Animals and Organisations: An Ethic of Care Framework

Abstract

Despite recent developments in the field of human–animal studies and a surge of growth in scholarship in this area, organisational theory has been accused of facilitating the “virtual exclusion” of the non-human animal. This article attempts to address this through its investigation of the non-human in the business and management literature within an ethic of care framework. It accomplishes this through a bibliometric review of the articles available in the Social Sciences Citation Index. The focus of investigation is the nature of the human–animal relationship within the articles. It is hoped that this framework will assist scholars in attempts to increase the visibility of animals within our organisations and enhance their moral consideration, as well as facilitate the review of other literatures relating to the marginalised within our organisations.

Keywords

animals stakeholders bibliometrics feminist ethic of care human–animal organisation studies voice silent stakeholders nature as stakeholder ethics

Introduction

In many respects, they comport better than humans, they kill to eat and eat to live and not live to eat as some of us do, they do not practice deception, fraud, or falsehood and malpractices as humans do, they care for their little ones expecting nothing in return, they do not proliferate as we do depleting the already scarce resources of the earth, for they practice sex restraint by seasonal mating, nor do they inhale the lethal smoke of tobacco polluting the atmosphere and inflicting harm on fellow beings. (Extract from the judgement on Balakrishnan vs. Union of India, 2000)¹

This extract is from the 2000 judgment of the High Court of Kerala in which the confinement and exhibition of circus animals is described as being contrary to the “dignified existence” due to all living beings, as provided for under the Constitution of India. Two years later, in 2002, Germany became the first country in the European Union to grant constitutional rights to animals. The passing of the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006² in the United States, protecting the needs of individual animals in times of disaster, received bipartisan backing. In 2015, the Parliament of New Zealand unanimously passed the Animal Welfare Amendment Act (No. 2) 2015³ recognizing the sentience of animals and banning their use for cosmetic testing. These rulings arguably stand as examples of the shift in attitudes to animals occurring in many societies across the world today.

This increased societal interest is reflected in Shapiro and DeMello’s (2010) reported “explosive growth” (p. 308) in the multidisciplinary field of human–animal studies since 2002. However, while much of this work has come from philosophy, geography, and anthropology (Shapiro & DeMello, 2010), the field of organisational studies lags behind, accused of facilitating the “virtual exclusion” (Labatut, Munro, & Desmond, 2016, p. 325) of the non-human animal from the literature of this particular discipline. Such exclusion “is ironic, given that the constitutive basis of management is founded on the relation between man and animal” (O’Doherty, 2016, p. 409). The anthropocentric assumptions which form the basis of much of the long-standing theories may need to be re-evaluated if new theories are to be developed which can withstand contemporary concerns (Sayers, 2016). Furthermore, the issue of how we use and interact with animals provides us with the opportunity to widen our sphere of moral concern, thereby having “the potential for improving the discourse about what we are doing to ourselves, and our futures if we continue to pursue mindlessly disburdenment from ethical life” (Anthony, 2012, p. 140).

An increased interest in environmental justice and the value of maintaining valuable ecosystems for the flourishing of all has occurred in the management literature, particularly from the perspective of stakeholder theory (Driscoll & Starik, 2004; Waddock, 2011). Indeed, the cause of environmental sustainability and animals are often linked, for example, in the case of industrial farming, which causes both ecological havoc and animal suffering on a massive scale (Jamieson, 2008). Other environmental ethicists—see, for example, Stone (1987)—devote considerable time to explicating their views on the moral considerateness due to non-human animals. However, the erasure of animals and their contributions to both our personal and international economies still persists and, as reported by O’Doherty (2016), a trawl through the literature of management and organisation studies reveals mostly their presence as “a particular type of ‘raw material’ or economic material that introduces localised problems associated with process flow and operations management” (O’Doherty, 2016, p. 409). This may be a cause for concern and a new way of looking at how animals are seen in the literature may be required. This article seeks to begin this journey, by considering animal-related articles in the “business” and “management” categories of the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) within an ethic of care framework. The ethic of care approach to the natural environment has been posited by Sama, Welcomer, and Gerde (2004) in order to facilitate the development of an “internalized voice” (p. 152) for the silent stakeholder within the organisation. Informed by these authors’ call for further research in this area, and the need for “a more relational model of organizing” (p. 158), it is intended that this framework will assist scholars by enhancing the visibility of animals, and those who care for them, within our organisations.

What Constitutes an “Animal”?

The articles under review in this paper do not have a tendency to define specifically what constitutes an animal per se and the expression “non-human” also covers non-sentient actors, such as technology, machinery, and so on. The term animal itself is widely used to describe all non-human, non-plant life, while acknowledging that humans can also be categorised biologically within the animal family (Morwitz, 2008). An overarching word therefore, it is generally utilised “as a term to corral the diversity of non-human life within this designation” (Desmond, 2010, p. 248). It is perhaps assumed that a general understanding pertains as to what an animal is and that this is accepted by the readers and authors alike. A large proportion of the articles address agricultural issues, and pigs, cows, sheep, and chickens are the main focus. Articles addressing zoos and wildlife tourism and protection open up the possibility of inclusion of more “exotic” wild animals, such as dolphins, whales, camels, lions, and tigers. While mammals are the main focus, birds are also included under this title, as well as reptiles. Articles addressing pet ownership feature dogs, cats, alpacas, and horses, while rodents and primates are the main subjects for scientific research. Articles concerning biodiversity and the natural environment provide for the inclusion of insects also. A prescriptive definition of what constitutes an “animal” is inherently problematic and outside the scope of this article. For the purposes of this article, a widely encompassing definition is used, allowing for the inclusion of both vertebrates and invertebrates, the latter which, while rarely discussed in the literature, may do so out of a lack of human experience rather than a lack of any particular value as such.

Ethic of Care

Brought to prominence by Carol Gilligan in her 1982 book In a Different Voice [all quotes featuring here refer to the 1993 edition of this book] the “ethic of care” approach has been considered by many scholars, particularly those in the feminist tradition, as a way to address a wide range of moral issues. This ethic is one based in relationships, which are direct and concrete, rather than on a conceptual set of principles designed to guide behaviour. It is considered both a value and a practice (Held, 2006), emphasizing the “importance of ongoing, interdependent relationships as sites of care” (Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012, p. 642) and placing value on the responsibilities arising out of the bonds of these relationships. While it is often offered as an alternative to an ethic of justice (Gilligan, 1993; Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012), this does not mean that the ethic of care is complete without any reference to justice at all (Liedtka, 1996; Noddings, 2003). Rather, the ethic of care can be seen as “the most basic moral value” (Held, 2006, p. 71) without which nothing, including justice, could exist. As a result, “caring relations should form the wider moral framework into which justice should be fitted” (Held, 2006, p. 71). The ethic has been credited with the ability to change how we view political and social life, forcing us to confront previously marginalised issues and improving lived outcomes for people (Held, 2006; Tronto, 1993).

While it has been somewhat ignored in much of the standard business ethics curricula (Rabouin, 1997), feminist ethics “offers a new vocabulary, with its own distinct set of concepts and metaphors, that enables us to envision an innovative and enriching context within which to think about the firm” (Wicks, Gilbert, & Freeman, 1994, p. 493). For organisational scholars, the ethic of care approach is uniquely placed to boost the moral worth of the organisations that we work for (Liedtka, 1996) and to assist scholars in cultivating positive change. As an aid to theory development, the care ethic allows us to interrogate the effects of our various belief systems, asking who may be disadvantaged by them, thereby making use of the ethic “as a site of resistance to current practices” (Jacques, 1992, p. 601). Furthermore, the ethic facilitates new ways to develop ethical problem-solving processes, connecting thought, analysis, and action with future ethical decision-making within real-life organisational contexts (Rabouin, 1997).

