Introduction

Every year, more than 80 billion animals are slaughtered for their meat across the world (FAO, 2024). The vast majority of their lives are hidden behind huge, windowless facilities known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). This harsh reality often means that they are mistreated and fall short of the basic five freedoms (Freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, or disease; freedom from fear and distress; Freedom to express normal behavior) needed to ensure an ethical life. As the scale of industrial animal farming increases, the question of who should take responsibility for the welfare of these animals arises. Advancing animal rights in industrial agriculture requires accountability from all parties. Although governments and individuals play a vital role in improving animal treatment, corporations have the most critical role in protecting the welfare of industrial animals, as they directly control the supply chains, follow production standards from the government, and create market incentives for individuals. To improve the welfare of industrial animals, all actors must cooperate by having equal power.

Background

The term “industrial animals” mainly refers to any animals that are raised in an environment where they are densely confined to cages, barns, or feedlots (FoodPrint, 2018). Currently, most industrial animals receive unethical treatment throughout their lives. Since most producers want more profits, the situation for the treatment of these animals is conflicted between high-efficiency production and their welfare. Today, millions of industrial animals live in confinement systems, such as gestation crates for pigs and battery cages for chickens. These systems strictly limit the animals’ natural movement and social behaviors (World Animal Protection, 2026). Furthermore, genetic selection is also present in animals, such as broiler chickens. This can then cause skeletal deformities and painful lameness, as their bodies cannot support their own weight (Compassion in World Farming, 2026). Some animals even undergo physical alterations, like beak trimming and tail docking. These are frequently performed without anesthesia to facilitate their confinement in CAFOs (Animal Welfare Institute, 2026). Despite growing public concern, the current power imbalance means that corporations can choose profit as their priority, leading to efficiency outweighing ethics; these practices continue to remain the industry standard as corporations need to make a profit.

The Case for Corporate-Led Responsibility

A major reason why corporations should have the most responsibility is that they directly control the whole production cycle. They are ultimately responsible for implementing the infrastructure that ensures standards are met throughout the entire supply chain. For example, in the pork and poultry industries, a small number of integrators control the entire supply chain, overseeing and deciding on what sort of infrastructure is used (IPES-Food, 2017). This leaves the big corporations the only actors capable of implementing systemic welfare changes, meaning they also have to take the majority of the responsibility. This structure of the production lifecycle means that logistical decisions, such as the density of the housing, are actually predetermined at the corporate level long before an animal ever reaches a farm. This system also implies that farmers rarely have a say in the conditions, as they are often not part of the discussions. Many farmers are also financially restricted, as their wage is barely above the poverty line. Some are even “subjected to extortion and manipulation by corporations”, making them unable to use welfare-friendly upgrades (Open Markets Institute, 2020). The responsibility for making the right ethical choices should sit mostly with the people running the corporation. Nevertheless, it is also difficult for corporations to make the right ethical decision, as the costs are sometimes too high for the business.

However, many will argue that the governments can just implement laws to ensure the well-being of industrial animals. Although they can try to implement and enforce rules, some companies tend not to fully follow up with the standards that they promised to the public. As explained in a report by the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, while many global food companies have published welfare policies, 32% of the companies assessed still fail to provide evidence that these policies are actually being implemented on the farms (Amos et al., 2023). Even if the government tries to enforce any promises, many companies just choose to avoid reporting the conditions of their farms, making enforcement very difficult. In the same report, it is shown that only 54% of companies choose to report their day-to-day responsibilities to improve animal welfare (Amos et al., 2023). Governmental enforcement is very difficult, as they can’t check every farm, and only a bit more than half actually report what goes on every day on the farms. This leaves the well-being of industrial animals almost entirely up to the corporation's internal enforcement, or lack thereof. Overall, because of the power that they hold to actually make a difference, corporations must be the ones that also hold the most responsibility.

