{"id":53,"date":"2017-05-11T17:08:13","date_gmt":"2017-05-11T17:08:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-good-corporation-bad-corporation\/chapter\/12-animal-rights-and-csr\/"},"modified":"2017-05-11T17:59:39","modified_gmt":"2017-05-11T17:59:39","slug":"12-animal-rights-and-csr","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-good-corporation-bad-corporation\/chapter\/12-animal-rights-and-csr\/","title":{"raw":"12. Animal Rights and CSR","rendered":"12. Animal Rights and CSR"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"394\"]\"image\" Source: David Shankbone (CC-BY 2.0, 2002) Figure 12.1 PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has become known for its creative and sometimes controversial publicity campaigns against mistreatment of animals (in this case, chickens)[\/caption]\r\n

Donna Karan: \u201cBunny Butcher\u201d<\/h1>\r\n

In 2010, the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) garnered media attention by protesting the Donna Karan fashion company\u2019s use of rabbit fur. Karan\u2019s company (DKNY, a fashion subsidiary of Mo\u00ebt Hennessy) had previously been the focus of criticism from PETA. Several years earlier, PETA had tried to meet with Donna Karan to convince her to suspend the use of real fur in her company\u2019s clothing. Many other high-end fashion companies, such as Tommy Hilfiger, Stella McCartney, Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, and others had joined PETA\u2019s ranks as PETA-approved fashion retailers, endorsing fur-free practices. DKNY, however, did not consistently participate in a PETA-approved production agenda. PETA claimed that, on repeated occasions in 2008 and 2009, DKNY had promised PETA that they would remove fur from their fashion lines, but then DKNY had failed to follow through. As a result, the high-end fashion brand became the target of a PETA-driven, viral campaign that harshly criticized the company\u2019s use of farmed fur and labeled Donna Karan herself as a \u201cBunny Butcher.\u201d<\/p>\r\nDKNY used rabbit fur and skins in various items of clothing and accessories, from the fur lining in hoods and boots to the leather on bags and shoes. PETA claimed the fur and leather farmed for these purposes was obtained from factory farms operating under inhumane conditions. According to PETA, the animals on Chinese fur farms are penned in cages without fresh air, sanitation, water, or light, conditions that take a mental and physical toll on the animals. When the animals are skinned, they are often improperly anaesthetized. Accounts have surfaced of Chinese factories that simply beat the animals over the head before beginning the skinning process. Allegedly, many animals are still alive during the skinning process and are then thrown onto piles of carcasses. Another claim was that cat and dog fur are often used to supplement the rabbit fur when factories have reason to believe that the skins will not be properly inspected.\r\n\r\nMaking strategic use of social media, PETA timed its protest on DKNY\u2019s Facebook page for an important marketing period, so-called Cyber Monday. PETA posted the message \u201cDKNY: Bunny Butchers\u201d among DKNY\u2019s Facebook comments.1<\/sup> The innovative use of social media for protest purposes drew substantial media coverage. Despite the protest, according to PETA, DKNY did not alter their fur usage practices. Consequently, PETA maintained an ongoing Internet-based protest by creating the website DKBunnyButcher.com. The website, which features links to supportive videos from fashion celebrities such as Project Runway\u2019s Tim Gunn, describes in gruesome details the practices of the fur-farming industry in China. Many fur producing operations in the United States and Europe have become less competitive in global markets due to high production costs and the tightening of legislation on fur trapping and skinning. China has subsequently stepped in as the world\u2019s top fur exporter in the world, but not without allegations of inconsistent quality and inhumane production methods.\r\n\r\nThis chapter will ask the question, what is the role of CSR in regard to animal rights? Should fashion companies only source products from humane farms, or should they even stop using animal products at all? While many consumers may feel sympathy for a tortured rabbit, the fact remains that the majority of Americans consume meat products such as beef and pork. Leather from cows remains the preferred material for shoes, belts, and handbags. Is it hypocritical to stand up for the rights of cute animals like bunnies, dogs, baby seals, and dolphins, all while preparing to eat a bacon burger? In addition to fashion, many other industries must contend with the issue of animal rights. Businesses that are dependent on medical and scientific research, such as pharmaceutical and cosmetics companies, have been forced to implement policies and reviews to determine whether the laboratory animals they use for testing purposes are treated humanely.\r\n\r\nClearly, the issue of animal rights is a broad one that cannot be confined to a discussion of Chinese fur factories. Many other countries, including the United States, have been accused of lax regulation of factory farming of animal products. According to Factory Farm Map, there are four factory-farmed chickens for every single American.2<\/sup> US commercial livestock and poultry operations produce three times more waste a year than that produced by the entire human population.3<\/sup> The environmental toll of such methods is worrisome, but so are the potential health consequences of consuming factory farmed meat. Consumer advocates have suggested that the meat produced on factory farms is often tainted with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Infection caused by such bacteria cannot be treated by current medicines and thus may pose a looming threat to both animals and humans.4<\/sup> However, before exploring the ethical dilemmas that may be faced by a specific company in choosing how to make use of animal products, let us examine the ethical framework of the animal rights movement.\r\n