The ethic of care is “not restricted to human interaction with others” (Tronto, 1993, p. 103), and therefore, can be used to address the moral questions surrounding the use of animals in organisational life. While reciprocity of care is not formally present in our relationships with animals (Noddings, 2003), responsibility for care arises anytime we make animals dependent on us, whether as pets or within, for example, an agricultural system (Engster, 2006). Noddings (2003) also accepts our duties to companion animals, positing that by establishing “the possibility of appreciative and reciprocal relation” (p. 157), responsibility for the care of this animal occurs. Noddings suggests that, arising out of this caring relation, a chain of caring has been developed, with duties to an entire species inferred by this relationship with one. Furthermore, as the care ethic is one of healing (Tronto, 1993), informed by the belief “that no one should be hurt” (Gilligan, 1993, p. 174), abuse and neglect of animals of any kind, whether or not we are in direct relation, is renounced.

As an environmental ethic, the ethic of care highlights our connection to the natural world and the interdependent nature of living in holistic ecosystems (Anthony, 2012), embracing the “underlying picture of the earth as one body, and of ourselves as part of this body” (Manning, 1992, p. 84). Widely used approaches to environmental ethics, such as holism, often focus on evaluations of entire systems, rather than on the intrinsic worth of individual members of the system themselves. Consideration of the environment from an ethic of care perspective offers a counterpoint to holism’s implicit hierarchies and abstract principles regarding the unequal worth of certain species, recognizing instead the natural world “as comprising individual beings that are part of a dynamic web of interconnections in which feelings, emotions and inclinations (or energy) play an integral role” (Kheel, 1985/2007, p. 44). All of non-human nature can therefore be included as a subject of care, the whole and the individual members alike.

While recognizing that caring work is undervalued in today’s society (Tronto, 1993), animal-based organisations may potentially model the enactment of the caring ethic for other organisations to follow. Traditionally associated with “dirty work” (Lopina, Rogelberg, & Howell, 2012), organisations that rely on contributions from animals, requiring direct human–animal interaction and care-giving, may demonstrate the ethic of care through the internal culture of the organisation (Lawrence & Maitlis, 2012). Organisational members become adept at care through their everyday practices of keeping themselves and each other safe in potentially dangerous work environments, as well as engaging in the practical looking-after of dependent others. Furthermore, work which involves close, daily interactions with animals facilitates the development of empathetic skills which are required when seeking to ascertain the needs of a non-vocal other (Gruen, 2004/2007).

Taking an ethic of care approach to the consideration of animals has the potential to highlight their visibility within our organisations, facilitating practical improvements in their lives and welfare. Anthony (2012) offers the example of the “Agrarian Ideal” (p. 128), which once facilitated close proximity between the farmer, the animals, and the community, and “helped to ‘gather’ certain virtues of care, respect and self-mastery” (Anthony, 2012, p. 129). However, the increased industrialisation of farming practices has distanced animals from both those who care for them and wider society, trapping them within a mechanised production system which “conceals not only their natures as sentient beings with welfare interests, but our responsibilities to them as well” (Anthony, 2012, p. 131). An ethic of care approach to the consideration of such issues could overturn such invisibility and the ensuing negative consequences for animals, non-human nature, and indeed all those without a voice or power to change their circumstances. This is the practical implication of the care ethic in that it challenges us to “involve ourselves as directly as possible in the whole process of our moral decisions” (Kheel, 1985/2007, p. 49).

In order to support this enhanced visibility of animals within organisations, an investigation of animal-related articles appearing in the SSCI is offered. It is suggested that this investigation may be facilitated by the use of the framework (proposed in Figure 1) which delineates the main themes of the ethic of care approach as outlined by scholars in the area. It is hoped that this review of articles will assist in the reimagining of how animals are seen within the existing business and management literature, and possibly provide a way for scholars to re-think our attitudes to non-humans, the environment, and silent others on whom organisations often depend, as well as to “make more coherent the posture of an organization in the face of current challenges” (Wicks, 1996, p. 524).

Figure 1.

Ethic of care framework for animal-related articles.

Articles may first be considered by whether they describe a relationship with animals that is concrete, characterised by a direct and personal interaction, or whether the relationship is abstract, characterised by an objective distance between human and animal. Much of the emphasis in care theory is focused on the concrete, subjective, person-to-person relationships between the carer and cared-for (Liedtka, 1996; Noddings, 2003) although the more abstract “caring about” is acknowledged “when it is logistically impossible to exercise caring for” (Noddings, 2003, p. xvi). This “arms-length” approach to caring can “be thought of as the motivational foundation for justice” (Noddings, 2003, p. xvi), although it can fall short if direct observation of the effects on those cared for is not pursued. Tronto (1993) further divides the abstract forms of caring, into “caring about”—recognising that care is necessary—and “taking care of”—taking responsibility and establishing a response. This latter form of care often means allocating money and resources and both forms are generally undertaken by the more powerful in society. However, without any subjective, personal interaction with those receiving care, those offering such abstract care “almost inevitably come to impose their own solutions, without dialogue, on those in need” (Liedtka, 1996, p. 184). Furthermore, concrete forms of care—both direct giving and receiving—are generally undertaken by the less powerful in society, where the work is often undervalued and demeaned (Tronto, 1993).

Concrete “caring-for” is focused on “the welfare, protection, or enhancement of the cared-for” (Noddings, 2003, p. 23), placing intrinsic value on the life of the cared-for, rather than seeing them as a means to an end. However, much of the care of animals in our organisations is instrumental which, while concrete and direct in nature, is done in order to achieve an end other than the fulfilment of that animal’s life. Noddings (2003) refers to the “contractual reciprocity” (p. 158) of many of our relationships with animals where we offer them care contingent on the useful services that they may provide. This “contractual” care may lead to a more natural form of caring on a personal level, but is primarily instrumental and end-focused in nature. While this type of care might not easily fit within traditional paradigms of the ethic of care as it has been articulated to date, its existence is a very real by-product of the way we utilise animals in our organisations. Those involved in offering such “contractual” care may still be seen as engaged in concrete care-giving, developing relationships with the animals under their supervision, despite the conditions under which the care is being offered. Articles featuring these contractual care-givers are therefore included, although their care may be seen as instrumental in nature.

The more abstract “caring-about” also has value if used as a force for change. Such caring at a distance may have the potential to underpin meaningful social cohesion, improved political structures and more peaceful global relations between people of different nations and identities (Held, 2006). While a distant relationship to animals may result in a misrepresentation of their needs arising from a lack of direct experience (Noddings, 2003), consumers may drive a demand for higher standards and improved welfare. While abstraction and invisibility has arguably led to the lowering of standards, particularly, in relation to intensive farming systems, consumers can demonstrate care at a distance by challenging this treatment of animals and effecting positive transformations (Anthony, 2012). For the purposes of the framework, no relationship is deemed to exist within articles where the connection to the animal is both abstract, at a distance, and end-focused, motivated by instrumental means, such as profit, thereby simply manifesting the “market mechanism at work” (Liedtka, 1996, p. 186) rather than any form of caring relationship.

