, we can now summarise the key lessons for a tiered chicken welfare labelling scheme in a new (high-income) country.

  • Market share: It is reasonable to expect a well-designed tiered labelling scheme to achieve initial market shares between 10 and 25% for slower-growing chicken. This is the range of market shares observed for the slower-growing levels of well-designed tiered labelling schemes in other countries under normal market conditions. It is also reasonable to expect this market share to increase over time. We also emphasise that the countries where slower-growing chicken has achieved the highest market share have used tiered certification schemes where all levels of the scheme require slower-growing chicken (e.g. Beter Leven in the Netherlands).

  • Price premium: The level of a tiered certification scheme that requires slower-growing breeds would probably attract a price premium somewhere in the vicinity of +27 to 110%. This is the range of price premiums observed in other countries. The evidence suggests that the price premium is influenced more strongly by retailer pricing strategies than by production costs per se.

  • Good design: It is critical for a tiered labelling scheme to be well-designed. The most important characteristics of strong visual design, as identified in the academic literature and demonstrated by the successful schemes from around the world, are colour coding (e.g. a traffic-light system or another intuitively meaningful colour scheme) a simple and standardised grading system (e.g. letter or number grades). Likewise, the literature on eco-label marketing emphasises the importance of brand awareness. Good brand awareness can involve a strong advertising campaign and appropriate shelf placement, which help to reinforce shopper's motivation to purchase higher-welfare meat products.


References


1. European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, Maestre M, Campbell L, Etienne J, Cook E, et al. Study on animal welfare labelling – Final report [Internet]. Publications Office of the European Union; 2022. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/doi/10.2875/676603

2. Fischer C, Lyon TP. A Theory of Multitier Ecolabel Competition. JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMISTS [Internet]. 2019;6(3):461–501. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/702985

3. Li Y, van ’t Veld K. Green, greener, greenest: Eco-label gradation and competition. J Environ Econ Manage [Internet]. 2015 Jul 1;72:164–76. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069615000455

4. Atasoy AT. Behavioral responses of green builders to discontinuous certification schemes. Res Energy Econ [Internet]. 2020 May 1;60:101141. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765518300708

5. Cameron AJ, Brown A, Orellana L, Marshall J, Charlton E, Ngan WW, et al. Change in the Healthiness of Foods Sold in an Australian Supermarket Chain Following Implementation of a Shelf Tag Intervention Based on the Health Star Rating System. Nutrients [Internet]. 2022 Jun 9;14(12). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu14122394

6. Kühl S, Schütz A, Busch G. Willingness to pay for a multi-level animal husbandry label: an analysis of German meat consumers. BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL [Internet]. 2024;126(5):2099–121. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2023-0719

7. Denver S, Sandøe P, Christensen T. Consumer preferences for pig welfare – Can the market accommodate more than one level of welfare pork? Meat Sci [Internet]. 2017 Jul 1;129:140–6. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174017302413

8. Weinrich R, Spiller A. Developing food labelling strategies: Multi-level labelling. J Clean Prod [Internet]. 2016;137:1138–48. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.156

9. Alberini A. Revealed versus Stated Preferences: What Have We Learned About Valuation and Behavior? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy [Internet]. 2019 Jul 1;13(2):283–98. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rez010

10. Loomis J. What’s to know about hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation studies? J Econ Surv [Internet]. 2011 Apr;25(2):363–70. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00675.x

11. Clark B, Stewart GB, Panzone LA, Kyriazakis I, Frewer LJ. Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy [Internet]. 2017 Apr 1;68:112–27. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921730060X

12. van ’t Veld K. Eco-Labels: Modeling the Consumer Side. Annual Review of Resource Economics [Internet]. 2020 Oct 6 [cited 2024 May 22];12(Volume 12, 2020):187–207. Available from: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110319-115158

13. Bullock G, van der Ven H. The Shadow of the Consumer: Analyzing the Importance of Consumers to the Uptake and Sophistication of Ratings, Certifications, and Eco-Labels. Organ Environ [Internet]. 2020 Mar 1;33(1):75–95. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026618803748

14. Hamlin R, McNeill L. The Impact of the Australasian “Health Star Rating”, Front-of-Pack Nutritional Label, on Consumer Choice: A Longitudinal Study. Nutrients [Internet]. 2018;10(7). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10070906