The Development of Animal Ethics and Rights<\/h1>\r\nThe awakening of a consciousness of animal rights began as early as the seventeenth century. Diane Beers, an animal rights activist and historian, cites examples of animal rights principles held by the first Puritan immigrants to America.5<\/sup> Puritan theology accorded sanctity to the realm of animals, but the people felt that the fair treatment of animals was the sole responsibility of their owners. Anyone who did not own a particular animal did not have a right to mistreat it. Further, the Puritans believed that owners of animals had no right to abuse their investment, as this was considered un-Christian and immoral. These principles of animal rights were based on a moral hierarchy that held humans to be more deserving of rights and privileges than animals. The privileges of humanity came, in the Puritan view, from a spiritual, emotional, and intellectual superiority. The Puritans\u2019 initial attempt to curb animal abuse and\/or provide animal rights is considered by Beers a great step forward, though limited by its conception of humans as special creatures in the eyes of God.\r\n\r\nAnimal rights historians often point to the mid-eighteenth century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham as the founding ethicist of the modern animal rights movement. Bentham, known for the utilitarian philosophy that would later become associated with his prot\u00e9g\u00e9 John Stuart Mill, believed that ethical decisions should be based on what allows the most good or happiness (and least suffering) to the largest number of people. Bentham\u2019s utilitarianism assumed that all human individuals are equal from a moral point of view. In fact, Bentham went further and posited that all living creatures were equal in terms of this principle. This egalitarian principle was influential in the struggles for abolition of slavery and universal suffrage, but also served as a cornerstone of modern conceptions of animal ethics.\r\n\r\nIn his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation<\/em>, Bentham stated: \u201cThe day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny\u2026. The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?<\/em>\u201d6<\/sup> Bentham\u2019s approach led many citizens to consider for the first time the ethical imperative to limit the suffering of animals. Bentham\u2019s thinking prompted the creation of Britain\u2019s Society for Prevention of Animal Cruelty (SPCA, later the Royal SPCA, or RSPCA), and the adoption of the first laws curbing animal mistreatment in England throughout the 1830s\u20131850s.\r\n\r\nThe United States eventually followed the lead taken by England in animal rights, as it had with the earlier abolitionist movements and suffrage movements. The first major American animal rights group, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), was created in 1866 by Henry Bergh.7<\/sup> This nascent movement was further strengthened by Charles Darwin\u2019s publication of Origin of the Species<\/em> and the resultant acceptance of the theory of evolution. Darwin\u2019s hypothesis that humans had evolved from primitive life forms gave credence to the notion that humans were not essentially superior to other members of the natural world. The impact of Darwinian theory on philosophy and theology challenged the traditionally held view of a hierarchy among species, according to which humans were superior to other animals. The Darwinian revolution paved the way for a more open-ended approach to rights (for humans and animals alike).\r\n\r\nThroughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, activist groups in the United Kingdom and United States promoted the fair treatment of domesticated animals. This activism reflected a broader social trend toward recognition of the need for fair treatment across social and biological categories, and in particular recognized the rights of laborers, women, and children. Upton Sinclair\u2019s The Jungle<\/em> (1906), a novel describing the violent and unclean practices of the Chicago meat industry, was notably influential in this regard. The Jungle<\/em> drew public attention to labor abuses in the meat industry, and also to the horrors of the slaughterhouse floor.\r\n

