Attitudes of stakeholders to animal welfare during slaughter and transport in SE and E Asia

Abstract

Understanding cross-cultural differences in attitudes to animal welfare issues is important in maintaining good international relations, including economic and trade relations. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes of stakeholders towards improving the welfare of animals during slaughter and transport in four key SE and E Asian countries: China, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia. Logistic regression analysis of the associations between demographic factors and attitudes identified nationality as the most significant factor influencing attitude. Motivating factors for improving welfare were ranked according to their importance: religion, knowledge levels, monetary gain, availability of tools and resources, community issues, approval of supervisor and peers. Strong beliefs in the influence of animal welfare laws, the power of the workplace and the importance of personal knowledge were shared by all countries. In addition, religion and peer consideration were significantly associated with attitudes in Malaysia and Thailand, respectively. The findings of this research will assist in the development of international animal welfare initiatives.

Full text

417
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare
The Old School, Brewhouse Hill, Wheathampstead,
Hertfordshire AL4 8AN, UK
www.ufaw.org.uk
Animal Welfare 2017, 26: 417-425
ISSN 0962-7286
doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.4.417
Attitudes of stakeholders to animal welfare during slaughter and transport
in SE and E Asia
M Sinclair*†, S Zito†, Z Idrus‡, W Yan§, D van Nhiem#, P Na Lampang¶and CJC Phillips†
†Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia
‡Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM
Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
§Guangzhou University, 230 Daxuecheng Outer Ring West Road, Panyu, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
#Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Gialam, Hanoi, Vietnam
¶Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
* Contact for correspondence, requests for reprints and a copy of the questionnaire: m.sinclair6@uq.edu.au
Abstract
Understanding cross-cultural differences in attitudes to animal welfare issues is important in maintaining good international relations,
including economic and trade relations. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes of stakeholders towards improving the welfare
of animals during slaughter and transport in four key SE and E Asian countries: China, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia. Logistic
regression analysis of the associations between demographic factors and attitudes identified nationality as the most significant factor
influencing attitude. Motivating factors for improving welfare were ranked according to their importance: religion, knowledge levels,
monetary gain, availability of tools and resources, community issues, approval of supervisor and peers. Strong beliefs in the influence
of animal welfare laws, the power of the workplace and the importance of personal knowledge were shared by all countries. In
addition, religion and peer consideration were significantly associated with attitudes in Malaysia and Thailand, respectively. The
findings of this research will assist in the development of international animal welfare initiatives.
Keywords:animal welfare, Asia, attitudes, culture, slaughter, transport
Introduction
The animal agriculture sector is the most economically
important interface between humans and other species. It
also has the largest number of stakeholders: approximately
68 billion animals are slaughtered for meat globally each
year alone (Food and Agriculture Organisation [FAO] 2016),
which presents significant potential for animal suffering
(Rollin 1995), and it may be considered that for some their
lives are ‘not worth living’ (Mellor 2016). The recent growth
in meat consumption is greatest in Asia; for example, in
China consumption has increased from 10.2 to 13.5 billion
animals in the last ten years (FAO 2016). To meet this need,
international trade in live animals and animal products has
increased (FAO 2016), facilitated by the creation of Fair
Trade Agreements, advances in technology and transporta-
tion, and the resulting globalised trade. Asia accounts for
39% of global meat production, with China producing
almost twice as much meat as the second highest
producer — the United States of America (FAO 2016).
Although there are major business interests involved in
much of the global production of animals, the income of
70% of the world’s poorest people is tied to production
animal industries, including many in Asia (World Bank
2016). This is particularly pertinent for trade in animal
products between countries in Asia, many of which are
exploring animal welfare policy options, and developed
countries where there is already advanced animal welfare
policy and awareness (Veissier et al 2008). In Europe, which
receives many meat animals from Asia, there is an increasing
consumer demand for animal products produced in ways that
attempt to minimise animal suffering (Verbeke et al 2010).
Many challenges exist in progressing animal welfare in a
global context, with great variation in legislation, policy and
agricultural landscapes worldwide. It is for this reason that the
OIE (World Animal Health Organisation) has developed
standards focused on transport and slaughter of production
animals and farmed fish (OIE 2011). Based on a scientific
understanding of animal welfare and widespread consultation,
the OIE Terrestrial and Aquatic Animal Codes have been
agreed upon by 180 nations that are signatories to the OIE. It is
the responsibility of each country to implement the standards,
but there have been some notable instances of lower standards
of animal welfare in Asian countries than would be acceptable
in developed countries (Tiplady et al 2012).
The ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’ acknowledges that
attitudes are an important predictor of behaviour intentions,
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Science in the Service of Animal Welfare

418 Sinclair et al
along with subjective norms and perceived behaviour
control (Azjen 1991). Factors that influence human
attitudes towards animals include emotional responses to
other species, the extent to which an animal is of instru-
mental use and value to the human, and many individual
human factors, such as gender, income, and whether they
grew up with pets (Serpell 2004). With improvements in
statistical techniques, these factors can be evaluated sepa-
rately for their ability to independently predict the contribu-
tion of each to the outcome through, for example,
multinomial logistic regression modelling. Cultural differ-
ences in attitudes towards animals may derive from regional
differences in the domestication process, human totemism
of animals and mythological history (Dolins 1999).
A collaborative initiative that will encourage engagement
in changing attitudes towards animals requires an under-
standing of regional cultures. Initiatives that are locally
defined, developed and led may avoid the risk of imposing
external international opinions onto an at best unreceptive
and at worst offended audience, which could compromise
its success. For these reasons, working to understand local
stakeholders and collaborating in an engaging way are
vital keys to progress initiatives, and can improve success
and uptake (Marciano 2010).