Method

In order to investigate the development of peer-reviewed research which addresses animals in the categories of business and management, a bibliometric analytical method (following Oswick, 2009) was selected. This method has become popular in the management disciplines (Oswick, 2009) and provides a format for the content analysis of work accumulated in a particular field. It is of particular use in the investigation of an emerging topic or subject area (J. G. Cullen, 2014) and provides an overview of the types and themes of the articles retrieved. The SSCI was chosen as the primary database for exploration as it remains one of the most popular and respected source of peer-reviewed periodical literature (Wang, Gilley, & Sun, 2012).

A keyword search was performed using the terms “animal*” or “nonhuman*” or “non-human*” (to allow for discrepancies in spelling) in articles listed in the SSCI “business” and “management” categories, since 1995. The “topic” field was utilised to facilitate the most comprehensive return of articles in either the title or the abstract to minimise the risk of relevant articles being omitted. As Shapiro and DeMello (2010) have noted, the growth of interest in human–animal studies has increased since 2002. Because of this a 20-year time frame (1995-2015) was deemed sufficient to encapsulate noteworthy developments in the field in recent times. Due to the language restrictions of the authors, only returns in English were reviewed.

An overall search for these keywords was also carried out in all SSCI categories in order to place the results of the “business” and “management” categories in context. The abstracts of the articles returned under the “business” and “management” categories were then reviewed for their relevance to the issue of animals and organisations overall. Book reviews, introductions, letters, and interviews were excluded from further review on the basis that they did not provide a significant thematic contribution to the topic under review, as were articles which featured only throwaway remarks referencing animals. Also articles not addressing non-humans at all, but returned under some derivative of the word “human”—such as “humanization” or “humanistic”—were also excluded. Articles concerning non-living “non-human” actants, such as technology, were also omitted on the basis that they did not at all address the issue of non-human animals and, therefore, fall outside of the scope of this article, as well as articles which utilised the image of the animal as a metaphor.

The remaining articles were then considered according to the framework (Figure 1) informed by the ethic of care literature. This involved a careful reading of the nature of the role of the animal within each article and of how the animal stands in relation to the human subjects in the texts. The focus at this stage was on the nature of the human–animal relationships within each article, discerning whether these relationships are abstract, at a distance, or concrete and direct, whether they are based on the intrinsic value of the animal, or more instrumental in their approach. Overall, the process was an iterative one, with the themes and the articles themselves re-checked to ensure the continued relevance of the categories. A full list of the articles included in the review, containing the author and publication details, as well as the categories to which each of the articles were assigned, was created to assist further study in this area.

Results

The search returned 36,370 articles in all categories, in English. When filtered according to the Web of Science categories, the behavioural sciences topped the returns at 23.03%, with 18.196% from the neurosciences and 12.337% from biological psychology. Considering Shapiro and DeMello’s (2010) reporting of the interest in animal-related issues in the humanities and social sciences, it is interesting to note that both anthropology and sociology do feature in the returns, offering 8.452% and 4.155% respectively. However, when the 36,370 articles were filtered for the “business” and “management” categories combined, 295 items were returned, representing just 0.885% of all the articles within these parameters published in the SSCI over the 20-year time period. Figure 2 shows the number of articles returned under these two categories as a percentage of the overall articles returned each year. There has not been a steady, or even particularly noteworthy, increase in the number published over the time period, apart from a spike in 2008 due to the publication of a special issue of the Journal of Business Research in May of that year.

Figure 2.

Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) returns 1995-2015 of articles featuring “animal*” or “nonhuman*” or “non-human*” in “business” and “management” categories as percent of overall returns.

That the majority of the articles returned fall within the scope of the natural sciences is hardly surprising, as animals feature prominently in medical and scientific research, primarily to benefit humans. The low return for the business and management disciplines is perhaps indicative of the invisibility of animals within many of our organisations, despite the central role they play in much of our farming and industrial processes.

Of these 295 items, 16 book reviews, 1 letter, 1 song, and 3 interviews were removed from further consideration as they were deemed to not contribute substantively to the topic under consideration. A duplicated article was also excluded. A review of the abstracts of the remaining 273 articles revealed 53 containing “non-living actants”—namely technology, objects, machinery, buildings, and organisations—as their substantive theme. Technological development provides a fruitful avenue for the exploration of the non-human in contemporary organisations, but these articles fall outside the scope of this article. Nine articles featuring simple throwaway references to animals were also excluded as they did not feature the role of animals, or those who care for them, in any significant way.

Twenty-four articles making use of the animal as metaphor, for example, to explain international markets (Ambler & Styles, 2000; Parameswaran, 2015), corporate behaviour (Gowri, 2007), and to explain humans and their behavioural tropes within organisations (Bell & Clarke, 2014) were also removed from further consideration as not sufficiently addressing the theme of animals under review. Two articles were excluded on the basis that they featured “humanized brands” (Kwak, Puzakova, & Rocereto, 2015) or “non-humanistic studies” (Semradova & Kacetl, 2011) rather than addressing the issue of “living” non-humans. However, articles that include consideration of the non-human natural environment were retained for further examination, on the basis that animals and all “non-human life” (Starik, 1995, p. 208) are included in this description.

A total of 185 articles were therefore considered according to the ethic of care framework outlined in Figure 1. A list of the publication details and assigned categories for each of these 185 articles can be made available to those readers who may wish to pursue further research on this topic (please see the end of the article for details of how to do this).

Abstract: Instrumental (No Care Relationship)

A total of 85 articles, representing 46% of the overall total, come under this category. The instrumental nature of the role of animals revealed in the articles is perhaps not surprising, but still worth investigation. Ten of these articles make use of the concept of animals as an advertising or marketing tool (e.g., Connell, 2013; Okello, Manka, & D’Armour, 2008; Spears & Germain, 2007) to sell consumer products. Following Desmond’s (2010) assertion that the animal often “enters marketing discourse generally as a sacrifice to consumer demand” (p. 242), opportunities exist for scholars to interrogate the effects of this sacrifice, in both food marketing and other consumer products, on our perceptions of, and relationships with, real animals.

Articles concerning the animal as commodity, mostly as a food product, amount to 34 and cover areas such as agri-food systems (Djekic et al., 2014; Yates & Rehman, 1996), supply-chains (Leat & Revoredo-Giha, 2013; Pullman & Dillard, 2010), meat processing (Mijic, Zekic, Jaksic, & Vukovic, 2014), and manure production (Pendell, Williams, Boyles, Rice, & Nelson, 2007; Ribaudo, Cattaneo, & Agapoff, 2004). Strategies for disease management and prevention among farm animals are also covered in these articles (Connolly, 2014), although the emphasis is often on the issue of lost profits, rather than the well-being of the animals themselves (Elbakidze, Highfield, Ward, McCarl, & Norby, 2009; Randolph, Morrison, & Poulton, 2005). The relationship with the animal is entirely abstract, with the language used often enabling further distance. Animals are described in terms of “selected livestock commodities” (Vukina, 2003, p. 66) highlighting this abstraction. Scholars interested in this area might consider further study of this commodification of animals and the use of such language to describe their role in the business and management literature.

