On January 19, 2012, EFSA published their assessment report on the new Directive EU 1099/2009. This documents provides valuable background information on how this directive was established and how it has been influenced by the stake holders. It also demonstrates the future direction of the EU when it comes to safeguarding animal welfare within the near future.

1. CSR Corporate Social Responsibility as most effective strategy to implement
EU Directive 1099/2009 on farms
On January 19, 2012, EFSA published their assessment report on the new Directive EU 1099/2009.
This EU directive concerns welfare management related to food producing animals and animals used
for experimental purposes. Although the mainfocus is on welfare during the slaughter process, the
new directive will have a major impact on handling sick and cripple animals on farms. Because the
costs involved in euthanizing these animals, this subject is not particularly popular under farmers
(most farmers even don’t know that killing animals on the farm is restricted to only those methods
described in directive EU 1099/2009). The question what the best strategy will be safeguarding
animal welfare of these farm animals in the near future.
According to our vision, Corporate Social Responsibility CSR is probably the
most important part of the EU strategy to implement the directive on farm
level. Retailers who included animal welfare in their corporate strategy
proved that that enforcing this strategy throughout the entire production
chain (including farmers) can be extremely successful to underline what
their customers demand. By doing so, these pro-active retailers have a
bigger impact on implementing animal welfare that branch organizations
of veterinary services.
Impact assessment Directive EU 1099/2009
The Impact Assessment provides a perfect overview on EU’s strategy for the Protection and Welfare
of animals. It describes the discussions between the EU Commission, the EU Council, the European
Economic- and Social commission and the representatives of the European stakeholders on how to
improve animal welfare standards within the EU. The comparison of the options provided in the
report indicates that there is no single option that is able to address all problems effectively and
efficiently.
The main outcome is that all participants agreed with the problem definitions, but they also could
not agree on one-fits-all answer. The problems are too complex and the opinions of the main
stakeholders too diverse, but there are clear indications how the EU foresee how the EU strategy for
2013 - 2015 will be implemented:
– High EU standards on animal welfare as competitive advantage
The competitiveness of EU producers should not be limited to production costs. Animal welfare is an
attribute that could be part of competitive advantage if properly marketed. Focusing the production
to high margin products and development of know-how on animal welfare could contribute to
safeguard productions in regions where competition on price is in any case not sustainable.
– Governance, participation, good administration
The report refers to the Lisbon Treaty where it comes to address the involvement of the civil society.
This treaty has developed a new governance approach where the civil society is more involved in the
process of setting common rules. This is particularly relevant for animal welfare where civil society
has constantly and increasingly expressed its interest in the field.
– Import meat from countries that follow the EU Standards
The report mentions the competitive advantage of New Zealand and Australia, who introduced high
animal welfare standards over 10 years ago and who are today very competitive exporters of live
Visit www.N2GF.com For more information

2. animals, milk and meat. The EU concludes that high welfare standards are compatible with high
competitiveness on the world market, and thus, the industry within the EU should follow the same
strategy.
– Concentrate on the main meat export countries
Raise awareness of animal welfare in those countries that export to the EU. There are only few
countries that export meat products to the EU today: Brazil and Thailand provide 90% of the poultry
meat imports; Brazil and Argentina 60% of the beef; and New Zealand 85% of the sheep meat. This
could be done in bilateral agreements, but it is more likely that they will use the mechanism that has
been proven successfully in the UK: through strict demands from large international retailers who
demand their producers to follow their CSR strategy. 55% percent of all animal based products are
produced following the guidelines of the retailers. Those rules are much stricter than the current and
future EU rules when it comes to the implementation of animal welfare standards throughout the
entire production chain.
– Through CSR
Social responsibility as an integral part of the wealth creation process which, if managed properly,
should enhance the competitiveness of business and maximize the value of wealth creation to
society.
General objectives of the EU strategy
The proposed new EU strategy (2012 – 2015) on animal welfare would have two general objectives:
To give animals a level of protection and welfare that reflects European societal concerns
To ensure fair competition for the EU animal sector in the context of the internal market.
These general objectives touch upon economic, social, environmental, public health and consumer
welfare objectives, also with an international dimension.
Overview on the European poultry and livestock market
EU Market: Number of animals
Live animals are used for economic purposes by various industries and businesses. In terms of
numbers of animals, the farming sector is the largest user, with at least 2 billion birds (chickens,
laying hens, turkeys, etc.) and 334 million mammals (pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, fur animals).
EU Market: Economic value
In economic terms, livestock farming in the EU is worth € 149 billion every year. Of this, pigs and
poultry (subject to specific EU provisions) represent 38% (i.e. € 57.6 billion). Animal output value
represents 41 % of the overall agricultural output (€ 363 billion in 2008).
EU Market: Employment
In terms of employment, it is estimated that some 4 million people, most of them farmers, handle
animals in the course of their business activity while 16.4 million people work regularly on 7.3 million
agricultural holdings (9 million Annual Work Units in 2007). Work related to animals should include
around 3.7 million people. In addition to the farming sector, there are around 200.000 people
working with animals in slaughterhouses.
Visit www.N2GF.com For more information

