Frequently NGOs, policy organizations, academics and others outside corporate decision-making structures, promote fact-based analyses with the intent of driving change in operations, products and services of businesses. However, there are many other considerations that business leaders weigh before implementing any changes in the name of sustainability. While cost often comes to mind first, fundamentally customer behavior, investor expectations and the ambiguity of potential future risks versus rewards, are crucial. The world of animal agriculture and animal proteins is no exception. While advancing the science of animal protein sustainability is very necessary, practitioners need to have realistic expectations of how, and how quickly, businesses will make changes consistent with science-based arguments. In some extreme cases, companies even take positive actions that they intentionally downplay. Using examples from published analyses, corporate statements and first-hand experience, this presentation will provide insights about the competing influences on food businesses to implement changes intended to improve sustainability of animal agriculture.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
David Dayhoff (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: