Ethics and the choice of animal advocacy campaigns

- We model the market for a good subject to animal advocacy campaigns.
- Ethical evaluations of seven campaigns are measured by equilibrium changes.
- Campaigns usually set animal rights against monopoly interests.
- Negotiation and targeted direct action can benefit both animal welfare and rights.
- Campaign design can unnecessarily oppose welfare and rights evaluations.

This paper examines how different ethical positions view various types of animal advocacy campaigns concerning a product made using animals as an input. The ethical positions represent common company, society, and animal advocate viewpoints. We adopt an industrial economics approach, modelling a market with a monopolistic supplier and subject to consumer-oriented, technological, collaborative, and direct action campaigns. We determine whether the ethical positions support or oppose each campaign, and in what conditions. We find that animal welfare and rights goals are simultaneously satisfied by three campaigns: negotiation, targeted direct action, and awareness raising that condemns low welfare standards.