168 International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 2, March 2004, pp168–177 © 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKIJCInternational Journal of Consumer Studies1470-6431Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 200428 2168177Original ArticleConsumer value conflicts M.J.A. Schröder and M.G. McEachern Correspondence Dr Monika J.A. Schröder, School of Business and Enterprise, Queen Margaret University College, Clerwood Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 8TS, UK. E-mail: mschroder@qmuc.ac.uk Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: a focus on animal welfare Monika J.A. Schröder 1 and Morven G. McEachern 2 1 School of Business and Enterprise, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, UK 2 School of Management, University of Salford, Salford, UK Abstract Ethical attitudes in relation to meat purchases were studied among urban and rural consumers in Scotland. All subjects perceived at least some ethical issues in relation to animal production systems, in particular, systems keeping animals in close confinement. Welfare-friendly production systems were viewed as adding value to a food, but this value was not necessarily realizable to producers if purchases occurred only when foods were on special offer. Statements made by individuals were often contradictory, revealing ambivalence, unresolved value conflicts and a general lack of involvement in the nature of meat production. A number of barriers to the establishment of stable attitudes and behaviours in relation to the ethical treatment of food ani- mals were also identified. A key finding of the study is that individuals can hold two views on animal welfare. On the one hand, they may think as citizens influencing societal standards, and on the other, as consumers at the point of purchase. As citizens, they support the notion of animals being entitled to a good life; as meat consumers, they avoid the cognitive connection with the live animal. This paper explores both the citizen–consumer relationship and pur- chase strategies used by consumers to resolve value conflicts. Lessons for public and commercial policy are highlighted in the context of the Curry Report (2002) which advocates more effective market segmentation where mar- kets are finely attuned to their customers, with the develop- ment of a number of assurance schemes discussed in the article. Keywords Animal welfare, citizens, consumers, labelling, meat, value conflicts. Introduction In order to be traded legally, food must be ‘of the sub- stance, nature and quality demanded by the purchaser’. 1 This is a somewhat arcane conceptualization of food quality considering that modern food retailing affords few opportunities for a consumer to actively demand food products with attributes defined by that consumer. Food tends to be prepackaged and even if it is not, supermarket counter staff are, on the whole, ill- equipped to provide accurate, meaningful product information. Consequently, food standards and food labelling have emerged as key methods of communica- tion between food supply chains and their ultimate cus- tomers. Some food quality attributes and claims can be verified in the course of consumption, for example, sen- sory attributes, storage quality, convenience and reli- ability. However, these are not the only attributes that determine the overall palatability of foods. Quality-of- life issues, such as food ethics and aesthetics, play an increasingly important role, but these cannot be verified by consuming a product. Attributes such as provenance and production processes are therefore classed as cre- dence, as opposed to experience, attributes. Consumers may find it difficult to establish confidence in products where credence attributes are concerned, with frequent media exposées fostering cynicism about the ethical standards of supply chain players and the honesty of government. Whilst the law takes care of obligatory requirements for food quality, such as food safety and food standards – as well as animal welfare in a wider context 2 – market mechanisms allow added value to be delivered where personal standards are dissatisfied by the minimum set by the law. As a general principle, law can only be con- cerned with minimum standards, and baseline public morality therefore involves compromise. 3 In the UK, ethics as a component of consumer value has come to the fore in recent years. In the food arena, this has found