Previous studies have identified the importance of under-
standing cultural audiences. For example, Lowe and
Corkindale (1998) demonstrated the influences cultural
values and attitudes have when comparing Australians and
Chinese nationals on perceptions towards marketing
stimuli. They concluded that “one cannot assume that the
same set of values will influence two different groups of
consumers’ responses for the same marketing stimuli”
(Lowe & Corkindale 1998; p 864). This may apply to
country, and region within country, or socio-political region.
Differences in cross-cultural attitudes to animals have been
reported. For example, attitudes towards animal welfare and
rights differ between Eurasian nations, with university
students from European countries expressing more concern
for animal welfare and rights than those from Asian nations
(Phillips et al 2012). A relationship between attitudes towards
animal welfare and rights and affluence has been suggested
and is supported by a positive correlation between respondent
weekly expenditure and concern for animal welfare and
animal rights (Phillips et al 2012). Attitudes of future industry
stakeholders, such as veterinary science and agricultural
students, about livestock slaughter and transport also differ
between nations in SE and E Asia (Ling et al 2016).
Compared to respondents from Malaysia, China or Vietnam,
respondents from Thailand found it less acceptable to kill
animals, and compared to respondents from China or
Vietnam, Malaysian respondents found it less acceptable for
animals to experience pain and suffering during slaughter
(Ling et al 2016). As well as national differences, there are
regional differences in these countries which are of less
significance than differences between regional groups within
the countries (Minkov & Hofstede 2012). Hence, nations are
valid units in which to evaluate regional differences in
attitudes to animals in SE and E Asia.
Current cross-cultural animal welfare attitudinal research
has been most commonly focused on respondents that are
accessible for large-scale surveys, such as university
students. To our knowledge no research has been
conducted with the stakeholders that are the most
accountable for the welfare of animals during slaughter
and transport in Asia — the slaughterers, transporters,
agri-business owners, government agri-vets and agri-
policy makers. This study aimed to assess the attitudes of
Asian livestock transport and slaughter industry stake-
holders to animal welfare and, in addition, to determine
the perceived motivating factors and barriers to
improving animal welfare. This information will assist in
determining whether regionally tailored animal welfare
initiatives are required in SE and E Asia.
Materials and methods
As part of a larger OIE project to improve knowledge
around animal welfare standards, trainers (n = 44) with
relevant livestock industry knowledge in four key SE and
E Asian countries attended one of four two-day
workshops (held in each country) presented by four inter-
national experts in livestock transport and slaughter.
Attendees received a per diem expenses allowance, a
travel allowance, free lunch, refreshments, and a memory
stick with comprehensive training resources (available at
www.animalwelfarestandards.org). The trainers then
delivered forty-four one-day regional workshops to
stakeholders (about 25 in each) in the livestock transport
and slaughter industry in geographically relevant
locations within the People’s Republic of China
(hereafter China; n = 16), Malaysia (n = 6), Thailand
(n = 11) and Socialist Republic of Vietnam (hereafter
Vietnam; n = 11). The locations within China included
Guandong, Hain, Hubei, Hun, Shandong, Zhejiang and
Jiangxi provinces, Hanoi, Halphong, Vinh, Dang,
Vungtau, Binhduong and Cantho within Vietnam, Khon
Ratchasima, Udon Thani, Champon, Khon Kaen, Sakon
khon, Petchaburi and Bangkok within Thailand, and Zon
Selatan, Tengah, Utara, Sabah, Sarawak, Pantai Timur
and Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia. These countries were
selected because of their important role in global import
and export livestock industries and because of their
diverse religious and cultural attributes. Stakeholders
were invited to the workshops and also to participate in
the research by the workshop trainers, with the only
selection criteria that they must be employed and
involved in the local livestock slaughter and transport
industry. Participants were sought from among slaughter
personnel, transporters, livestock slaughter and transport
business owners and managers, senior livestock veteri-
narians, livestock farmers, agriculture academics and
government agriculture representatives (see Table 1 in the
supplementary material to papers published in Animal
Welfare on the UFAW website: http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-
ufaw-journal/supplementary-material).
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Asian livestock stakeholders’ attitudes to animal welfare 419
Participants were anonymously surveyed using a paper-
based questionnaire at the start of the slaughter and transport
workshops, which had been developed in English through
consultation with academic and industry experts in the
animal welfare field. The survey was translated into Bahasa,
Mandarin, Thai and Vietnamese and then back-translated to
ensure meaning consistency, with changes to the original
questionnaire where necessary. The questionnaire was
administered to the trainers at the start of their workshops, so
that they were familiar with it and because they were also
deemed to effectively be stakeholders in the industry. These
were incorporated with the stakeholders’ responses,
increasing the total number of respondents to 1,066.
In the questionnaire, respondent demographics were obtained
first: country, region, sex, age, residential area, religion, reli-
giosity, their role within the industry, and how their industry
knowledge was gained (formal qualifications or otherwise) and
over what period. The rest of the questionnaire consisted of four
key question sets with responses to each question measured on
a Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.
The first non-demographic set of eight questions focused on
general attitudes to animal welfare, which is a central
component of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, including:
• The importance placed on animal welfare during slaughter
and transport;
• How satisfactory animal welfare in the respondents’
workplace was believed to be;
• Whether the respondent intended or felt confident to make
animal welfare improvements in their workplace; and
• Whether the respondent had tried to make animal welfare
improvements in the past.