15. Carlsson F, Kataria M, Lampi E, Nyberg E, Sterner T. Red, yellow, or green? Do consumers’ choices of food products depend on the label design? Eur Rev Agric Econ [Internet]. 2022;49(5):1005–26. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab036

16. Gallet CA. The income elasticity of meat: a meta-analysis. Aust J Agric Resour Econ [Internet]. 2010 Sep 28;54(4):477–90. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2010.00505.x

17. Gallet CA. Meat meets meta: A quantitative review of the price elasticity of meat. Am J Agric Econ [Internet]. 2010 Jan;92(1):258–72. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1093/ajae/aap008

18. Andreyeva T, Long MW, Brownell KD. The impact of food prices on consumption: a systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand for food. Am J Public Health [Internet]. 2010 Feb;100(2):216–22. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.151415

19. Chen PJ, O’Sullivan S, Pyke S. Hybrid governance and welfare standards for broiler chickens raised for human consumption. Aust J Publ Adm [Internet]. 2024 Jan 14; Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8500.12625

20. Parker C, Carey R, Scrinis G. The Meat in the Sandwich: Welfare Labelling and the Governance of Meat‐Chicken Production in Australia. J Law Soc [Internet]. 2018; Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jols.12119

21. Bos AP, Jebbink S, van Harn J. Gevolgen van de omslag naar Beter Leven keurmerk 1 ster vleeskuikens inde Nederlandse retail [Internet]. Wageningen: Wageningen Livestock Research; 2023 [cited 2023 Aug 29] p. -. Report No.: 1407. Available from: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/615576

22. van Horne PLM. Economics of broiler production systems in the Netherlands: Economic aspects within the Greenwell sustainability assessment model [Internet]. Wageningen University & Research; 2020. Available from: https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/economics-of-broiler-production-systems-in-the-netherlands-econom

23. Gocsik É, Oude Lansink AGJM, Voermans G, Saatkamp HW. Economic feasibility of animal welfare improvements in Dutch intensive livestock production: A comparison between broiler, laying hen, and fattening pig sectors. Livest Sci [Internet]. 2015 Dec 1;182:38–53. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141315300160

24. Gocsik É, Brooshooft SD, de Jong IC, Saatkamp HW. Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol. Agric Syst [Internet]. 2016 Jul 1;146:55–69. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X16300610

25. Welfare Footprint. Welfare Footprint. 2022. Impact of the better chicken commitment and the adoption of slower-growing breeds on the welfare of broiler chickens. Available from: https://welfarefootprint.org/broilers/

26. Broom. Animal welfare in the European Union. Animal welfare in the European Union [Internet]. 2017; Available from: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20193017080

27. Dixon LM. Slow and steady wins the race: The behaviour and welfare of commercial faster growing broiler breeds compared to a commercial slower growing breed. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020 Apr 6;15(4):e0231006. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231006

28. Bracke MBM, Koene P, Estevez I, Butterworth A, de Jong IC. Broiler welfare trade-off: A semi-quantitative welfare assessment for optimised welfare improvement based on an expert survey. PLoS One [Internet]. 2019 Oct 1;14(10):e0222955. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222955

29. Baxter M, Richmond A, Lavery U, O’Connell NE. A comparison of fast growing broiler chickens with a slower-growing breed type reared on Higher Welfare commercial farms. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021 Nov 4;16(11):e0259333. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259333

30. Vissers LSM, de Jong IC, van Horne PLM, Saatkamp HW. Global Prospects of the Cost-Efficiency of Broiler Welfare in Middle-Segment Production Systems. Animals (Basel) [Internet]. 2019 Jul 23;9(7). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9070473

31. Lusk, Thompson. The cost and market impacts of slow-growth broilers. J Agric Food Ind Organ [Internet]. 2019; Available from: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/292330/

32. Compassion in World Farming. Global Broiler Certification Schemes Comparison Table [Internet]. Available from: https://www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com/media/7430781/how-welfare-schemes-compare-to-compassions-criteria-for-higher-welfare_broilers.pdf

33. European Parliamentary Research Service. Animal welfare on the farm – ex-post evaluation of the EU legislation: Prospects for animal welfare labelling at EU level [Internet]. Ex-Post Evaluation Unit; 2021. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/662643/EPRS_STU(2021)662643_EN.pdf

34. Aviagen. Ross 308/Ross 308 FF Performance Objectives [Internet]. Ross; 2022. Available from: https://aviagen.com/assets/Tech_Center/Ross_Broiler/RossxRoss308-BroilerPerformanceObjectives2022-EN.pdf