Finally, corporations can have the ability to influence market demand and create financial incentives for consumers to choose more ethical products. Although many people argue that consumers have the power to choose what they buy, the options available to a shopper are strictly curated by corporate marketing teams. By controlling the branding and placement of animal products, corporations can hide the reality of industrial farming behind misleading labels. For example, according to the Animal Welfare Institute (2024), corporations often use a process called humane washing, where they use imagery showing happy animals on green pastures, to sell products that actually come from CAFOs. Corporations are the ones responsible for this information gap that prevents consumers from making actual ethical choices, as most labels are there to deceive consumers. Furthermore, corporations also have enough control on the market to make ethically farmed meat and dairy affordable for the average person. By investing more money into the supply chain, corporations can shift consumer behavior by making the more expensive but ethical products more accessible to everyone (World Economic Forum, 2025). This then makes it much easier for people to support better treatment of animals, as most can buy products that come ethically. Ultimately, what an individual buys depends on what the corporation sells, which puts the responsibility of leaving ethical temptation directly on the business.

Solution

To move beyond this stalemate regarding animal rights, a chain of influence framework must be adopted. As of right now, the responsibility comes from the power that corporations have, which outweighs the consumers and the government. Without remediating this imbalance of power, the rights of animals farmed will remain compromised, as corporations will always have more power in the conversations. This is why, to advance animal rights, the power that each group holds in the discussion should be equal, by making each group influence and reinforce all the others. Individuals can influence corporations to act, then the corporations can provide funding for farmers, finally leading to others being influenced and laws being passed by the government. For example, in 2015, McDonald's USA committed to source 100% cage-free eggs. Because McDonalds is a huge buyer of eggs, this decision also means they helped many farmers build the cage-free infrastructure (McDonald’s, 2024). This proves that by evening out the power, corporations can allow many others to advance the ethics of industrial animals. Overall, this transformation of power means society can finally ensure that the ethical treatment of animals is a priority for all.

Conclusion

Ultimately, while animal welfare is a shared responsibility, corporations currently hold the most significant power and thus the most responsibility through their control of supply chains, decision to follow standards, and the market incentives. This power imbalance, favoring the corporations, has allowed the rights of industrial animals to be outweighed by the potential profit. By using the chain of influence framework, the power is even distributed, and each group can reinforce the others. In the future, as consumers become more aware of the ethical issues, the cost of implementing infrastructure decreases, and the possibility of continuous monitoring of supply lines, businesses will change their treatment just to stay relevant. Ultimately, equalizing the power can ensure that the humane treatment of animals is permanent in the global food system.

References

Amos, N., Axberg, J. D., & Williams, N. R. (2024, April 25). The business benchmark on farm animal welfare 2023 report. Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare. https://www.bbfaw.com/publications/

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE. (2023). Deceptive consumer labels. https://awionline.org/store/catalog/animal-welfare-publications/farmed-animals/deceptive-consumer-labels

Animal Welfare Institute. (2026). Inhumane practices on factory farms. Retrieved March 28, 2026, from https://awionline.org/content/inhumane-practices-factory-farms

Compassion in World Farming. (2026). Exposing animal cruelty in factory farming. Compassion in World Farming. Retrieved March 28, 2026, from https://www.ciwf.org.uk/our-campaigns/end-it/animal-cruelty/

FoodPrint. (2018, September 25). Raising animals in an industrial system. Retrieved March 30, 2026, from https://foodprint.org/issues/raising-animals-industrial-system/

McDonald's. (2024). Animal health & welfare. https://corporate.mcdonalds.com/corpmcd/our-purpose-and-impact/food-quality-and-sourcing/animal-health-and-welfare.html

Mooney, P. (2017, October). Too big to feed: Exploring the impacts of mega-mergers, consolidation, and concentration of power in the agri-food sector (C. Clément & N. Jacobs, Eds.). IPES Food. https://ipes-food.org/report/too-big-to-feed/

Open Markets Institute. (2020, November 16). Memorandum - stop agricultural monopolies. Open markets. https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/memorandum-stop-agricultural-monopolies

Ritchie, O. W. I. D. (2017, August). Yearly number of animals slaughtered for meat, world, 1961 to 2024 [Infographic]. Meat and Dairy Production. https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production

World Animal Protection. (2026, January 20). The factory farming index. World Animal Protection. https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/our-work/food-systems/factory-farming-index/

World Economic Forum. (2025, June). Putting food on the balance sheet. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Putting_Food_on_the_Balance_Sheet_2025.pdf