‘‘We Don’t Tell People What To Do’’: An Examination of the Factors Influencing NGOs to Campaign for Reduced Meat Consumption
With the link between climate change and intensive animal farming ever clearer and more compelling, the question of how to address meat consumption has become a matter that environmental NGOs need to concern themselves with. However, with people’s dietary choices being a sensitive subject, navigating the topic of meat-eating with NGO members (and the general public) is a complicated matter to say the least. This study of 48 NGOs from across North America, as well as Sweden, found that addressing (and not addressing) meat consumption in relation to climate change is strategically and tactically complicated, both for “environmentally-focused NGOs” and “food-focused” NGOs. The authors urge new efforts from both angles to address the pressing issue.
Though the evidence linking meat-eating with climate change is relatively recent, it is overwhelming and compelling: In the 8 years since the UN’s publication of “Livestock’s Long Shadow” in 2006, the link between climate change and meat consumption has become well-established. Unfortunately the focus of the issue has generally been to look at “livestock” production as the problem, rather than trying to end the consumption of meat as an obvious solution. In addressing the problem, “environmentally-focused” NGOs have been remarkably quiet, preferring campaign on other factors of climate change, while “food-focused” NGOs have targeted other aspects of industrial meat production to more strongly address the climate component. It’s a gap in advocacy that has caught the eye of keen observers, including the authors of a recent study, who spoke directly with NGOs across North America and Sweden trying to address the lack of advocacy directly linking climate change and meat-consumption.
The study reveals that, for the most part, the gap in advocacy is largely due to strategic and tactical concerns from both environmentally-focused and food-focused NGOs. While both sides might recognize the magnitude of the issue, they are hesitant to make it a heavier focus. Most environmental NGOs had a preference for tactics involving public policy making, litigation, and corporate policy change, rather than campaigns focused on individual behaviour and public education. Likewise, many NGOs noted that the “challenging and controversial nature” of the issue kept them quiet. One US NGO staffer is quoted in the study as saying there is a “fear that you’ll get a negative public reaction to being told anything about your diet,” while another is quoted saying “the main hesitancy of many groups, and probably including [ours], is that it’s a personal choice issue, and people like to eat meat.” Food or animal protection focused NGOs had much less hesitation to addressing personal consumption. However, there was an interesting friction with those types of NGOs when it came to addressing industrial production related to climate change: they did not want to open themselves up the counter-argument that “sustainable” small-scale farming was somehow a better or more feasible option.
Though the results of the study are somewhat discouraging – the responses of the NGOs show that there are deep strategic problems that prevent environmental NGOs especially from wading into the debate – the study also represents a strong attempt to understand a gap in advocacy. As the link between climate change and industrial farming becomes more accepted, the authors conclude that there is not only a need for environmental NGOs to begin to see the issue as part of their mandate, but also a need for animal protection groups to support those groups in messaging and strategy.
Original Abstract:
To date, efforts by non-governmental organizations to encourage reduced meat consumption in light of climate change have been quite limited, particularly among environmental non-governmental organizations. This study sought to examine the factors influencing non-governmental organization decisions to establish and sustain dedicated public education and/or policy advocacy campaigns on this issue. More specifically, a grounded theory approach was used to examine environmental, food-focused, and animal protection non-governmental organizations in the U.S., Sweden, and Canada. Results indicate that the relatively limited degree of engagement is primarily attributable to the fact that few non- governmental organization staffers felt that addressing meat consumption within a climate change context was a part of their core missions. Reduced meat consumption was also seen as an issue with limited social and political appeal. Further, many environmental non-governmental organizations appeared to be reluctant to mount campaigns explicitly encouraging personal behavior change of any type. Cross-non-governmental organization collaboration or the creation of additional non-governmental organizations with missions focused on this specific issue may be needed to increase the level of campaigning on this issue.