35. Dieren bescherming. A Conscious Choice: Introduction of the Better Life Label [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://beterleven.dierenbescherming.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/Interactive-PDF-BLK-introduction-EN-20200604-this-document-1.pdf

36. Cygańska M. Paving the way for higher welfare broiler breeds in the EU: From market initiatives to legislation [Internet]. Eurogroup for Animals; 2024. Available from: https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/library/paving-way-higher-welfare-broiler-breeds-eu-market-initiatives-legislation

37. Duncan IJH, Park M, Malleau AE. Global Animal Partnership’s 5-StepTM Animal Welfare Rating Standards: a welfare-labelling scheme that allows for continuous improvement. Anim Welf [Internet]. 2012;21:113–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673926

38. Gentile E, Loi A, Gentile M, Bruni M, Berisio S, Parisi P, et al. Evaluation of Marketing Standards contained in the CMO Regulation, the “Breakfast Directives” and CMO secondary legislation. Final report. 2020; Available from: https://digital.csic.es/handle/10261/236430

39. Euro Coop. Euro Coop Position Paper on Animal Welfare [Internet]. European Community of Consumer Co-operatives ; 2017. Available from: https://www.eurocoop.coop/uploads/Euro%20Coop%20Position%20Paper%20on%20Animal%20welfare%20(2).pdf

40. Coop. Dyrevelfærdshjertet: En mærkningsordning for dyrevelfærd [The animal welfare heart: A labeling scheme for animal welfare] [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://tidtilathandle.coop.dk/media/1647/kriterer-for-slagtekyllinger.pdf

41. Coop. Brev vedr. svar på MOF spm. 665 [Letter regarding answer to MOF question 665] [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.ft.dk/samling/20171/almdel/mof/spm/665/svar/1496438/1907942.pdf

42. Coop Danmark A/S. Ritzau. 2017. Dyrevelfærds-mærke flytter salg af fødevarer [Animal welfare brand moves food sales]. Available from: https://via.ritzau.dk/pressemeddelelse/10145191/dyrevelfaerds-maerke-flytter-salg-af-fodevarer?publisherId=90407

43. Vier Pfoten. Vier Pfoten. 2021. Vier Pfoten Beendet “Tierschutz-Kontrolliert”-Gütesiegel [Four Paws Ends “Animal Welfare Controlled” Seal of Quality]. Available from: https://www.vier-pfoten.at/unsere-geschichten/pressemitteilungen/vier-pfoten-beendet-tierschutz-kontrolliert-guetesiegel

44. Vier Pfoten. Vier Pfoten. Das war das “Tierschutz-Kontrolliert”-Gütesiegel [This was the “Animal Welfare Controlled” seal of approval]. Available from: https://www.vier-pfoten.at/kampagnen-themen/themen/nutztiere/das-war-tierschutz-kontrolliert

45. Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 2023. Make Way: the Animal Husbandry Label is Coming. Available from: https://www.bmel.de/EN/topics/animals/animal-welfare/state-run-animal-welfare-label-pigs.html

46. Scientific Services, German Bundestag. Sachstand: Private und staatliche Tierwohlkennzeichen in Deutschland und in der EU [Status: Private and state animal welfare labels in Germany and the EU] [Internet]. 2018. Report No.: WD 5 - 3000 - 083/18. Available from: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/565504/cc0e3759320b053a5911a4e9be5bd15f/WD-5-083-18-pdf.pdf

47. Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri. Centrale Husdyrbrugsregister. Dyrevelfærdsmærket [The animal welfare label]. Available from: https://chr.fvst.dk/chri/faces/frontpage

49. L’Étiquette Bien-Être Animal. L’Étiquette Bien-Être Animal. 2024. Communiqué de presse : l’étiquette bien-être animal fête ses 5 ans ! [Press release: the animal welfare label celebrates its 5th anniversary!]. Available from: https://www.etiquettebienetreanimal.fr/2024/06/20/letiquette-bien-etre-animal-fete-ses-5-ans/

50. Pouliquen F. 20 Minutes. 2021. A pour supérieur, E pour minimal… L’étiquette « bien-être animal » avance avec les poulets et voit même plus loin [A for superior, E for minimal… The “animal welfare” label moves forward with chickens and sees even further]. Available from: https://www.20minutes.fr/planete/3129355-20210924-superieur-e-minimal-etiquette-bien-etre-animal-avance-poulets-voit-plus-loin

