On the one hand, conceiving of a day when consumers turn their noses up at beef due to economics or ethics, or because beef production is banned outright, seems akin to contemplating a day when the sky is no longer blue.

On the other hand, the same was said not long ago about pocket-knives being prohibited from schools, public smoking bans, or being forced by the government to buy health insurance.

Agree or not, society decides what’s acceptable — whether or not facts support the decision.

Lean finely textured beef (LFTB) comes to mind. For years, it was used to churn out ground beef for less cost than was otherwise possible. But take one TV show with a celebrity chef who is ignorant of the facts and, poof, the Internet lit up like a Christmas tree. The result was that consumers believed LFTB was an artificial ingredient and balked at the unsavory images.

By and large, the industry responded with sound science and the long history of LFTB safety. But, no dice. Within a couple of weeks, stores quit carrying ground beef made with LFTB, and the primary LFTB supplier went bankrupt, putting hundreds of folks out of work. The subsequent lawsuit is now trudging its way through court.

Shared values vs. competence

“Historically when under pressure to change, the industry has responded by attacking the attackers and using science alone to justify current practices,” say authors of the recent research paper “2013 Consumer Trust in the Food System.”

“Too frequently, the industry confuses scientific verification with ethical justification. Not only are these approaches ineffective in building stakeholder trust and support, they increase suspicion and skepticism that the food industry is worthy of public trust,” the paper concludes.

The research was conducted by The Center for Food Integrity (CFI), a not-for-profit organization established to build consumer trust and confidence in today’s food system. CFI members represent every segment of the food system.

In a November webinar focusing on that research, Charlie Arnot, CEO of CFI, explained that consumer skepticism of institutions began in 1968. That was the year Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, and protests roiled the country in opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Within a few years, came the Kent State shootings and the Watergate scandal.

Prior to 1968, Arnot says authority was granted by office. Since then, authority is granted by relationship. Before 1968, there was broad social consensus and a common voice achieved through mass communication. Now, he explains, there are masses of communicators, divergent voices and no single consensus.

Since 1968, Arnot says industry consolidation and concentration have also increased consumer perceptions that food production is institutional. It’s big business vs. mom and pop.

“Whether farms or food companies, consumers are increasingly skeptical that large organizations are worthy of trust,” Arnot says. “Consumers believe mass production creates more opportunity for error, that industrialized food production is inherently impersonal and that big companies will put profits ahead of public interest.”

 

Subscribe now to Cow-Calf Weekly to get the latest industry research and information in your inbox every Friday!


In other words, there is an inverse relationship between size and the perception of shared values, which matter more than they ever have.

Based on their previous research, CFI researchers explain, “Confidence (shared values) is 3-5 times more important than demonstrating competency (skills and knowledge) in building trust.”

That’s especially true of the millennial generation, the progeny of baby boomers generally born between 1980 and 2000. This generation includes 76 million Americans, of whom 40% are African American, Latino, Asian or racially mixed. Most of them don’t remember a time without the Internet.

According to CFI research, these folks view money, fame and image as important life goals. They rate community issues as less important to them than the previous two generations.

They are the least concerned of those surveyed by CFI about having enough food to feed people outside the U.S.

Building trust

Consumer trust helps maintain the social license to operate that society either grants to industries and companies — or denies them.

“Every organization, no matter how large or small, operates with some level of social license, or the privilege of operating with minimal formalized restrictions (legislation, litigation, regulation or market mandates) based on maintaining public trust by doing what’s right. Organizations are granted a social license when they operate in a way that is consistent with the ethics, values and expectations of their stakeholders,” CFI researchers say.

Those stakeholders include customers, employees, the local community, regulators, legislators and others who have an interest in how the organization impacts them, the researchers say. “Maintaining the public trust that protects your social license to operate is not an act of altruism; it is enlightened self-interest.

“Once lost, either through a single event or a series of events that reduce or eliminate stakeholder trust, social license is replaced with social control. Social control is regulation, legislation, litigation or market mandates designed to compel the organization to perform to the expectations of its stakeholders …”

The crux of CFI’s research last year was development of its Trust-Building Transparency (TBT) model.

“We believe our breakthrough TBT model provides a clear path to effectively address growing public skepticism about today’s food,” Arnot says. “Consumers have been asking for more transparency, but it has not been well-defined. This research defines transparency and provides direction for how to use transparency to build trust. Effectively implementing this new model will help companies and organizations build trust with their stakeholders and consumers.”

Seven elements of Trust-Building Transparency

According to the Center for Food Integrity (CFI), the seven elements of Trust-Building Transparency are:

  • Motivation. Act in a manner that’s ethical and consistent with stakeholder interests.
  • Disclosure. Share publicly all information, both positive and negative.
  • Stakeholder participation. Engage those interested in your activities or impact.
  • Relevance. Share information stakeholders deem relevant.
  • Clarity. Share information that’s easily understood and easily obtained.
  • Credibility. Share positive and negative information that supports informed stakeholder decision-making, and have a history of operating with integrity.
  • Accuracy. Share information that is truthful, objective, reliable and complete.

Conversely, the opposite of these are elements that can lead to moral outrage among consumers, including:

  • Lack of transparency
  • Intentional wrongdoing
  • Intentionally misleading
  • Putting private interest ahead of public interest
  • Insensitivity to public interest (tone deaf)
  • Callous disregard for public interest (malicious indifference)
  • Historical record of poor performance
  • Failure or unwillingness to accept responsibility
  • Impact on vulnerable populations or systems (people, animals and the environment)
  • Negligence in following industry best practices

“Some argue that maintaining public trust is a worthy goal, but not relevant to success in business. This outdated notion fails to recognize the financial benefit of maintaining the trust of stakeholders who can determine the level of social license or social control an organization enjoys,” CFI researchers say.

Editor’s note: CFI research can be found at www.foodintegrity.org/research.

 

You might also like:

More Consumers Are Realizing The Dishonesty Of The Animal Rights Industry\

101 Calving Photos From Readers

2 Common Questions Consumers Ask Most At The Meat Counter

10 Best Photos Featuring Generations On The Ranch

Consumers Spending Less, But Still Want Premium Steaks