Twenty-seven articles feature the animal as a research tool, covering the contribution of animals to the development of current management and scientific theories, or making use of animal behaviour models from which human behaviour can be predicted or explained (Jordan, Sivanathan, & Galinsky, 2011; Woodside, 2008). Some of this research has led to the development of mistaken hypotheses (Corbett, 2015; D. Cullen, 1997) and perhaps raises concerns of the usefulness of such experimentation. This ethical dilemma is further highlighted by the same such experiments which have revealed the advanced abilities and sensitivities of non-human animals, as well as such traits as a sense of humour and self-awareness (Morwitz, 2014). However, the focus of concern surrounding the issue of bioethics tends to be on the humans (Salter & Harvey, 2014), rather than on the animals themselves. Indeed, laboratory animals are often invisible in and of themselves, but rather are seen as constructs, “real monsters, teratological creatures, in the sense that they are in medias res, in the middle of things, in-between positions, in a permanent state of liminality” (Styhre, 2010, p. 75). Utilising an ethic of care approach, resting “on the premise of nonviolence” (Gilligan, 1993, p. 174), the consideration of the animal’s side of these experimental interactions could lead to their increased visibility within research contexts and, perhaps, improved outcomes for their own lives. Of assistance could be the study of those who work closely with animals as they “need to understand how animals think in order to do their jobs well” (Morwitz, 2014, p. 573). Such a closer understanding of animals could potentially impact consumer choices regarding the purchase of animal products and Morwitz calls for further research addressing how concrete relationships with animals impacts human behaviour and consumption choices.

Six articles deal with animal-related organisations as a context for study, such as animal health and food science organisations (Andersen & Minbaeva, 2013; Venkataramani, Labianca, & Grosser, 2013). The animals are not visible within these articles, and no physical interaction between the employees of these types of organisations and the animals themselves is addressed. Fitzgerald, Kalof, and Dietz (2009) address the social implications of working in large, industrial slaughterhouses. While those who work in such organisations do interact with animals on a daily basis, there exists no relationship of care. Furthermore, the physical and emotional toll on the humans who are involved in such “uncaring” work can be significant, with a positive relationship existing between such employment and rates of violent crimes in the surrounding community. The authors identify a gap in the research literature, asserting that “this is another of a growing list of social problems and phenomena that are under-theorised unless explicit attention is paid to the social role of nonhuman animals” (Fitzgerald et al., 2009, p. 175).

Similar to the slaughterhouse, the pursing of animals as prey—which is featured in two of the articles returned—can also have noteworthy consequences. While providing an important contribution to household incomes, those who hunt often fail to comply with appropriate conservation regulations (Crookes, Humphreys, Masroh, Tarchie, & Milner-Gulland, 2007). However, hunters are capable of experiencing feelings of connection and appreciation for the animals they ultimately kill (Littlefield, 2010), a connectivity that appears missing from the institutional violence of the more impersonal slaughterhouse. Further research into the complex relationship between those who kill animals in this more highly personalised manner and their attitudes to these animals, as well as to the surrounding environment, could offer valuable insights into this controversial sphere of human activity.

Two articles deal with animals as a source of disease, addressing the potential effects on tourism of a perceived threat of avian influenza (Lee & Chen, 2011) and the assessment of risk to human health from the use of antibiotics in food animals (Cox, Popken, & Carnevale, 2007). This latter article puts us in mind of Anthony’s (2012) warning of the potential dangers that may ensue as a result of the distance that has been created between the animal, the farmer, and members of the community through the industrialisation of farming practices. In such cases, it is not just humans who are in danger of illness and disease and the ethic of care encourages us to take “ownership for choices that we make especially in the face of relationships that involve vulnerable or dependent others” (Anthony, 2012, p. 136). The first step is to reinstate this direct relationship and an ethic of care approach to scholarship provides the opportunity to highlight the importance of proximity and responsibility in any organisational choices which affect silent or powerless groups.

Three articles address animals as tools for entertainment, with a particular focus on the human’s side of these experiences (Galloway & Lopez, 1999; Penaloza, 2001) rather than on the individual animals themselves. However, Bettany and Belk’s (2011) ethnography of animal theme parks takes a more critical stance regarding these role of these parks as spaces of “human control and enforced marginalization” (p. 174), with the role played by the animals intended more as amusement than education or conservation. Little is being learned by such performances of the concrete reality of what these animals’ lives should be.

One article considers when animals, among others, have become debris, a carcass for removal following a disaster (Ekici, McEntire, & Afedzie, 2009).

Abstract: Intrinsic (“Care About”)

Caring at a distance can have significant positive impacts on the lives of animals, despite the absence of direct, concrete relationships with the animals in question. In the case of consumers, such abstract “caring about,” led to “normative pressure” (Elzen, Geels, Leeuwis, & van Mierlo, 2011, p. 263) which facilitated improved standards in living conditions for pigs. Similarly, the work of animal advocates can ultimately result in the discontinuation of certain industries (Hughes, 2001). The focus of the 60 articles in this category is on the campaigning, ethical consumption, and public attitudes to animals which can affect their lives somewhat for the better, despite the fact that they still function as commodities in many of the articles themselves. Conservation and sustainable development also feature in this category.

Twenty-five articles address the ethical behaviour and motivations of consumers who use their buying power in their decisions regarding organic or non-organic food (Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2015), plant-based eating (Beverland, 2014), and animal welfare (Burke, Eckert, & Davis, 2014; Nocella, Boecker, Hubbard, & Scarpa, 2012; Tully & Winer, 2014). While consumers are often willing to pay more for welfare-enhanced products (Norwood & Lusk, 2011), some consumers are unable to make the connection from the abstract to the concrete reality of the consequences of their actions, for both animals and the non-human environment (Cole et al., 2009). As a result, they may need support to translate their abstract “caring about” into direct action, for example, through increased awareness around information and labelling (Vecchio & Annunziata, 2012). Interestingly, one study reveals that a concern for animals “even those halfway across the globe, is a more powerful motivation for consumer behaviour than acting on a concern for the environment” (Hustvedt, Peterson, & Chen, 2008, p. 434).

Eight articles feature public perceptions of animals, including changing attitudes to animal welfare (Brummette, 2012) and animal-based research (von Roten, 2009). Despite this, consumers often still choose to prioritise other humans over non-humans (Lafferty & Edmondson, 2014), perhaps reminiscent of Engster’s (2006) “defensible form of speciesism” (p. 528) outlined in his form of care ethics. Furthermore, the power of the direct relationship, which is central to the ethic of care, can have significant consequences in the abstract also, as seen in Packer, Ballantyne, and Hughes’s (2014) study of Chinese and Australian visitors’ reactions to animal tourism. They find that direct experience with animals, such as pet ownership, is likely to increase a person’s positive reactions to animals overall.

Eight articles address different forms of animal advocacy (e.g., Merskin, 2011; Metcalfe, 2008; Scudder & Mills, 2009) and the positive changes in the lives of animals that can be brought about, for example, the ending of the captive dolphin tourism industry in the United Kingdom (Hughes, 2001). This closure led to the possibility of human–dolphin interactions in the wild and it is these tangible interactions, Hughes contends, that have facilitated the development of a “respectful relationship” (2001, p. 328) which has increased the visibility of the Moray Firth dolphins and kept them safer than if they were hidden away from people, unable to develop such relationships.