The second question set investigated nine key factors influ-
encing the stakeholders’ evaluation of animal welfare
during slaughter and transport. These included religion,
personal beliefs, the extent to which there are more pressing
issues in the community, personal and community monetary
gain, importance within the workplace and amongst peers,
knowledge and the relevant laws. These are important
drivers of perceived behavioural control, a second major
component in the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and which
was the subject of the third set of questions.
The third set of 12 (slaughter) or 13 (transport) questions
focused on the respondents’ evaluation of their ability to
improve animal welfare during slaughter and transport, and
the factors that may enable or hinder their ability to effect
improvement. These included the same factors as the second
question set, but with the addition of company approval of
improving animal welfare, physical workspace, available
tools and resources, and vehicle design (transport only).
The final set of eleven questions focused on sources of
encouragement to improve animal welfare, and which
sources respondents are more likely to respond favourably
to. This relates to the stakeholders’ ability to turn intentions
into actual behaviour, which is affected by their level of
behaviour control. Those investigated were:
• Prescription by local government, local organisations,
local law enforcement, western international organisations;
• Prescription by law, workplace, supervisor, community
elders;
• The respondent seeing moral or monetary gain in change,
or seeing others making the change.
The survey was reviewed by three sociological researchers,
piloted with nationals from each participating country and
amended to ensure comprehension and relevance. Ethical
approval for this study was granted by the University of
Queensland Human Ethics Committee (Project
Identification Code: 2015000059).
Statistical analysis
The data were initially collated and quality controls
employed to remove obviously erroneous data-points. Least
squares means of rated importance for each question were
determined, by nation, to allow for ranking of factors.
Multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were
performed in Minitab® to assess the significance of the
relationships between respondent demographics (the inde-
pendent variables) and the distribution of the Likert scale
responses for each question (the dependent variable). For
each independent variable (demographic factor) the
reference category chosen was the most numerous response
category (for example, in nationality comparisons the most
numerous was Chinese). The model used an iterative-
reweighted least squares algorithm with a logit-link
function. No starting estimates were provided and unusual
observations were identified but not removed.
Importance rankings of factors influencing attitudes to
animal welfare were determined using Fisher’s LSD
Method and 95% Confidence Intervals in Minitab®. Plots
of residuals were inspected to ensure they approximated a
normal distribution. All probability values were consid-
ered significant at P< 0.05.
This paper focuses on the influences of nationality,
comparing responses of participants in China, Malaysia,
Thailand and Vietnam. Results assessing the influences of the
other demographic factors will be presented subsequently.
Results
All of the stakeholders who attended the workshops
completed the questionnaire at the start, yielding 1,022
respondents and a 100% response rate. Three surveys were
disqualified from analysis due to being incomplete.
The respondents were from a wide variety of occupations
within the livestock transport and slaughter industry: 49%
held roles working directly with the animals, 27% were
supervisors, business owners or managers within the
industry, and 23% were livestock veterinarians, both
working in the field and in advisory roles (Table 1;
http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-journal/supplementary-
material). The majority of respondents (684; 69%) were
male and aged 26–35 (361; 36%) or 36–45 (248; 25%), with
16% (166) under 25, 15% (150) between 46 and 55, and 6%
(63) over 56. The majority of the respondents (563; 60%)
Animal Welfare 2017, 26: 417-425
doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.4.417

420 Sinclair et al
reported having gained their knowledge through formal
qualifications in agriculture, with 37% (354) having gained
it through hands-on farm employment. Slightly more
respondents resided in an urban/metropolitan (566; 57%)
region than in a rural (421; 43%) region. Of the 991 respon-
dents who identified their theological affiliation, 43% (431)
identified as Buddhist, 37% (370) as atheist, 7% (76) as
Muslim, and 4% (43) as Christian.
Attitudes to animal welfare during slaughter and
transport
Most respondents in all four countries agreed with the state-
ments that the welfare of animals during transport and
slaughter was important to them (see Table 2; in the supple-
mentary material to papers published in Animal Welfare on the
UFAW website: http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-
journal/supplementary-material). Respondents were less likely
to agree that the welfare of the animals while being slaughtered
was satisfactory in their workplace, particularly in China and
Thailand where the mean agreement was 3.18 and 3.39,
respectively. Respondents in Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam
agreed more that the welfare of the animals while being trans-
ported was satisfactory in their workplace than Chinese
respondents. For all of these statements the order of agreement
was from highest to lowest: Malaysians, Vietnamese, Thai and
Chinese respondents (Table 2; http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-
journal/supplementary-material).
There was agreement in all four countries that most people
who were important to them would approve of them making
improvements to animal welfare; again this was strongest in
Malaysians and weakest in Chinese, but Thai respondents
showed stronger agreement than Vietnamese (Table 2;
http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-journal/supplementary-
material). Similarly, in all four countries there was
agreement among respondents that they intended to make
improvements in the welfare of animals and that they had
confidence in their ability to make these improvements,
with Malaysians and Thais agreeing most, then Vietnamese
and Chinese respondents which showed equal agreement.
Most respondents from China, Thailand and Malaysia
agreed that they had tried to make improvements in the
welfare of animals in the past, with a lower level of
agreement among Vietnamese respondents.