Animal Liberation: The Contribution of Peter Singer<\/h1>\r\nThe contemporary animal rights movement received an important impetus from the publication in 1975 of a book entitled Animal Liberation<\/em> by Australian philosopher Peter Singer. Singer extended Bentham\u2019s utilitarian ethics to include animals, arguing that just because animals cannot think on the same level as humans does not mean they cannot suffer. He pointed out that in the case of mentally handicapped people, as with small infants, the lack of cognitive capacity does not imply that they do not deserve the same caring treatment as other humans. The fact that animals react to pain and torture with writhing or whining suggests that they experience suffering in much the same way that humans do. The suffering communicated by animals does not have to be expressed linguistically to be understood. Singer applied the term speciesism<\/em>, which had been coined by Richard Ryder, to the unjustifiable discrimination against animals by humans, reminiscent of racism, sexism, and other forms of intolerance.\r\n\r\nSinger argued that speciesism, like racism and sexism, is based on an indefensible and biased preference for one\u2019s own kind. Speciesism is expressed in the assumption that animals can be exploited to provide benefits to humans without regard to the suffering or well-being of animals. In Singer\u2019s view, overcoming speciesism will require the progressive elimination of cruelty in animal experimentation, the eradication of factory farming practices, and the end of consumption of meat as a consumer good. While Singer acknowledges that it is theoretically possible to raise animals humanely, he argues that such farming is extremely uncommon and that it is better simply to move to a vegetarian diet. Singer\u2019s radical argument has been labeled the \u201crights\/abolitionist\u201d doctrine of animal ethics.8<\/sup>\r\n\r\nRights\/abolitionists believe that humans have no moral right to slaughter, domesticate, or use animals for pleasure or consumption in any way. This implies that animals should be left in a state of nature and allowed to lead lives free of impact from human society. A different and more moderate faction of animal ethicists are the so-called welfarists, who seek to recognize and protect animal welfare within the current system of consumption. Welfarists believe that animals may ethically be used for human benefit, so long as they are treated humanely and fairly. The welfarist perspective implicitly assumes that human rights and interests are entitled to some sort of intrinsic superiority over the rights and interests of animals.\r\n\r\nThe most important American activist group that has adopted a rights\/abolitionist perspective is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), a nonprofit founded in 1980 with the goal of preventing animals from being abused and tortured in any way, whether via factory farming, the fashion industry, labs and scientific research, or the entertainment industry.9<\/sup> PETA has become known for its highly publicized and sometimes aggressive actions and campaigns. The organization has achieved recognition as the primary face of the animal rights movement today and, as such, has taken on the responsibility of publicly castigating those businesses that fail to exercise humane treatment of animals.\r\n

