Animal Business: an Ethical Exploration of Corporate Responsibility Towards Animals

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to take normative aspects of animal welfare in corporate practice from a blind spot into the spotlight, and thus connect the fields of business ethics and animal ethics. Using insights from business ethics and animal ethics, it argues that companies have a strong responsibility towards animals. Its rationale is that animals have a moral status, that moral actors have the moral obligation to take the interests of animals into account and thus, that as moral actors, companies should take the interests of animals into account, more specifically their current and future welfare. Based on this corporate responsibility, categories of corporate impact on animals in terms of welfare and longevity are offered, including normative implications for each of them. The article concludes with managerial implications for several business sectors, including the most animal-consuming and animal-welfare-threatening industry: the food sector. Welfare issues are discussed, including the issue of killing for food production.

Why All Healthy Laboratory Animals Should Be Rehomed, No Matter How Small

“…The utilitarian case for rehoming all redundant laboratory vertebrates that are healthy and rehomeable is that a life worth living (at least from that moment on) is prolonged, while for the volunteering adopter there is a small burden and a great pleasure. Although current laboratory practice is shaped by the view that the death of an animal is not a welfare issue [2], and that in utilitarianism the topic of the value of continuing life has triggered debate, killing can be seen as taking away future welfare or future fulfilment of preferences [25][26][27][28][29][30].…”

“…Whereas, in most instances, costs after adoption will be for the new owners, we think that at least for the costs to enable adoption, the responsibility lies in the first place with the institution conducting the research. This institutional responsibility can be extended to chain responsibility [28]. In the case of laboratory animals, chain responsibility means that the institution is responsible for a sound origin of the animals (coming from a certified breeder with high animal welfare standards) and a good continuation of their life [23].…”

Avoiding unnecessary suffering: Towards a moral minimum standard for humans' responsibility for animal welfare

“…Linking the moral value of human behavior solely to its impact on, or relationship with, other humans—regardless of whether those humans have already been born or not—might also be interpreted as “speciesism”: that is, “the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species” (Horta, 2010, p. 1). Although animals can be considered dependent stakeholders (Janssens, 2022), or “defenseless Others” (Hatami & Firoozi, 2019), with legitimate claims to living well, it would appear that in the debate on animal welfare, human welfare is accorded considerably more weight, and it is the human species that is seen as deserving of greater attention when assessing the moral value of “responsible” human behavior towards animals (Browning, 2023; Labatut et al, 2016; Mellahi & Wood, 2005; Sayers et al, 2019, 2021; Tallberg et al, 2021; Tallberg & Hamilton, 2022; Thomas, 2022b).…”

Caught on Camera: On the Need of Responsible Use of Video Observation for Animal Behavior and Welfare Research

“…Their dependency on human care and lack of self-reporting capacities leaves them in a vulnerable position. At the same time people have more or less agreed on the moral status of animals, which leads to human obligations in terms of animal welfare and a duty of care ( 7 ).…”