Animal welfare, consumer welfare, and competition law: The Dutch debate on the Chicken of Tomorrow

Market power and sustainability: a new research agenda

“…In the Netherlands, retailers (as well as suppliers) agreed to establish an industry-wide minimum standard for broiler chicken. Interestingly, despite the potential positive effect on animal welfare (as an example of a sustainability issue), the Dutch competition authority did not allow the initiative to continue due to market power issues [123,128]. A company with market power can indirectly coerce the industry to adhere to its private standard.…”

Antymonopolowe déjà vu? Wolność słowa w analizie antymonopolowej

“…Wydaje się jednak, że powyższe pozostaje bez znaczenia dla oceny na gruncie prawa antymonopolowego, w ramach którego naruszenia są zasadniczo uniezależnione od subiektywnych motywacji przedsiębiorstw. I tak przykładowo istotne wątpliwości w prawie konkurencji budziło zawieranie "porozumień w sprawie zrównoważonego rozwoju" (sustainability agreements) (Gerbrandy, 2019, s. 131;Bos, Belt i Feindt, 2018). Umówienie się przez sieci handlowe, że będą nabywały produkty jedynie u "ekologicznych" przetwórców oznacza bojkot i pogorszenie sytuacji innych przetwórców oraz konsumentów, ale jednocześnie działanie uczestników porozumienia nie jest motywowane poprawą ich własnej sytuacji rynkowej 33 .…”

Preferences of European dairy stakeholders in breeding for resilient and efficient cattle: A best-worst scaling approach

“…First, using contemporary approaches, the value of traits must be deterministic and usually linked to short-term markets (Simm, 1998), whereas the value of resilience traits may be dynamic and dependent on uncertain future production circumstances (Friggens et al, 2017). Second, some of the value may not be well transferred via the market; for example, resilience may deliver cobenefits to social and environmental targets, the value of which can be difficult to capture in monetary terms, regardless of relevance in the decision-making process (Nielsen et al, 2008;Bos et al, 2018;Busch and Spiller, 2018). Resultantly, some traits may be undervalued by conventional methods.…”

“…Such preference-based approaches can be used to give an indication of the direction of genetic improvement desired by stakeholders, without limiting the value of an improvement to market value alone (Sae-Lim et al, 2012). There are numerous applications of such methods to date, some of which are detailed by Nielsen et al (2014), and some have even influenced national agricultural genetic strategies (Byrne et al, 2016;Bos et al, 2018). Such methods are still consistent with the philosophy and formulation of breeding objectives, with which an individual's merit is expressed as a product of their performance across a set of valued traits.…”