Animal welfare, conservation, human entertainment, and profit oftentimes come into conflict with each other and solutions for sustainable ways forward must be found (Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001). Some of the 19 articles which address the issue of conservation raise such concerns (Higham & Shelton, 2011; Orams, 2002) as well as the conflicts that arise between humans and wildlife (Rondeau, 2001). The sustainable development of agriculture also features in this subcategory (Bartkowiak & Bartkowiak, 2012; Gunderson, 2011). Again we see that, while abstract caring about can impact on policy making in society, it oftentimes falls short:

phenomenal dissociation—defined as the lack of immediate, sensual engagement with the consequences of our everyday actions and with the human and nonhuman others that we affect with our actions—increases destructive tendency and that awareness is not enough to curb destructiveness. (Worthy, 2008, p. 148)

Three articles within this latter conservation subcategory address stakeholder theory and the non-human environment. Phillips and Reichart (2000) posit that an approach based on fairness is more appropriate to the non-human rather than attempts to include them as organisational stakeholders. Such a status has traditionally included only those who can participate in the political, economic, and social sphere where “the language describing human duties to each other” (Phillips & Reichart, 2000, p. 190) exists. However, the inability to voice claims should not infer a lack of legitimacy, as many minorities and vulnerable humans are without such voice (Starik, 1995). Starik suggests stakeholder management as a potentially effective way of making the abstract non-human more concrete and “known” within the organisation, in its ability to bring the non-human into the realm of managerial thinking and enable visibility and direct, personal care for it (Starik, 1995). Building on this, Hart and Sharma (2004) encourage the inclusion of “fringe” stakeholders, to comprise “even non-human (e.g., endangered) species and nature” (p. 11), by organisations seeking to develop “disruptive innovations that are at the same time socially and environmentally responsible” (p. 17). Such a strategy requires “deep listening” (p. 14) with those who have been previously disregarded and marginalised. This proposed inclusion of new voices and the development of concrete relationships are further consistent with an ethic of care approach to stakeholder interaction. Discussions regarding the non-human in stakeholder theory are ongoing (see also Driscoll & Starik, 2004; Sama et al., 2004; Waddock, 2011) and opportunities exist for scholars interested in this area to join this conversation, particularly, with regard to organisations which are dependent on the contributions of non-human animals for their continued existence.

Concrete: Intrinsic (“Care For”)

Thirty-five articles fall within this category, featuring those who are in direct relationship with animals, whether as pet owners or animal shelter workers. Five of these articles address those who work in animal shelters. Caring for animals, particularly, the unwanted and invaluable such as those cared for in such shelters, is considered dirty (Lopina et al., 2012) and often “disgusting, degrading or objectionable” (Baran et al., 2012, p. 597). This reflects a societal view of caring work more generally, which is usually little valued and undertaken by the less powerful in society (Tronto, 1993). However, this particular area offers rich opportunity to examine further the role of care in organisations and the effect such care has on both the cared-for animals and the caring humans themselves. Rather than just centres of “dirty work,” these organisations could potentially model sites of care which could inform future studies, raising issues of marginalisation and motivation and critiquing the social structures that result in the casting-off of the weak and vulnerable, as well as the undermining or dismissing of those who care for them. Some work in the area has been done (see Hamilton & Taylor, 2013; Taylor, 2007) but taking an ethic of care approach to such organisations could potentially offer further fruitful insights for management scholarship.

The remaining 30 articles address the issue of companion animals and pet ownership. Those with animals as part of their family (Downey & Ellis, 2008) are considered in a special issue of the Journal of Business Research, published in 2008, with a particular focus on the consumption behaviour of those who often make significant and expensive purchases for the benefit of their animal (Brockman, Taylor, & Brockman, 2008), even taking part in ceremonial blessings with and for them (Holak, 2008). While generally considered a healthy and emotionally fulfilling relationship (Cavanaugh, Leonard, & Scammon, 2008), there also exists a “dark side” (Beverland, Farrelly, & Lim, 2008, p. 490) to the caring animal–human relationship, where issues of status and control manifest. Direct, concrete relationships with animals have the ability to impact on a wider society’s policy-making processes, for example, in the case of emergency planning operations (Ha, 2012; Hesterberg, Huertas, & Appleby, 2012; Leonard & Scammon, 2007). Human–dog relationships in one society can affect perceptions of how these animals are, and should, be treated in other societies (Harris, 2008).

Concrete: Instrumental (“Contractual Caring”)

This is the least represented category, with only five articles so classified. Articles addressing those who directly care for animals, but on an instrumental basis, feature farmers and their insurance requirements (Ogurtsov, van Asseldonk, & Huirne, 2009; Tumer, Keskin, & Birinci, 2011), ranchers (van Kooten, Thomsen, & Hobby, 2006), the willingness of goat producers to adopt certain food safety procedures (Bukenya & Nettles, 2007), and the activities and impacts of camel farmers (Shackley, 1996). Although the commodification of the animal through agriculture and food production features strongly among the articles returned overall, much of the emphasis is on the customers, supply chains, processes, and technology, rather than on the farmers and managers who care directly for the animals on a daily basis. The focus appears to be on those who sell, rather than on those who care. Issues of health and safety procedures and protections do feature in these articles, acknowledging perhaps the dangers inherent in such work. Empirical studies on the direct care relationship between these animal caregivers and their understanding of care and empathy in the context of value, profit, and the “bottom line” may provide potential avenues for research in this seemingly under-researched area.

Discussion

The ethic of care approach to the place of non-human animals within our moral schema is one way of considering our relationship to animals. There are, of course, other approaches that could be taken, such as the consequentialism of Peter Singer (1990) or the deontological approach of Tom Regan (2004). However, feminist scholarship often rejects the hierarchical rule-based concepts underpinning such approaches (Kheel, 1985/2007). Stone’s (1987) “moral pluralism,” while still largely concerned with rules and the principles that govern them, allows for a more contextualised approach, arguing that one all-encompassing system for application in each and every circumstance “forces us to disregard some of the data, to settle for an increasingly bland generality in our rules, to estrange our moral thought from our considered moral institutions” (pp. 130-131). While other methods may emphasise an abstract principled approach to moral dilemmas, the ethic of care provides the opportunity for managers to remain close to the particular outcomes resulting from their decisions and to those who will be directly affected by them. As such, it is more reflective of the real environment in which managers must make decisions, than any approach based on abstract rules (Burton & Dunn, 2005).

In the case of non-humans, Starik (1995) has already called for the inclusion of the natural environment—including “the hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, ecosystem processes, or non-human life” (p. 208)—as a legitimate organisational stakeholder in and of itself. By arguing that the non-human environment must be represented directly within the organisation, rather than through third-party human proxy groups, Starik is highlighting the potentially powerful and positive outcomes that could arise from a direct, concrete relationship with the environment. Sama et al. (2004) also utilise the stakeholder approach to enacting an ethic of care for the non-human environment as a way of “giving voice” to the silent stakeholder. The ethic of care certainly “has an intuitive appeal from the standpoint of ecological ethics. Whether or not non-human animals have rights, we certainly can and do care for them” (Curtain, 1991/2007, p. 92). Animals have the ability to form “deep, subtle and lasting relationships” (Midgley, 1996/2003, p. 169) whose mindedness can be considered as “arising out of social interaction” (Sanders, 2003, p. 407). The act of “giving voice” therefore, “demonstrates the practical definition of the (animal) other that arises out of routine relational experience” (Sanders, 2003, p. 407).