Influencing factors
Stakeholders’ evaluation of animal welfare during transport
and slaughter was most influenced by the factor ‘govern-
ment laws’ (including monitoring) (hereafter just laws)
(Table 3; supplementary material to papers published in
Animal Welfare on the UFAW website:
http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-journal/supplementary-
material). This was ranked the highest influencing factor in
all countries, except in Malaysia, where religion was more
important, and in Thailand where it was rated similar to the
importance of animal welfare to the respondents’ co-
workers/peers (Table 3; http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-
journal/supplementary-material). Co-workers were
therefore rated very important to personal attitudes by Thai
respondents, but were not as highly rated by those from
other countries. Compared to Chinese respondents, respon-
dents from the following countries rated factors higher as
follows: Vietnam, laws, personal knowledge; Thailand and
Malaysia, importance to peers and religious beliefs;
Malaysia, importance in workplace, personal beliefs.
Laws were again rated as the most important factor influ-
encing respondents’ ability to make improvements to animal
welfare during slaughter in all countries, except in Malaysia,
where religion was more important, and in Thailand where
laws were similarly rated to company approval (Table 4;
supplementary material to papers published in Animal Welfare
on the UFAW website: http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-
journal/supplementary-material). Religious beliefs and
personal beliefs rated the lowest in both China and Vietnam,
whereas ‘personal and community monetary benefit’ and
‘more pressing community issues’ were rated the lowest in
Thailand and Malaysia.
Compared to Chinese respondents, respondents from the
following countries rated factors higher as follows: personal
knowledge, importance to peers, Thai, Malaysians and
Vietnamese; religious beliefs, workspace, personal beliefs,
Malaysians and to a lesser extent Thai; importance in
workplace, Thai; company approval, Malaysians; and govern-
ment law/monitoring, Vietnamese. Personal beliefs were rated
lower by Vietnamese respondents than by Chinese respondents.
Laws were again rated as the most important factor influ-
encing respondents’ ability to make improvements to
animal welfare during transport in all countries, except
Malaysia, where religion was again rated as more important
(Table 4; http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-journal/supple-
mentary-material). Religious beliefs were again the lowest
rated influencing factor in China, and Vietnam where it was
equal with personal beliefs. The design of the vehicles and
personal monetary gain were rated as the least influential
factors in both Thailand and Malaysia, equal with ‘the
extent to which there are more pressing concerns’ and
community monetary gain, respectively. Compared to
Chinese respondents, respondents from the following
countries rated factors higher as follows: company
approval, importance to peers, workspace, Thai and
Malaysians; personal knowledge, Vietnamese, vehicle
design, Malaysians. Tools/resource availability, personal
beliefs, religious beliefs, monetary gain were all rated of
less importance by Vietnamese than Chinese respondents.
Sources of encouragement to improve animal welfare
most likely to elicit favourable response
Respondents from all countries agreed that they felt neutral
or would make improvements in response to changes
prescribed by all bodies (local government, local organisa-
tions, local law enforcement, western international organi-
sations, legal bodies, workplace supervisors), except in the
case of changes prescribed by a community elder or leader,
in which case respondents disagreed in Vietnam (Table 5;
supplementary material to papers published in Animal
Welfare on the UFAW website: http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-
ufaw-journal/supplementary-material).
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Asian livestock stakeholders’ attitudes to animal welfare 421
Compared to respondents from China and Vietnam, respon-
dents from Thailand and Malaysia were more likely to agree
that they would make improvements to animal welfare if
there was the opportunity for personal monetary gain, if the
changes were prescribed by their workplace, their super-
visor or a western organisation.
Respondents from Vietnam were more likely than those in
other countries to agree that they would make improvements
to animal welfare if changes were prescribed by law or local
law enforcement police. Respondents from China were less
likely to agree that seeing moral value in changing practices
would influence them to make changes to animal welfare
compared to those from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam.
In all countries, respondents stated that they were most
encouraged to change their practices if prescribed by law, and
equally where they saw moral value in changing practices,
except in Thailand where ‘moral value’ was placed just above
‘law’, and in Malaysia where ‘law’ was placed just above
‘moral value’. Changes prescribed by Western international
organisations were ranked the least likely to encourage
change in all countries, except in Vietnam where ‘change
prescribe by a community elder or leader’ was lower, and in
Thailand where ‘I see others making the change’ ranked as
equal lowest (Table 5; http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-
journal/supplementary-material).
Within country ranking of influences on attitudes
and factors that would elicit change
The ranking of factors influencing respondents’ personal
evaluation of animal welfare during transport and slaughter
was essentially the same for China and Vietnam. Malaysian
respondents differed by their ranking of religious beliefs
first, whereas these were ranked last by Chinese and
Vietnamese respondents (Table 6; supplementary material
to papers published in Animal Welfare on the UFAW
website: http://www.ufaw.org.uk/t-ufaw-journal/supple-
mentary-material). Malaysian respondents also ranked
personal beliefs higher than Chinese and Vietnamese
respondents. Thai respondents ranked co-workers higher
than respondents from other countries and ‘more pressing
community concerns’ lower than respondents from China.
In relation to factors that influenced respondents’ ability to
make improvements to animal welfare during slaughter, co-
workers were again ranked higher by Thai respondents than
Chinese respondents. Religious beliefs were ranked higher
by Malaysian respondents than by, in particular, Vietnamese
and Chinese respondents, and to a lesser extent Thai respon-
dents. Personal beliefs were ranked higher by Malaysian
than Vietnamese and Chinese respondents.
For factors influencing transport improvements, company
approval was seen as less important than the law by respon-
dents in Vietnam, but not in other countries. Religious
beliefs were seen as more important and vehicle design less
important by respondents in Malaysia than the other
countries. Sources of encouragement which would enable
improvements in animal welfare to happen were focused on
the law and personal value.