51. Greenpeace. Supermarkt-Check IV: Zäher Abschied vom Billigfleisch [Supermarket check IV: Tough farewell to cheap meat] [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/GPD-2022-07-Agrarwende-SupermarktcheckIV.pdf

52. Statista. Statista. 2023. Market share of the leading companies in food retail in Germany from 2009 to 2022. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/505129/leading-companies-in-food-retail-germany/

53. Griffiths R. British Poultry Council. 2017. In Praise of Free-Range. Available from: https://britishpoultry.org.uk/in-praise-of-free-range/

54. NFU. NFU Comment Better Chicken Commitment [Internet]. NFU; 2019. Available from: https://www.nfuonline.com/archive?treeid=139717

55. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT: Crops and livestock products [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL

56. PainTrack. PainTrack. Time in pain endured by the average broiler under different growth rates and stocking densities. Available from: https://www.pain-track.org/broilers

57. Patterson J, Mugera A, Burton M. Consumer preferences for welfare friendly production methods: the case of chicken production in Western Australia. 2015; Available from: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/202567/files/Patterson%20paper.pdf

58. Schwickert H. Paying for animal welfare labelling no matter what? A discrete choice experiment. Eur Rev Agric Econ [Internet]. 2023 Aug 21 [cited 2024 May 23];50(5):1754–95. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/erae/article-abstract/50/5/1754/7246626

59. Crosetto P, Muller L, Ruffieux B. Helping consumers with a front-of-pack label: Numbers or colors? Experimental comparison between Guideline Daily Amount and Traffic Light in a diet-building exercise. J Econ Psychol [Internet]. 2016;55:30–50. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.03.006

60. Ní Choisdealbha A, Lunn PD. Green and Simple: Disclosures on Eco-labels Interact with Situational Constraints in Consumer Choice. J Consumer Policy [Internet]. 2020;43(4):699–722. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10603-020-09465-x

61. Gomes S, Nogueira M, Ferreira M, Gregorio MJ, Graça P, Jewell J, et al. Consumer Attitudes Toward Food and Nutritional Labeling: Implications for Policymakers and Practitioners on a National Level. J Food Prod Mark [Internet]. 2020;26(7):470–85. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1802381

62. Antúnez L, Vidal L, Sapolinski A, Giménez A, Maiche A, Ares G. How do design features influence consumer attention when looking for nutritional information on food labels? Results from an eye-tracking study on pan bread labels. Int J Food Sci Nutr [Internet]. 2013;64(5):515–27. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2012.759187

63. Bialkova S, Grunert KG, Juhl HJ, Wasowicz-Kirylo G, Stysko-Kunkowska M, van Trijp HCM. Attention mediates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers’ choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-tracking. Appetite [Internet]. 2014;76:66–75. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.11.021

64. Ducrot P, Julia C, Méjean C, Kesse-Guyot E, Touvier M, Fezeu LK, et al. Impact of Different Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labels on Consumer Purchasing Intentions A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Prev Med [Internet]. 2016;50(5):627–36. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.10.020

65. Egnell M, Galan P, Farpour-Lambert NJ, Talati Z, Pettigrew S, Hercberg S, et al. Compared to other front-of-pack nutrition labels, the Nutri-Score emerged as the most efficient to inform Swiss consumers on the nutritional quality of food products. PLoS One [Internet]. 2020;15(2). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228179

66. Li T, Kecinski M, Messer KD. Behavioural responses to science-based eco-labelling: gold, silver, or bronze. Appl Econ [Internet]. 2018 Aug 21;50(39):4250–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2018.1441522

67. Risius A, Hamm U. The effect of information on beef husbandry systems on consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay. Meat Sci [Internet]. 2017 Feb;124:9–14. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.10.008

68. Yeh CH, Hartmann M. To purchase or not to purchase? Drivers of consumers’ preferences for animal welfare in their meat choice. Sustain Sci Pract Policy [Internet]. 2021;13(16):9100. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9100

69. Weinrich R, Franz A, Spiller A. Analyses into consumers’ willingness to pay a certain price in multi-level labelling systems: The animal welfare label as an example. BERICHTE UBER LANDWIRTSCHAFT. 2014;92(2).



Comments

bottom of page