Groundbreaking Significance of the Report

　I am engaged in education and research because I believe that animal welfare (AW) is the most important concept in order to enjoy livestock products with good taste and to support the human resources who are responsible for this industry.

　Many in the industry are still reluctant to adopt AW for a variety of reasons, including the economic and management reasons that it will only add extra labor and costs, and industry associations for each livestock species are generally still trying to meet the government’s technical guidelines (July 2023).

　In this context, this report, which attempts to evaluate the AW policies and specific initiatives of 107 companies (trading companies, retailers, food service companies, and manufacturers) across industries, mainly outside of production, has the potential to be significant for those involved in livestock AW in Japan.

The report appears to be impartial in that it relies primarily on the publicly available documents of each company for its evaluation. It may not be very pleasant for the companies being evaluated to have their business activities publicized side-by-side. However, for those companies that are working hard, having their efforts visualized and evaluated would be a further encouragement. Above all, it will be a very useful document for consumers (the public). Many companies and organizations will be able to recognize the progress of their livestock AW efforts as “this kind of data is also available.

Several such tasks exist and are well known worldwide. One is the BBFAW and FAIRR, which evaluate the world’s leading companies for the purpose of providing information to investors; another is the WAP, which evaluates the progress of AW policies and laws in 50 countries around the world as an animal protection index. The CIWF’s Wellfair Policy Survey, which evaluates the AW policies of 28 supermarkets in the U.K. (by 2022), is also well known. The only way to understand the AW efforts of Japanese companies involved in livestock food was through these documents. In this sense, this is a landmark report for the promotion of AW in Japan.

Society’s role in enhancing the credibility of reports

Nevertheless, the fact that the evaluation items, criteria, and points are based on the evaluation items, criteria, and points assigned by the ARC is a point of concern. In particular, the question of whether or not the content of questions 6 to 13 regarding the AW evaluation of each livestock species is “most appropriate” for AW promotion “at this point in time” may be a point of contention even among livestock AW promotion groups.

If possible, I would like to see several livestock AW organizations cooperate to discuss the contents of the Japanese version of the AW company evaluation items for each livestock species and stage, and to discuss each aspect of animals, facilities, and management, using this as a starting point. Although there may be difficulties involved, I believe that only through this process will a truly socially influential animal advocacy group/network be formed in Japan. I hope you will nurture the seeds of such a network.

Variation in corporate efforts in terms of evaluation content

Whole

The evaluation items are “1. Overall policy for animal welfare of livestock and fishery products” (5 questions, 11 points). 2. procurement policy for switching from animal materials coming from closed confinement and intensive systems” (8 questions, 51 points). 3. “3. “Switching away from animal-based materials” (2 questions, 8 points); and “4. “Governance” (1 question, 1 point). In total, 71 points were awarded for 16 items in 4 fields. For each of the “Livestock + Fisheries + Alternative Protein” sectors, “AW Policy,” “Actual Procurement of AW Materials,” and “Policy for Conversion from Animal Materials” are evaluated, and the actual presence or absence of an AW policy and the handling of AW materials in actual procurement are involved in the scoring. Below is an overview of the companies’ scores.

Total

　Out of 79 points, the highest score was 24 and the lowest score was 0. Mean score of 4.28 ± 4.81 (standard deviation).

　2 companies with 20-24 points, 4 companies with 15-19 points, 9 companies with 10-14 points, and 5 companies with 8-9 points. (20 companies with 8 or more points).

　33 companies with 2-3 points, 16 companies with 1 point, 18 companies with 0 point or less

1. AW Policy

　Out of 11 points, the highest score was 7 and the lowest was 0. Average 1.40 ± 1.89 points.

　Twenty-three firms (2 retail, 2 wholesale, 3 food service, and 16 manufacturing) scored 3 or more points, while 53 firms scored 0 points, nearly half of the total, and 18 firms scored 1 point.

2. Actual procurement of AW materials

　Out of 59 points, the highest score was 12, the lowest score was 0, and the average score was 1.16 ± 2.38.

　3 companies scored 10 or more points, 4 companies scored 5 to 9 points, 9 companies scored 3 to 4 points. 9 companies scored 2 points, 16 companies scored 1 point, and 66 companies scored 0 or less.

3. Conversion from animal-based materials

　Highest score 5 out of 8, lowest score 0. Average 1.18 ± 1.17 points.

　2 companies scored 5, 5 scored 4, 2 scored 3, 29 scored 2, 32 scored 1, and 37 scored 0.

　Three characteristics are pointed out,

(1) Extremely large variation between high and low scoring firms

First, looking at the number of firms by field and score, few firms are scoring points, with about half of the firms scoring zero points for policy 1 and about two-thirds scoring zero points for actual procurement 2, and nearly 80% of the firms scoring almost no points when including one point.

(2) High-scoring companies tend to be multinationals.

The 11 high-scoring companies (12 points or more) are Nippon Ham, Starzen, Aeon, Seven & i Holdings, Marudai Foods, Bourbon, Maruha Nichiro, Nihon KFC Holdings, Nissui, Ajinomoto, and PrimaHam), many of which are companies that have been evaluated in international corporate evaluation reports and are operating in Europe and the US. The list includes many of the companies evaluated in the International Corporate Assessment Report that do business in Europe and the U.S.

In this sense, it may be possible to read a trend that AW’s corporate initiatives originated overseas and are slowly spreading to Japan.

The very large variation in corporate acquisition scores under this means that companies that are implementing the program will do so across the board, while companies that are not implementing it will do so with little or no awareness of it.

(iii) Are companies that do not score well not taking AW initiatives?

　How to view the large number of companies with low scores is a key factor in considering livestock AW in Japan in the future.

It is inconceivable that the management of the companies mentioned here, especially those that support the lives of many employees and fulfill their responsibilities to society through their business activities, have “never heard of or thought about AW. What is conceivable is that they “have not consciously made AW initiatives a policy” or “have not put them into writing. Therefore, simply by reviewing and documenting their AW efforts, many companies will be able to improve their scores.

And in order to promote livestock AW, it is necessary to provide evaluation items and criteria/scores that will encourage each company how to put the documented policies into practice. It would probably have to start from something rudimentary and basic compared to the ARC criteria, but that is what society is looking for at this point. If we can then create items, criteria, and distribution of scores that will allow many companies to obtain a reasonable score, it will promote livestock AW initiatives among Japanese companies and enhance the social reputation of this report.