Discussion
This study demonstrated that, in the Asia Pacific region,
stakeholders’ attitudes to animal welfare during slaughter
and transport were significantly influenced by country of
residence. Historically, our four countries have significantly
different cultural origins, there being a strong influence of
Indian culture in Malaysia and Thailand but almost none in
Vietnam and China, which are considered part of the East
Asian cultural sphere. Within this sphere there are differ-
ences between China and Vietnam in their respect for family,
which dominates in China, and respect for the clan, a larger
grouping, which dominates in Vietnam. This is despite their
common socialist history in recent times. As well as these
major influences, there are differences between subcultures
within each country, but these are usually subservient to the
national differences (Minkov & Hofstede 2012).
As well as culture, and included in that, there are major
differences in religion and religiosity between our four
countries. Malaysia and Thailand have an overwhelming
majority of their population that strictly follow Islamism
and Buddhism, respectively, whereas in China and Vietnam
less than one-third of the populations believe that religion is
important in their life (Crabtree 2010).
Country of residence was shown to be strongly associated
with factors influencing respondents’ evaluation of animal
welfare during slaughter and transport, and respondents’
perceived ability to make improvements to animal welfare.
Despite this, some important similarities in attitudes
emerged between countries across the region. Most notably,
the strength of influence that government laws have on the
evaluation of animal welfare, the perceived ability to make
improvements, and the avenue most likely to encourage
improvement change. This suggests that animal welfare
change is more likely to be successful when it is legislated,
which affirms the importance of legislation to improve
animal welfare. The concept of an animal welfare focus of
society is still new across much of Asia, and animal welfare
legislation is either newly implemented or under develop-
ment in each of the countries studied. Despite the impor-
tance of government law, no animal welfare legislation
currently exists in Vietnam, and only minimal legislation
specific to veterinarians and laboratory workers exists in
China. Although Thailand has passed an Animal Anti-
Cruelty and Welfare Act through Parliament and Malaysia
has a proposed Animal Welfare Bill (World Animal
Protection Index 2016), neither has yet been enacted. This
study shows the importance of the presence of animal
welfare law in human behaviour modification for the first
time. Monitoring relevant to animal slaughter and trans-
portation practices was included with government laws,
since legislation is unlikely to be successful unless
monitored effectively to ensure compliance.
In addition, respondents across all countries reported that
they are more encouraged to change their practices to
improve animal welfare if they also ‘see moral value’ in the
change. In contrast to the extrinsic influence of government
laws, moral value and moral reasoning is an intrinsic
Animal Welfare 2017, 26: 417-425
doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.4.417

422 Sinclair et al
influence. Further research into the moral position of
industry stakeholders would provide helpful information in
developing morally based education initiatives around
animal welfare during slaughter and transport. ‘Changes
prescribed by a western international organisation’ ranked
as the least likely to encourage change in all countries,
except Vietnam where ‘changes prescribed by my
community elder community leader ’ ranked lower.
Although some of these notions have been anecdotally
acknowledged in not-for-profit activities (Wildlife SOS
2009; Lapiz et al 2012), this study suggests for the first time
that locally run initiatives, with local knowledge, preferably
reinforced by a legal framework, are most likely to see
engagement and success.
Most respondents, regardless of their country of residence,
agreed that the welfare of animals during slaughter is
important to them, but it was less common for respondents
to have tried to make improvements to welfare in the past.
In addition, while most respondents in all countries
expressed confidence that they could make improvements
to welfare, fewer intended to actually make improvements.
This disparity suggests that people report that animal
welfare is important to them, and that they can make
change, more often than they actually do, and that this was
similar across all countries. For example, a recent study
with veterinary science students found that respondents
were more likely to report caring about animal welfare
issues than they were to take action when a morally
disagreeable action was being performed (Verrinder 2016).
This may suggest that the attitude-behaviour link is not
direct, and may be impacted by additional external factors,
such as a perceived power to change welfare. It is also
possible that, whereas the respondents were truthful in indi-
cating that they had not improved welfare, they were keen
to indicate that they would attempt to do this in future.
Several studies of consumer concern for animal welfare, and
willingness to pay for animal products that attempt to reduce
suffering have found that positive animal welfare attitudes
alone do not necessarily translate into willingness to pay
higher prices for higher welfare animal products (Bennett et al
2002). Other factors such as trust around certification (Nocella
2010) or the sensory properties of the products (Napolitano
2008) may have greater impact on consumer behaviour. This
may suggest applying caution when expecting direct correla-
tions between broad attitudes (such as concern for animals)
and specific behaviours (such as consumer choices). Broad
attitudes probably relate better to broad behaviours and moti-
vations, and it is important to utilise specific questions when
predicting specific behaviours.
In all countries, the importance of animal welfare to the
respondents’ company was considered significant in both
evaluation of animal welfare and perceived ability to make
improvements to animal welfare during both slaughter and
transport. This is understandable in the light of the growing
attempt by large companies to control welfare standards and
the necessity to adhere to company values to ensure
continued employment. In addition, respondents in all
countries tended to agree that knowledge about animal
slaughter and animal transportation practices influenced
their evaluation of animal welfare and their ability to make
improvements. Employees are often limited in their ability
to effect change in laws and workplaces but are able to
increase their personal knowledge. Consequently, education
programmes tailored to stakeholders around improving
animal welfare during slaughter and transport are likely to
result in improvements to animal welfare on the ground.