3. EU Market: Transports
Trade of cattle transported between Member States and with third countries in 2009 has been
estimated at 4 million heads. The equivalent number for pigs has been estimated at nearly 28 million
heads.
Key issues on communication with EU consumers
Lack of knowledge
Even though consumers later have become interested in animal welfare and scientists now know
more about the issue, the market place still does not encourage producers to change their housing
systems, as this would imply new investments and sometimes additional production costs. Another
reason for this could be that there is little information to consumers on how animals are treated
during production processes. Many farmers also lack information about alternative systems and
often do not see any advantage in changing their processes into a more animal friendly way. An
important problem is that, as in the example concerning pigs, the use of modern, more animal
welfare friendly systems of production often conflicts with economic pressure on operators to reduce
costs.
Improving knowledge on animal welfare: Common interest
On January 19, 2012, The Commission presented an impact assessmenton the European Union
Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals1, including the main findings of the evaluation, in
which the following problems related to the EU policy on animal welfare were identified: insufficient
enforcement, competitiveness of farmers, lack of communication to consumers and stakeholders.
European consumers
Animal welfare is a Community value. The protection of animals is a matter of public concern that
affects consumer attitudes towards agricultural products. In the survey, the EU acknowledged that
although animal welfare is a worry for 64 % of the population, animal-welfare-friendly products
usually have a low share of the market.
The gap between consumer views and market shares
There is a clear gap between consumer views and market shares in this regard. Studies show that
concern for animal welfare is only one of the factors affecting the consumer’s choice of a product. On
the consumer' side, except for eggs, there is no specific EU instrument that could encourage
consumers to express a choice in favor of more animal welfare friendly products.
Unclear communication with the consumers
Consumers across the EU are confronted with a great variety of animal welfare attributes, but they
hardly understand what is behind all these claims of the producers. They may rely on authorities or
particular brand names, assuming that high animal welfare standards are part of the product’s
attributes. To allow consumers to understand and compare such attributes and to allow producers to
make credible claims as regards animal welfare, the credibility of animal welfare claims should be
visualized through a system that allows comparison.
1
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/impact_assesment_19012012_en.pdf
Visit www.N2GF.com For more information

4. Animal products produced outside the EU are not blocked at the border, even when they are
produced without respect for animal welfare
The efforts of the EU to harmonize the level of animal welfare within the Community and to increase
the welfare standards may have effect on the competition with producers from outside the EU.
Measures adopted by the Member States in the field of animal welfare can have an impact that is
felt across national borders. In particular, they can create obstacles to trade between Member States
and distort competition. Farmers’ organizations insisted therefore on including the costs and the
risks of importing animals from outside the EU. Animal welfare organizations agreed with the
Farmers’ organizations and stressed the need to widen the scope of EU policy, to give the public and
stakeholders more education and information on animal welfare issues and under what animal
welfare conditions the products were produced, within and outside the EU. This would give the
producers the possibility to differentiate their products on the bases of better animal welfare
conditions during production of animal based products.
Four options for future EU strategy on improving animal welfare
Based on the analysis of the problem drivers, the specific objectives of the new strategy on animal
welfare can be summarized as follows:
Objective 1:EU non legislative actions; (strengthening Member States' compliance to improve
enforcement of the EU legislation) in a consistent approach across the Member States;
Objective 2:Sector self- regulation (Benchmarking voluntary schemes) to provide for open and fair
competition for EU business operators that implement or go beyond EU requirements;
Objective 3:Specific EU legislation (Establishing a European network of reference centers) to improve
knowledge and awareness of EU business operators regarding animal welfare;
Objective 4:New EU Framework Law (Streamlining requirements for competence and using animal
welfare indicators) to improve the coherence of animal welfare across animal species.
Indicators for specific objective 1: to improve enforcement of the EU legislation
Rate of infringements, rate of inspection; number of complaints addressed to the Commission on
animal welfare; number of ongoing EU infringement proceedings. Annex 6A contains tables
summarizing data submitted by the Member States for 2008 on the numbers of production sites
subject to inspection, inspected production sites, inspected production sites without non
compliance and detected non compliance that required immediate action for administrative or
criminal penalties.
Number of official national or regional guidelines on animal welfare aiming at enforcing EU
legislation (this would need a specific collection work). For example, in the UK a number of local
authorities have an animal welfare charter.
Number of farms adhering to a specific animal welfare certification scheme or having an animal
welfare component in their scheme.
Indicators for specific objective 2: to provide for open and fair competition for EU business
operators that implement or go beyond EU requirements
Market share of EU producers having stricter animal welfare national rules and analysis of their
investment and operating costs.
Level of importation of products from third countries having lower legal standards the EU.
Visit www.N2GF.com For more information