The framework provided in this article achieves three outcomes. First, it offers a way for business and management scholars to conceptualise the human–animal relationships extant in our organisations and to make a case for the increased visibility of both the non-human animals and those who care for them. Second, it facilitates a shift of emphasis from the abstract to the concrete, thereby allowing for the experiences of those who are in direct relationship with animals to be heard and for more consideration of their place within our organisational processes. This shift to caring “for” rather than “about” (Sama et al., 2004, p. 154), is an important step in allowing the voices of the silent stakeholders—the animals—to be heard. Third, it highlights a number of potentially fruitful avenues for further research by scholars interested in looking at animals and their role in our organisations.

Looking at the articles returned in the SSCI through the ethic of care framework reveals occasions where the motivations of those who abstractly “care about” animals at a distance—such as consumers—can have a very real positive effect on the lives and conditions of those animals cared about. However, as warned by Noddings (2003), such caring at a distance can also fall short and fail to curb the negative impact of our choices on those whom we never see or meet firsthand (Worthy, 2008). The framework, in its ability to motivate a shift of emphasis to the direct and concrete relationships with animals, may remind us of the living, breathing beings who are impacted by our behaviour, rather than allowing them to remain merely as “selected livestock commodities” (Vukina, 2003, p. 66). As long as animals continue to be so commodified at a distance, rather than their lives being realised as having intrinsic worth in themselves, they “are not easily integrated as fellow subjects that belong in the moral community as beings deserving of our direct moral respect and compassion” (Anthony, 2012, p. 131).

This framework is offered as a way to assist a different way of thinking about non-human animals, informed by values of interrelationship and mutuality which can ultimately lead to improved ethical behaviour (Rabouin, 1997). It is not designed to be prescriptive, but rather as a model for allowing scholars to re-imagine the existing business and management literature in a new way. The framework could also be used for such a re-imagining of the literature on other silent and marginalised groups in our organisations. In assessing the value of its contribution to the field, reflections on the implications of using this ethic of care framework on those who could be affected by it (Jacques, 1992) are urged. It is hoped that this framework helps to shine a light on a previously hidden aspect of our organisational life, suggesting a new way of examining the literature and thereby creating value “not through the more detailed application of general principles and the creation of decision rules, but through finding ways of embodying various traits, characteristics, or virtues” (Wicks, 1996, p. 529).

Conclusion

This article investigated the place of the non-human animal in the business and management disciplines. An ethic of care framework was developed and offered as a means of categorizing the literature. It is hoped that this approach provides inspiration for interested scholars to re-orientate the place of the non-human animal in our organisations, thereby stimulating the increased visibility of their contributions, and lives, within our everyday organisational processes.

This article has certain limitations. Due to the language restriction of the authors, the review was carried out on articles written in English only. However, the evidence explored in this research demonstrates that attitudes to animals are changing across the globe, and not just in English-speaking countries. Therefore, reviews of similar articles written in other languages could be of immense value. Similarly, this article only covered those articles available in the SSCI as representing a spectrum of high-quality, peer-reviewed articles. However, searches of other databases might also be a worthwhile undertaking. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge that the literature is not easily differentiated in places and that other scholars may have categorised the articles in a different way. However, this framework is not offered to be prescriptive, but rather as a way of refocusing on the relationships with animals that exist, or not, in the literature, thereby helping to highlight those who might otherwise be forgotten. Different applications of the framework are encouraged.

Empirical work within an ethic of care context is required. Humans profit from the work of non-human animals every day and there is therefore “an ethical imperative for humans to examine the mechanisms and technologies by which working life with other species is managed, the ways in which power is worked out both discursively and practically” (Hamilton & Taylor, 2013, p. 29). This article forms part of a response to Waddock’s (2011) assertion that it is the responsibility of all humans “to generate dialogues, conversations that allow the ‘voice’ of these unspoken stakeholders, as well as the manifold interests of humanity to be heard” (p. 205). The voiceless animals within our organisations deserve such attempts to be made.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

An appendix to this article, outlining the publication details and assigned categories and sub-categories of each of the 185 articles, can be obtained by contacting the second author by e-mail.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Lucy Connolly is conducting doctoral research on animals as stakeholders in the equine industry at Maynooth University School of Business. She is interested in ethnographic approaches to human-animal organisation studies.

John G. Cullen is a senior lecturer in Maynooth University School of Business. He researches responsible management learning, work ethics and sustainability from a psychoanalytic perspective.

References

Ambler

Styles

(2000). The future of relational research in international marketing: Constructs and conduits. International Marketing Review, 17, 492-508.

Andersen

T. J.

Minbaeva

(2013). The role of human resource management in strategy making. Human Resource Management, 52, 809-827.

Anthony

(2012). Building a sustainable future for animal agriculture: An environmental virtue ethic of care approach within the philosophy of technology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 123-144.

Baran

B. E.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Lopina

E. C.

Allen

J. A.

Spitzmuller

Bergman

(2012). Shouldering a silent burden: The toll of dirty tasks. Human Relations, 65, 597-626.

Bartkowiak

(2012). The determinants of sustainable development of agriculture sector in Poland. Transformations in Business and Economics, 11(2A), 298-314.

Bell

Clarke

D. W.

(2014). “Beasts, burrowers and birds”: The enactment of researcher identities in UK business schools. Management Learning, 45, 249-266.

Bettany

Belk

R. W.

(2011). Disney discourses of self and other: Animality, primitivity, modernity, and postmodernity. Consumption Markets & Culture, 14, 163-176.

Beverland

M. B.

(2014). Sustainable eating: Mainstreaming plant-based diets in developed economies. Journal of Macromarketing, 34, 369-382.

Beverland

M. B.

Farrelly

Lim

E. A. C.

(2008). Exploring the dark side of pet ownership: Status- and control-based pet consumption. Journal of Business Research, 61, 490-496.

10.

Brockman

B. K.

Taylor

V. A.

Brockman

C. M.

(2008). The price of unconditional love: Consumer decision making for high-dollar veterinary care. Journal of Business Research, 61, 397-405.

11.

Brummette

(2012). Trains, chains, blame, and elephant appeal: A case study of the public relations significance of Mary the Elephant. Public Relations Review, 38, 341-346.

12.

Bukenya

J. O.

Nettles

(2007). Perceptions and willingness to adopt hazard analysis critical control point practices among goat producers. Review of Agricultural Economics, 29, 306-317.

13.

Burke

P. F.

Eckert

Davis

(2014). Segmenting consumers’ reasons for and against ethical consumption. European Journal of Marketing, 48, 2237-2261.

14.

Burton

B. K.

Dunn

C. P.

(2005). The caring approach and social issues in management education. Journal of Management Education, 29, 453-474.

15.

Cavanaugh

L. A.

Leonard

H. A.

Scammon

D. L.

(2008). A tail of two personalities: How canine companions shape relationships and well-being. Journal of Business Research, 61, 469-479.

16.

Cole

Miele

Hines

Zokaei

Evans

Beale

(2009). Animal foods and climate change: Shadowing eating practices. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 162-167.

17.

Connell

P. M.

(2013). The role of baseline physical similarity to humans in consumer responses to anthropomorphic animal images. Psychology & Marketing, 30, 461-468.

18.

Connolly

(2014). Dynamics of change in the aftermath of the 2001 UK Foot and Mouth Crisis: Were lessons learned? Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22, 209-222.