Cognitive-behavioural training programmes for stock-
people within the livestock industry in Australia have been
advocated (Hemsworth 2003). Further research is suggested
to investigate the methods and models of education most
likely to be successful with stakeholders in the livestock
transport and slaughter industry in Asia.
From this discussion, the highly rated factors that were
common to the respondents of Malaysia, Vietnam, China
and Thailand suggest that animal welfare improvement
programmes should focus on four key areas:
• Development, implementation and monitoring of animal
welfare legislation by governments;
• Increasing the importance of animal welfare to companies
in the livestock slaughter and transport industries;
• Improving the animal welfare knowledge of industry
stakeholders;
• Researching and developing morally based education
initiatives around animal welfare during slaughter and
transport.
Not only did some similarities exist in the most influential
factors in the evaluation and improving of animal welfare
across the countries, some also existed in the least influen-
tial. ‘My monetary gain’ and ‘monetary gain to my
community’ rated amongst the lowest of influencing factors
across all assessed countries. Many respondents may not be
in a position to benefit monetarily from improving animal
welfare; financial benefits may be seen exclusively by
business owners and this may have resulted in the tendency
for non-business owners to report less monetary influence
(Sinclair et al 2017). However, survey respondents may
under report the importance of money in their lives (Rynes
et al 2004), and tend to answer questions in ways that are
viewed more socially desirable (Grimm 2010).
This study also provides evidence that there are country-
specific influences on attitudes towards animal welfare and
factors influencing stakeholders to improve animal welfare.
Malaysia
The key difference between Malaysian respondents and
those in all other countries was the extent to which religion
was an influencing factor in the welfare of animals.
Religion was rated as the most important factor in Malaysia
when evaluating animal welfare during slaughter and
transport, and when considering ability to make improve-
ments specifically during slaughter. In Malaysia, 61% of the
population follow the Islamic faith (PEW Research Centre
2016), which was reflected in respondent demographics. On
a global scale, Malaysia ranks amongst the most religious
countries, with a religiosity score of 81/100 (Win-Gallup
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Asian livestock stakeholders’ attitudes to animal welfare 423
International 2012). This is in contrast to China, which
ranked lowest with a score of 14/100, and Vietnam, also low
with a score of 30/100. In order for meat to be halal (permis-
sible to eat by Muslims), Islamic doctrine mandates a
variety of practices intended to ensure ‘unnecessary
suffering is avoided’, and therefore it is understandable that
it should be highly influential when considering animal
welfare (Halal Food Authority 2016). Although religion
appeared to be a dominant influence on respondents, it is
possible that there were also cultural differences between
our chosen countries that were not captured by our survey.
In addition, compared to respondents from Thailand,
Vietnam and China, Malaysian respondents were more
likely to agree that animal welfare was important to
them, that they have tried to make animal welfare
improvements in the past, and almost all factors included
in the study were considered more important. This may
be attributed to Malaysia being a more developed nation,
ranking 62nd on the UN’s Human Development Index,
compared to China, Thailand and Vietnam which rank
90th, 93rd and 116th, respectively (United Nations
Human Development Index [UN HDI] 2015).
It therefore appears that Malaysian livestock and slaughter
stakeholders are interested in improving animal welfare,
and that engagement of stakeholders through religious
avenues may be beneficial in advancing animal welfare in
this country, in addition to the areas of focus common to all
four countries. To this end, further research to better under-
stand attitudes to animal welfare in halal meat production
systems and how to leverage religion to improve animal
welfare would be beneficial.
Thailand
Respondents from Thailand were the only ones to report
that the importance of animal welfare to their work
colleagues was a highly influential factor in evaluating
animal welfare, and one of the top factors in both ability to
improve welfare during slaughter and transportation.
Contradictorily, Thai respondents were unlikely to rate
‘seeing others make a change’ as likely to change their
behaviour, which may suggest that the importance of animal
welfare to their peers is not due to a peer pressure conven-
tion of conformity. However, this disparity could suggest
that Thai respondents are fulfilling a cultural priority of
respect for peers in a community-focused culture. In
contrast to respondents in other countries, Thai respondents
also indicated that they are most likely to change their
behaviour if they see moral value in doing so.
China
In China, the importance of the availability of tools and
resources as an influence on ability to make improvements
to animal welfare during both slaughter and transportation
was evident, whereas this was not an important factor in
Vietnam and possibly Malaysia. Further research to investi-
gate the specific tools and resources that are required to
facilitate improvement to livestock welfare during transport
and slaughter could be of benefit in China.
In contrast to Malaysia, religious beliefs were not important
to respondents in China in influencing attitudes to animal
welfare. This could be explained by the high reported
number of atheists in China (65.5% of Chinese respondents
in this study and 61% in the wider Chinese community;
Crabtree [2010]). Instead it was very common for Chinese
respondents to view the importance of animal welfare in the
workplace and company approval as important influences on
their attitudes towards animal welfare. This and the lack of
influence of personal beliefs on attitudes to animal welfare
suggest that Chinese stakeholders may place more value on
the collective than their personal values and opinions. This is
supported by the Hofstede cultural dimensions scale, which
rates China amongst the highest of the ‘collectivist’ rather
than ‘individualist’ nations, meaning people are more likely
to act in the interests of the group and not necessarily of
themselves (Hofstede Centre 2011). The present study also
suggests that Chinese stakeholders are more focused on
practical influences, which is reflected in their highest rating
for the law, knowledge, tools and resources.