5. Number of animals covered by equivalent legal provisions in third countries.
Eurobarometer surveys on the level of awareness of EU citizens and evolution on time.
Indicators for specific objective 3: to improve knowledge and awareness of EU business operators
regarding animal welfare
Number of education bodies providing animal welfare curriculum for specific professions related
to animals.
Number of professional schools having specific animal welfare programmes in their curriculum.
Number of companies having animal welfare as part of their corporate social responsibility.
Research funding (see current level of resources in the baseline).
Number of publications on animal welfare; Number of brevets registered related to animals
welfare.
Number of animals exempted from experiments due to the validation of alternative methods.
Number of non-human primates used in scientific procedures in the EU.
Indicators for specific objective 4: to improve coherence of animal welfare across animal species
Level of discrepancies between national animal welfare standards on dogs and cats based on the
most critical animal welfare problems identified by the Council.
Level of discrepancies between national animal welfare standards on dairy cows and beef cattle
based on the indicators of the welfare quality project.
Level of discrepancies between national animal welfare standards on farmed fish based on the
most critical welfare problems identified by the EFSA.
Level of discrepancies between national animal welfare standards on rabbits based on the most
critical welfare problems identified by the EFSA.
Corporate Social Responsibility CSRmentioned in the impact assessment
There are many ways to define CSR. What they have in common is that CSR describes how companies
manage their business processes to produce an overall positive impact on society. The phenomenon
CSR is a value concept that is susceptible to particular ideological and emotional interpretations.
Different organizations have framed different definitions - although there is considerable common
ground between them. The most used definition is the one defined by The World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. In its publication Making Good Business Sense by Lord Holme and Richard
Watts, used the following definition:
Corporate Social Responsibility is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically
and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce
and their families as well as of the local community and society at large
The European CSR model is much more focused on operating the core business in a socially
responsible way, complemented by investment in communities for solid business case reasons.
Although commonly used in other settings, defining animal welfare as part of a corporate CSR
setting is not new. These are some of the pages where the EU refers to CSR:
Visit www.N2GF.com For more information

6. Definition CSR2, page 62
Corporate Social Responsibility: "A concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental
concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary
basis".
Overall summary, Page 125
Overall summary: some important national players of the food chain at different steps (mainly food
retailers and food services) have included animal welfare in their CSR. The phenomenon is
particularly noticeable in the UK but not exclusively. Important other players of the food chain do not
mention animal welfare in the CSR and the number of examples quoted below is not comprehensive
but should not be interpreted as representing the majority of the food sold in the EU.
Option 2, Page 42
The framework created by Option 2 could also be later used in a context of further EU initiatives on
Corporate Social Responsibilityor Public procurement initiatives.
Corporate Social Responsibility and procurement policy, page 101
As regard Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or procurement policy, there is presently no EU
initiative to introduce animal welfare among the item that would be part of CSR or procurement
policy.
2
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-
Visit www.N2GF.com For more information

7. Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility mentioned in the impact assessment
Retailers UK
page 125: TESCO, Market share UK 30.7%
page 126 - 127: COOP UK, Market share 8%
page 127 - 128: Sainsbury's, Market share 16%
Total UK 55% market share for retailers with animal welfare included in their CSR
Other EU Retailer organizations
page 125 - 126: Italy: COOP, Market share Italy 15%
page 128: Germany: Rewe, second largest in Germany and Eastern Europe
Fast food retailers
Page 128; Mc Donald's, Market share worldwide 19% in 2007 (!!) largest fast food retailer in
the world
Page 129: Burger King, market share worldwide 2%in 2007 (!!)
page 130: Multinational corporations/global player: UNILEVER, global market leader in food
categories, number two in laundry and daily hair care products
page 130: Multinational corporations/global player: IKEA, market share between 2010: 5 to
10% world wide, depending on commodity
Visit www.N2GF.com For more information