19.

Corbett

(2015). From law to folklore: Work stress and the Yerkes-Dodson law. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 741-752.

20.

Cox

L. A.

Jr. Popken

D. A.

Carnevale

(2007). Quantifying human health risks from animal antimicrobials. Interfaces, 37, 22-38.

21.

Crookes

Humphreys

Masroh

Tarchie

Milner-Gulland

E. J.

(2007). The role of hunting in village livelihoods in the Ashanti region, Ghana. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 10, 457-469.

22.

Cullen

(1997). Maslow, monkeys and motivation theory. Organization, 4, 355-373.

23.

Cullen

J. G.

(2014). Towards an organisational suicidology. Culture and Organization, 20, 40-52.

24.

Curtain

(2007). Toward an ecological ethic of care. In Donovan

Adams

C. J.

(Eds.), The feminist care tradition in animal ethics (pp. 87-104). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Reprinted from Hypatia, 6, 60-74, Spring, 1991)

25.

Desmond

(2010). A summons to the consuming animal. Business Ethics—A European Review, 19, 238-252.

26.

Djekic

Tomic

Smigic

Tomasevic

Radovanovic

Rajkovic

(2014). Quality management effects in certified Serbian companies producing food of animal origin. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25, 383-396.

27.

Downey

Ellis

(2008). Tails of animal attraction: Incorporating the feline into the family. Journal of Business Research, 61, 434-441.

28.

Driscoll

Starik

(2004). The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 55-73.

29.

Ekici

McEntire

D. A.

Afedzie

(2009). Transforming debris management: Considering new essentials. Disaster Prevention and Management, 18, 511-522.

30.

Elbakidze

Highfield

Ward

McCarl

B. A.

Norby

(2009). Economics analysis of mitigation strategies for FMD introduction in highly concentrated animal feeding regions. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31, 931-950.

31.

Elzen

Geels

F. W.

Leeuwis

van Mierlo

(2011). Normative contestation in transitions “in the making”: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy, 40, 263-275.

32.

Engster

(2006). Care ethics and animal welfare. Journal of Social Philosophy, 37, 521-536.

33.

Fitzgerald

A. J.

Kalof

Dietz

(2009). Slaughterhouses and increased crime rates: An empirical analysis of the spillover from “the jungle” into the surrounding community. Organization & Environment, 22, 158-184.

34.

Galloway

Lopez

(1999). Sensation seeking and attitudes to aspects of national parks: A preliminary empirical investigation. Tourism Management, 20, 665-671.

35.

Gilligan

(1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

36.

Gruen

(2007). Empathy and vegetarian commitments. In Donovan

Adams

C. J.

(Eds.), The feminist care tradition in animal ethics (pp. 333-343). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Reprinted from Food for thought: The debate over eating meat, pp. 284-294, by S. Sapontzis, Ed., 2004, New York, NY: Prometheus Press)

37.

Gunderson

(2011). The metabolic rifts of livestock agribusiness. Organization & Environment, 24, 404-422.

38.

Gowri

(2007). On corporate virtue. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 391-400.

39.

K. M.

(2012). In pursuit of ideal emergency planning in Korea. Disaster Prevention and Management, 21, 624-633.

40.

Hamilton

Taylor

(2013). Animals at work: Identity, politics and culture in work with animals. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

41.

Harris

(2008). How much is that doggie in the window? Machiavellian reflections on dog regulation. Journal of Business Research, 61, 532-533.

42.

Hart

S. L.

Sharma

(2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 7-18.

43.

Held

(2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

44.

Hesterberg

U. W.

Huertas

Appleby

M. C.

(2012). Perceptions of pet owners in urban Latin America on protection of their animals during disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management, 21, 37-50.

45.

Higham

J. E. S.

Shelton

E. J.

(2011). Tourism and wildlife habituation: Reduced population fitness or cessation of impact? Tourism Management, 32, 1290-1298.

46.

Holak

S. L.

(2008). Ritual blessings with companion animals. Journal of Business Research, 61, 534-541.

47.

Hughes

(2001). Animals, values and tourism—Structural shifts in UK dolphin tourism provision. Tourism Management, 22, 321-329.

48.

Hustvedt

Peterson

H. H.

Chen

Y. J.

(2008). Labelling wool products for animal welfare and environmental impact. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 427-437.

49.

Jacques

(1992). Critique and theory building: Producing knowledge “from the kitchen”. Academy of Management Review, 17, 582-606.

50.

Jamieson

(2008). Ethics and the environment: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Jordan

Sivanathan

Galinsky

A. D.

(2011). Something to lose and nothing to gain: The role of stress in the interactive effect of power and stability on risk taking. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 530-558.

52.

Kheel

(2007). The liberation of nature: A circular affair. In Donovan

Adams

C. J.

(Eds.), The feminist care tradition in animal ethics (pp. 39-57). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. (Reprinted from Environmental Ethics, 7, 135-149, Summer, 1985)

53.

Kwak

Puzakova

Rocereto

J. F.

(2015). Better not smile at the price: The differential role of brand anthropomorphization on perceived price fairness. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 56-76.

54.

Labatut

Munro

Desmond

(2016). Animals and organizations. Organization, 23, 315-329.

55.

Lafferty

B. A.

Edmondson

D. R.

(2014). A note on the role of cause type in cause-related marketing. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1455-1460.

56.

Lawrence

T. B.

Maitlis

(2012). Care and possibility: Enacting an ethic of care through narrative practice. Academy of Management Review, 37, 641-663.

57.

Leat

Revoredo-Giha

(2013). Risk and resilience in agri-food supply chains: The case of the ASDA PorkLink supply chain in Scotland. Supply Chain Management—An International Journal, 18, 219-231.

58.

Lee

Chen

(2011). The reaction of elderly Asian tourists to avian influenza and SARS. Tourism Management, 32, 1421-1422.

59.

Leonard

H. A.

Scammon

D. L.

(2007). No pet left behind: Accommodating pets in emergency planning. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(1), 49-53.

60.

Liedtka

J. M.

(1996). Feminist morality and competitive reality: A role for an ethic of care? Business Ethics Quarterly, 6, 179-200.

61.

Littlefield

(2010). Men on the hunt: Ecofeminist insights into masculinity. Marketing Theory, 10, 97-117.

62.

Lopina

E. C.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Howell

(2012). Turnover in dirty work occupations: A focus on pre-entry individual characteristics. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 396-406.

63.

Manning

(1992). Speaking from the heart: A feminist perspective on ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

64.

Merskin

(2011). Hearing voices: The promise of participatory action research for animals. Action Research, 9, 144-161.

65.

Metcalfe

(2008). The protest game: Animal rights protests and the life sciences industry. Negotiation Journal, 24, 125-143.

66.

Midgley

(2003). Is a dolphin a person? In Armstrong

S. J.

Botzler

R. G.

(Eds.), The animal ethics reader (pp. 166-170). London, England: Routledge. (Reprinted from Utopias, dolphins and computers: Problems of philosophical plumbing, 1996, London, England: Routledge)

67.

Mijic

Zekic

Jaksic

Vukovic

(2014). Meat industry in Serbia: Performance analysis of meat-processing and livestock companies. Custos e Agronegocio On Line, 10(3), 124-144.

68.

Morwitz

V. G.

(2008). Marketing extends beyond humans. Journal of Business Research, 61, 544-545.