Factory Farming<\/h1>\r\nAs of 2007, approximately 56 billion animals were being slaughtered annually worldwide for human consumption.10<\/sup> Most of these were harvested in factory farm settings. These numbers do not take into account the vast number of fish and other sea creatures that are caught for industrial use or consumption as food.11<\/sup> United States growers annually slaughter some 9 billion chickens, 99 percent of which are raised in factory-farm conditions. For the chickens, factory-farm conditions<\/em> include preventative beak clipping (to quell cannibalism in tight quarters), unsanitary and overcrowded cages, injections of antibiotics and hormones to augment and accelerate weight gain, and little or no lighting.12<\/sup> Due to the high demand for chicken and eggs as consumer goods, the production of broiler chickens and laying chickens is a high-volume endeavor. Worldwide, 31 billion chickens are slaughtered annually,13<\/sup> most of them under conditions similar to those found in the US farms.\r\n\r\nAs of 2011, 5.8 million pigs were bred for slaughter in the United States.14<\/sup> The factory farming of pigs requires a life of solitary confinement for each mother sow, who spends most of her life in a gestation cage that prevents movement and waste removal, leading to widespread respiratory diseases. Sows are moved to a farrowing cage after the birth of their litters, where they cannot turn around or lie down while their young feed off of them. The piglets are taken from the mother sow\u2019s farrowing cage after about 3 weeks of initial feeding, and are then moved to group pens. There, they are fed until they reach market weight (a period of roughly 6 months), at which time they are brought to slaughter. Following the production of 2 to 3 litters, the mother sow is also taken to slaughter, usually about a year after she is brought to the factory farm.15<\/sup>\r\n\r\nCattle production for beef, the most expensive of the meat-producing industries, is somewhat more humane, despite the large numbers involved (upwards of 34.2 million cows slaughtered for meat in 2010 alone).16<\/sup> Cattle raised for beef are allowed to roam somewhat freely in open spaces. They are still penned in and fed hormones, and put on a rigorous diet to gain weight. US dairy-producing cows, numbering 9.3 million in 2008, with roughly 2.3 million of these being sent to slaughter,17<\/sup> share a fate similar to that of pigs and chickens. They are kept in tightly penned cages, fed hormones, and milked by machine until they are no longer viable. Additionally, both modes of cattle production can cause serious environmental harm to the areas surrounding the farm. The enormous production of manure can contaminate groundwater and render surrounding areas unlivable.\r\n\r\nWool, fur, leather, angora, silk, feathers, and other materials are all harvested from various types of animals, and are prominent resources in the fashion industry.18<\/sup> Although many people can understand the ethical issues inherent in the factory farming of meat for consumption, most consumers do not feel similar concerns for the materials used to make clothing, especially when, as in the case of wool, silk, or feathers, it does not seem necessary to slaughter the animal to obtain the material. However, such materials are also developed and sourced under factory farming conditions. As reported by PETA, wool farmers routinely practice mulesing<\/em>,19<\/sup> which involves shearing sheep so close to the skin that the shears cut or remove chunks of hide and flesh in the process. Cows and all other kinds of animals are utilized for their leather. A high percentage of the leather apparel items sold in the United States are manufactured from leather that was harvested abroad. China, the world\u2019s leading leather exporter, has been criticized for poor supervision of factory farms, where animals are not properly anaesthetized before they are skinned.\r\n

Animal Consumption in Research and Cosmetics<\/h1>\r\nApproximately 100 million animals a year are killed as a result of cosmetic, medical, and scientific experimentation in the United States alone.20<\/sup> Though laboratory animals are generally euthanized following the completion of the experiment or trial, it is not uncommon for many to die in the testing process. These tests include skin and eye irritation tests, repeated force feeding, \u201clethal dose\u201d injection tests, vivisection, bone-breaking, paralyzing, and infection with disease.21<\/sup> Though ultimately these tests are meant to benefit mankind, even proponents of animal testing for scientific benefits admit that experiments are only beneficial in some cases. According to DoSomething.org, \u201c92 percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don\u2019t work.\u201d22<\/sup> The large margin of error in the trials and experimentations suggests that many laboratory animals experience great suffering for relatively little benefit to humans.\r\n

Proposed Solutions: Vegetarianism, Ecofarming, and Cruelty-Free Production<\/h1>\r\nAnimal activist groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have been successful in promoting laws and codes of best practices to curb the incidence of factory farming and laboratory experimentation abuse. However, it is generally accepted that the most powerful long-term solution would be market based, in which consumers who are dissatisfied with factory farming methods turn to alternative sources of food, cosmetics, and clothing. For this reason, one of PETA\u2019s principal goals is to raise awareness of the abuses that occur in factory farming, so that consumers will be motivated to seek alternatives. Let us consider some of the leading alternatives.\r\n

Vegetarian\/Vegan Diets<\/h2>\r\nGiven that the principal commercial product of factory farms consists of food for human consumption, it is often argued that consumers who are concerned about animal rights should adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet. A vegetarian<\/em> diet is one that does not contain any meat or fish products, while a vegan<\/em> diet is free of all animal products, including milk, eggs, and cheese. A 2012 Gallup Poll found that 5% of Americans identify as vegetarian and 2% as vegan.23<\/sup> This appeared to indicate a broad and continuing social trend, as only 1% of Americans had identified as vegetarian in 1971 and only 3% in 2009.24<\/sup> When asked why they are vegetarians, about half of survey respondents cite health reasons, and roughly the same percentage also cites animal welfare concerns. India is generally considered to be the country with the highest percentage of vegetarians, with various studies putting the percentage of Indian vegetarians at 20 to 40 percent of the population; it also appears that Indians who do eat meat do so infrequently compared to citizens of other countries. In Europe, the highest percentage of vegetarians is found in Italy, at 10 percent, while in France the percentage is only 1.5 percent. It appears that women tend to adopt vegetarianism more often than men, with studies in the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel reporting that 60 percent or more of vegetarians were female.\r\n