In general, Chinese respondents reported the lowest levels
of importance of animal welfare, were least likely to report
they had tried to improve animal welfare, least likely to
report that they were confident they could improve animal
welfare, and also least likely to report that they intended to
make improvements to animal welfare compared to respon-
dents from other assessed countries. This could be reflective
of a cultural tendency to take more neutral middle point
(less extreme) views in surveys (Church 1987; Harzing
2006), in particular with questions of moral judgment
(Culpepper et al 2002), but it could also be reflective of the
lack of focus on animal welfare in China in the recent past,
which is supported by Phillips et al (2012). In addition to
the introduction of animal welfare legislation, and
company-focused initiatives to build knowledge and
capacity, benefit may be achieved in China by focusing on
disseminating the commercial benefits of improving
welfare for livestock companies.
Vietnam
Respondents in Vietnam were more likely to report law as an
influencing factor in animal welfare, compared to respon-
dents from China. Currently, no legal framework for animal
welfare exists in Vietnam, although it is reportedly under
development (World Animal Protection 2016). This high-
lights the importance of developing legislation in Vietnam,
and suggests that this could be of great benefit to improving
animal welfare in the Vietnamese livestock industry.
Similar to Chinese respondents, Vietnamese respondents
reported that religion and personal beliefs were the least
influential factors in their evaluation of animal welfare, and
their ability to improve it. Both China and Vietnam share a
similar culture, geographical proximity, and a shared history
of communism. These similarities in influencing factors
between China and Vietnam serve to reinforce the fact that
geopolitical and regional culture plays a strong role in
attitude, and should be taken into account when devising
regional strategies for effect change, rather than relying on
geographical nation borders alone.
Animal Welfare 2017, 26: 417-425
doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.4.417

424 Sinclair et al
The primary limitation of this study was the potential for
bias introduced by the recruitment method. The respondents
were recruited from stakeholders who had been invited by
local trainers to attend capacity-building workshops on
animal welfare, possibly because they were thought to have
an interest in animal welfare. If these people were more
interested than other stakeholders in animal welfare they
may not have been representative of the wider population of
industry stakeholders. In an attempt to reduce this potential
for bias towards stakeholders interested in animal welfare,
all country co-ordinators and local trainers were advised of
the selection criteria for the workshops; which included
employment within the livestock industry in their country,
and ability to attend the workshop. Attendees were not
invited based on a proclaimed interest in animal welfare.
Animal welfare implications
For parties interested in advancing animal welfare in the
region, the results of this study suggest that advocating for
and facilitating the development of animal welfare legisla-
tion, building awareness of current legislation, and moni-
toring and enforcement of legislation would be a valuable
strategy. This could represent an opportunity to strengthen
and reinforce international OIE guidelines, building
awareness around accountability to meet these requirements,
and a base from which new laws and law reform can develop.
The influence of the workplace on ability to improve animal
welfare during slaughter and transport demonstrated in this
study suggests that building awareness amongst business
managers, owners and supervisors about the benefits of
improving animal welfare may increase the likelihood of
engaging business managers and employees in efforts to
improve animal welfare. Businesses should be encouraged
to incorporate higher welfare standards into key perform-
ance indicators and initiate company-based training
workshops to harness the power of their influence and
empower improvements to animal welfare during slaughter
and transport in their industry. More fundamentally, the
findings of this study suggest that engagement of stake-
holders in animal welfare improvement initiatives will be
more likely when initiatives are tailored to local audiences.
Conclusion
The influence of government laws, the influence of the
workplace and the influence of personal knowledge were
shared by stakeholders in all countries in regards to attitudes
to animal welfare. The significant influence of seeing moral
benefit to behaviour change demonstrated in this study
indicates that it may be beneficial to incorporate ethical and
moral reasoning activities into corporate training
programmes, in addition to focusing on the commercial
benefits of animal welfare improvements.
Specifically in Malaysia, religion was a very strong
motivator for people to change their practices in order to
improve animal welfare. Consequently, future animal
welfare initiatives, particularly those seeking to improve
animal welfare during slaughter could benefit from seeking
to engage religious leaders and scholars in sanctioning and
introducing better slaughter practices (such as stunning).
The country in which the respondents lived was a signifi-
cant factor influencing stakeholders’ attitudes to animal
welfare during slaughter and transport in the Asia Pacific
region. In addition, changes prescribed by western interna-
tional organisations were rarely cited as an influence to
change practice across all countries. This highlights the
importance of understanding and engaging local communi-
ties in initiatives, tailoring the initiatives to the relevant
culture, and encouraging local leadership.
Further research could focus on the key factors that emerged
as most influential in this study, for example, targeted focus
groups and/or interviews with key stakeholders which were
identified in this study (such as religious leaders in Malaysia
and company directors in Thai livestock industries).
Acknowledgements
This project was a collaboration between the University of
Queensland in Australia, and University Putra Malaysia,
under the framework of the New Zealand and Australia
World Animal Health Organization (OIE) Collaborating
Centre for Animal Welfare and Bioethical Analysis. It was
funded by the New Zealand Government Ministry of
Primary Industries, the European Commission via the
World Animal Health Organisation, World Animal
Protection, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), the Malaysian
Government Department of Veterinary Services via UPM,
and the Australian Government Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food. The authors acknowledge Dr Samia
Touksati for guidance in survey question construction, and
Dr Fritha Langford for review of the paper.
References
Ajzen I 1991 The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Bennett RM, Anderson J and Blaney RJ 2002 Moral intensi-
ty and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues
and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural
and Environmental Ethics 15(2): 187-202. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1015036617385
Church AT 1987 Personality research in a non-Western culture:
The Philippines. Psychological Bulletin 102: 272-292.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.2.272
Crabtree S 2010 Religiosity highest in world’s poorest nations.