69.

Morwitz

V. G.

(2014). Insights from the animal kingdom. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 572-585.

70.

Nocella

Boecker

Hubbard

Scarpa

(2012). Eliciting consumer preferences for certified animal-friendly foods: Can elements of the theory of planned behavior improve choice experiment analysis? Psychology & Marketing, 29, 850-868.

71.

Noddings

(2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: University of California Press.

72.

Norwood

F. B.

Lusk

J. L.

(2011). A calibrated action-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62, 80-94.

73.

O’Doherty

D. P.

(2016). Feline politics in organization: The nine lives of Olly the cat. Organization, 23, 407-433.

74.

Ogurtsov

V. A.

van Asseldonk

M. A. P. M.

Huirne

R. B. M.

(2009). Purchase of catastrophe insurance by Dutch Dairy and Arable Farmers. Review of Agricultural Economics, 31, 143-162.

75.

Okello

M. M.

Manka

S. G.

D’Armour

D. E.

(2008). The relative importance of large mammal species for tourism in Amboseli National Park, Kenya. Tourism Management, 29, 751-760.

76.

Orams

M. B.

(2002). Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: A review of issues and impacts. Tourism Management, 23, 281-293.

77.

Oswick

(2009). Burgeoning workplace spirituality? A textual analysis of momentum and directions. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 6, 15-25.

78.

Packer

Ballantyne

Hughes

(2014). Chinese and Australian tourists’ attitudes to nature, animals and environmental issues: Implications for the design of nature-based tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 44, 101-107.

79.

Parameswaran

(2015). Animalizing India: Emerging signs of an unruly market. Consumption Markets & Culture, 18, 517-538.

80.

Penaloza

(2001). Consuming the American West: Animating cultural meaning and memory at a stock show and rodeo. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 369-398.

81.

Pendell

D. L.

Williams

J. R.

Boyles

S. B.

Rice

C. W.

Nelson

R. G.

(2007). Soil carbon sequestration strategies with alternative tillage and nitrogen sources under risk. Review of Agricultural Economics, 29, 247-268.

82.

Phillips

R. A.

Reichart

(2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 185-197.

83.

Pullman

M. E.

Dillard

(2010). Values based supply chain management and emergent organizational structures. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30, 744-771.

84.

Rabouin

(1997). Lyin’ t(*)gers, and “cares,” Oh my: The case for feminist integration of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 247-261.

85.

Randolph

T. F.

Morrison

J. A.

Poulton

(2005). Evaluating equity impacts of animal disease control: The case of foot and mouth disease in Zimbabwe. Review of Agricultural Economics, 27, 465-472.

86.

Regan

(2004). The case for animal rights (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

87.

Reynolds

P. C.

Braithwaite

(2001). Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism Management, 22, 31-42.

88.

Ribaudo

Cattaneo

Agapoff

(2004). Cost of meeting manure nutrient application standards in hog production: The roles of EQIP and fertilizer offsets. Review of Agricultural Economics, 26, 430-444.

89.

Rondeau

(2001). Along the way back from the brink. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 42, 156-182.

90.

Salter

Harvey

(2014). Creating problems in the governance of science: Bioethics and human/animal chimeras. Science and Public Policy, 41, 685-696.

91.

Sama

L. M.

Welcomer

S. A.

Gerde

V. W.

(2004). Who speaks for the trees? Invoking an ethic of care to give voice to the silent stakeholder. In Sharma

Starik

(Eds.), Stakeholders, the environment and society (pp. 140-165). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

92.

Sanders

C. R.

(2003). Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction, 26, 405-426.

93.

Sayers

J. G.

(2016). A report to an academy: On carnophallogocentrism, pigs and meat-writing. Organization, 23, 370-386.

94.

Scudder

J. N.

Mills

C. B.

(2009). The credibility of shock advocacy: Animal rights attack messages. Public Relations Review, 35, 162-164.

95.

Semradova

Kacetl

(2011). Ethics in the future manager’s professional training. E & M Ekonomie A Management, 14(2), 79-89.

96.

Shackley

(1996). Community impact of the camel safari industry in Jaisalmar, Rajasthan. Tourism Management, 17, 213-218.

97.

Shapiro

DeMello

(2010). The state of human-animal studies. Society and Animals, 18, 307-318.

98.

Singer

(1990). Animal liberation (2nd ed.). London, England: Jonathan Cape.

99.

Spears

Germain

(2007). 1900-2000 in review—The shifting role and face of animals in print advertisements in the twentieth century. Journal of Advertising, 36(3), 19-33.

100.

Starik

(1995). Should trees have managerial standing? Towards stakeholder status for non-human nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 207-217.

101.

Stone

C. D.

(1987). Earth and other ethics: The case for moral pluralism. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

102.

Styhre

(2010). Organizing technologies of vision: Making the invisible visible in media-laden observations. Information and Organization, 20, 64-78.

103.

Taylor

(2007). “Never an it”: Intersubjectivity and the creation of animal personhood in animal shelters. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3(1), 59-73.

104.

Tronto

J. C.

(1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York, NY: Routledge.

105.

Tully

S. M.

Winer

R. S.

(2014). The role of the beneficiary in willingness to pay for socially responsible products: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90, 255-274.

106.

Tumer

E. I.

Keskin

Birinci

(2011). Factors affecting the farmer attitudes toward buying social security insurance: The case of Erzurum, Turkey. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 2129-2134.

107.

Van Doorn

Verhoef

P. C

. (2015). Drivers of and barriers to organic purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing, 91, 436-450.

108.

Van Kooten

G. C.

Thomsen

R. W.

Hobby

. (2006). Resolving range conflict in Nevada? Buyouts and other compensation alternatives. Review of Agricultural Economics, 28, 515-530.

109.

Vecchio

Annunziata

(2012). Italian consumer awareness of layer hens’ welfare standards: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, 647-655.

110.

Venkataramani

Labianca

Grosser

(2013). Positive and negative workplace relationships, social satisfaction, and organizational attachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 1028-1039.

111.

von Roten

F. C

. (2009). European attitudes towards animal research: Overview and consequences for science. Science Technology and Society, 14, 349-364.

112.

Vukina

(2003). The relationship between contracting and livestock waste pollution. Review of Agricultural Economics, 25, 66-88.

113.

Waddock

(2011). We are all stakeholders of Gaia: A normative perspective on stakeholder thinking. Organization & Environment, 24, 192-212.

114.

Wang

G. G.

Gilley

J. W.

Sun

J. Y.

(2012). The “Science of HRD research”: Reshaping HRD research through scientometrics. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 500-520.

115.

Wicks

A. C.

(1996). Reflections on the practical relevance of feminist thought to business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6, 523-531.

116.

Wicks

A. C.

Gilbert

D. R.

Jr. Freeman

R. E.

(1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475-498.

117.

Woodside

A. G.

(2008). Using the forced metaphor-elicitation technique (FMET) to meet animal companions within self. Journal of Business Research, 61, 480-487.

118.

Worthy

(2008). Modern institutions, phenomenal dissociations, and destructiveness toward humans and the environment. Organization & Environment, 21, 148-170.

119.

Yates

C. M.

Rehman

(1996). Integration of Markov and linear programming models to assess the farmgate and national consequences of adopting new bovine reproductive technologies in the United Kingdom agriculture. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47, 1327-1342.