Vegetarian\/Vegan Clothing<\/h2>\r\nGiven that a relatively small percentage of Americans identifies as vegetarian, and that roughly half of these cite health concerns as their primary motivation, it should not be surprising that vegetarian or vegan clothing remains a marginal, niche category. Despite this, there is some evidence that the category is growing. For example, fashion designer Stella McCartney has developed a thriving, global brand that produces clothing, shoes, and handbags without any use of leather or fur. However, she does use wool and silk products. MooShoes, a New York retailer, markets a full line of vegan clothing, including shoes, shirts, bags, wallets and belts; these products are sourced from a number of independent producers, including such recognized brand names as Brooks and Doc Martens.\r\n

Cruelty-Free Products<\/h2>\r\nCruelty-free products are those that are not tested on animals and do not include animal ingredients. Methods of cruelty-free production rely on alternative testing methods, such as computer-based simulations. Another method is to develop new products only from ingredients referenced in a large European database of 20,000 compounds that have already been tested as safe. Another method is to test products on reconstructed human skin samples made from donated skin from cosmetic surgeries. Leading cruelty-free cosmetics brands include Aveda, M.A.C., Bobbi Brown, and Urban Decay.\r\n

Humane Farming and Meat Consumption<\/h2>\r\nGiven that relatively few consumers are vegetarian or vegan, while many others who are sensitive to animal rights nonetheless find it difficult to give up the consumption of meat, the alternative of humane farming is significant. Humane farming refers to animal husbandry that respects codes of conduct so that animals are raised and slaughtered in a way to minimize suffering. For example, the popular Whole Foods supermarket chain has adopted the Animal Welfare Rating Standards developed by the Global Animal Partnership in order to source meat products from humane producers. According to these standards, animals must be given space to move around, have access to outdoor areas, must be permitted natural behavior such as wallowing for pigs or pecking for chickens, and must spend their entire lives on a single farm. Another humane farming group, Humane Farm Animal Care, provides a certification to farmers and producers who comply with similar standards, and who abide by the American Meat Institute Standards for slaughtering. Such standards provide, for example, that animals must be stunned in a way that eliminates pain prior to slaughtering.\r\n

Topic for Debate: Fashion and Animal Rights<\/h1>\r\nThis chapter\u2019s debate is based on a difficult decision to be made by EcoFash, Inc., a rapidly growing fictional clothing company based in Brooklyn, New York.\r\n\r\nEcoFash began in 1998 as a line of organic cotton T-shirts featuring slogans with progressive statements, and has grown to include jeans, backpacks, sweatshirts, and baseball caps. All of the materials used are organic natural fabrics or recycled polyester. The company has thirty-two employees and is billing over $20 million annually in sales. Recently, an infusion of capital from a new investor has permitted the company to begin planning an expansion of its product line to include shoes, jackets, and handbags.\r\n\r\nBrenda Cordaro, the founder and principal owner of the company, is a confirmed vegetarian (and supporter of animal rights organizations like PETA) and would like to consider making the new lines vegan\u2014meaning, free of leather, fur, wool, or silk materials. However, she has encountered vigorous opposition from her chief designer, Tessa Novak, who is horrified at the thought of having to use fake leather and imitation-silk polyester, which she finds quite ugly. Tessa\u2019s objection to a vegan approach has received strong support from the company\u2019s financial director, who believes the company will not be able to maximize profits if it only tries to attract customers who are willing to accept synthetic products in place of leather and wool.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, Brenda is supported by the company director of public relations and marketing, who believes that a vegan approach will allow the company to distinguish itself from other \u201chipster\u201d brands.\r\n\r\nBrenda therefore decides to request her staff to prepare the strongest arguments on both sides for a presentation to her board of directors and the new investors.\r\n\r\nYou have been asked to develop the strongest reasons for supporting one of the following two possible responses:\r\n

Affirmative<\/h2>\r\nEcoFash, Inc., should adopt a vegan-only policy.\r\n

Possible Arguments<\/h3>\r\n