Gallup report. http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-high-
est-world-poorest-nations.aspx
Culpepper RA, Zhao L and Lowery C 2002 Survey response
bias among Chinese managers. Academy of Management Journal 1:
J1-J6. https://doi.org/10.5465/APBPP.2002.7516876
Dolins FL 1999 Attitudes to Animals: Views in Animal Welfare.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511608476
Food and Agriculture Organisation 2016 FAOSTAT.
http://faostat.fao.org
Grimm P 2010 Social desirability bias. In: Sheth JN and Malhotra
N (eds) Encyclopedia of Marketing. Wiley International: New
Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057
© 2017 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Asian livestock stakeholders’ attitudes to animal welfare 425
Halal Food Authority 2016 Losing our religion? Two thirds of peo-
ple still claim to be religious. http://halalfoodauthority.com/defini-
tion-of-halal/
Harzing AW 2006 Response styles in cross-national survey
research: A 26-country study. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management 6: 243-266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595806066332
Hemsworth PH 2003 Human-animal interactions in livestock
production. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81(3): 185-198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00280-0
Hofstede G 2011 Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede Model
in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. http://scholar-
works.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=orpc
Lapiz SMD, Miranda MEG, Garcia RG, Daguro LI, Paman
MD, Madrinan FP and Briggs DJ 2012 Implementation of an
intersectoral program to eliminate human and canine rabies: the
Bohol Rabies Prevention and Elimination Project. PLoS 6(12):
e1891. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001891
Ling RZ, Zulkifli I, Lampang PN, Nhiem DV, Wang Y and
Phillips CJC 2016 Attitudes of students from southeast and east
Asian countries to slaughter and transport of livestock. Animal
Welfare 25: 377-387. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.25.3.377
Lowe ACT and Corkindale DR 1998 Differences in ‘cultural
values’ and their effects on responses to marketing stimuli: A
cross-cultural study between Australians and Chinese from the
People’s Republic of China. European Journal of Marketing 32: 843-
867. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810232291
Marciano P 2010 Carrots and Sticks Don’t Work: Build a Culture of
Employee Engagement with the Principles of Respect. McGraw Hill
Professional: New York, USA
Mellor DJ 2016 Updating animal welfare thinking: moving beyond
the ‘Five Freedoms’ towards ‘A Life Worth Living’. Animals 6: 21.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani6030021
Minkov M and Hofstede G 2012 Is national culture a meaning-
ful concept? Cultural values delineate homogenous national clus-
ters of in-country regions. Cross-Cultural Research 46: 133-159.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397111427262
Napolitano F, Pacelli C, Girolami A and Braghieri A 2008
Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willing-
ness to pay for yoghurt. Journal of Dairy Science 91(3): 910-917.
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0709
Nocella G, Hubbard L and Scarpa R 2010. Farm animal welfare,
consumer willingness to pay, and trust: Results of a cross-national
survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(2): 275-297
Office International des Epizooties (OIE) 2011 Terrestrial
Animal Health Code, 20th Edition. OIE: Paris, France
PEW Research Centre 2016 Muslim population. http://www.pew-
forum.org/interactives/muslim-population-graphic/#/Malaysia
Phillips CJC, Izmirli S, Aldavood SJ, Alonso M, Choe BI,
Hanlon A, Handziska A, Illmann G, Keeling L, Kennedy M
and Lee GH 2012 Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and
rights in Europe and Asia. Animal Welfare 21: 87-100.
https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812799129466
Rollin BE 1995 Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and
Research Issues. Wiley International: New Jersey, USA
Rynes SL, Gerhart B and Minette KA 2004 The importance
of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what peo-
ple say and what they do. Human Resources Management 43: 381-
394. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20031
Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Faucitano L, Dadgar S,
Shand P, González LA and Crowe TG 2012 Road transport
of cattle, swine and poultry in North America and its impact on
animal welfare, carcass and meat quality: A review. Meat Science
92: 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.010
Serpell JA 2004 Factors influencing human attitudes to animals
and their welfare. Animal Welfare 13: 145-151
Sinclair M, Zito S and Phillips CJ 2017 The impact of stake-
holders’ roles within the livestock industry on their attitudes to
livestock welfare in south east and east Asia. Animals 7(2): 6.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7020006
Tiplady C, Walsh DB and Phillips CJC 2012 Cruelty to
Australian cattle in Indonesian abattoirs: How the public respond-
ed to media coverage. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 26: 869-885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9412-0
Verbeke W, Pérez-Cueto FJ, de Barcellos MD, Krystallis
A and Grunert KG 2010 European citizen and consumer atti-
tudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science 28:
284-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.05.001
UN Human Development Index (UNHDI) 2015 Human
Development Data. http://hdr.undp.org/en/data
Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bock B and Roe E 2008
European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Applied
Animal Behavior Science 113: 279-297. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008
Verrinder J 2016 Identifying and developing capacity for veterinari-
ans to address animal ethics issues. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Science,
University of Queensland, Australia
Wildlife SOS 2009 Dancing bears in India – final curtain. 2009.
http://wildlifesos.org/dancing-bears-in-india-final-curtain/
Win-Gallup 2012 Global index of religiosity and atheism.
http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf
World Animal Protection 2016 World animal protection index.
http://api.worldanimalprotection.org/#
World Bank 2016 Agriculture and rural development.
http://data.worldbank.org/topic/agriculture-and-rural-development
Animal Welfare 2017, 26: 417-425
doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.4.417