HI6006 Competitive Strategy Editing Service
Delivery in day(s): 4
This paper will raise voice against the practice of live export of animals for slaughter, which involves cruelty and unethical principles. A business strategic approach will be adopted in order to provide a plan that will be helpful to make the campaign successful against this practice (Coghlan 2014).
It has been observed that every year Australian countries export around one million cattle majorly to Indonesia and even in larger number of sheep to countries of Middle East both for religious and regular purpose of consumption (Bergeaud-Blackler 2015). People from north and west part of Australia engage themselves into such occupation, as there is lack of domestic meat processing facilities. According to the study of Caulfield et al. (2014),animals face cruelty while slaughtering and most of them die during the voyage. Government remains silent whereas, horrific information about live export of animals have been highlighted by various NGOs working for animal welfare (Tiplady, Walsh and Phillips 2013). According to Juan Ding et al. (2014),legally few of the supply chains was approved to supply the meat yet lack of legal interference and desire to make more money did not help to change the situation. Government has not yet certified any export business as guilty in spite of receiving numerous complaints and evidences.
In order to change the situation a strategic approach can be considered. Those are as follows.
Australian government must penetrate regional economic condition by creating alternating jobs. As described in Ferguson et al. (2014),considering the vast culture of sheep rearing domestic units, meat-processing facilities can be developed in northern and western part of Australia to decrease the live export of animals, intensity of cruelty and to satisfy global demand of Australian processed beef.
Government must take initiative to establish a global market for Australian processed meat industry by promoting them as clean and green products to ensure less live exports than previous decade.
In order to make a change in the scenario government can arrange training sessions for indigenous and workers of meat processing units to do their jobs more efficiently and without being cruel to the animals. New joiners can opt for different opportunities of jobs within or outside meat processing industry. By creating job opportunities Australian government can control the export as well as people who go to foreign lands while exporting animals and settle for another jobs (Hastreiter 2013).
Meat processing industries and government should maintain a trustworthy relationship with investors and native cultivators to bring a change in society as far as live export is concerned. Farmers must be assisted for developing a native slaughter market in north and western region of Australia. Money can be generated from wool business as well where animals do not have to face intense cruelty.
Animals will face fewer complications if government focuses on connecting foreign locations with better roads favourable for any kind of weather. The framework has been given below.
Integrated strategy map
Source: (As created by the author)
It has been understood that due to the lack of facilities and strategic planning cruel practice of live export of animals still exists. There are numerous responsibilities which government can ensure to execute yet the reality is difficult and different as well. In order to decrease the proportion of export and to rectify the cruel procedure of slaughtering, Australian people can opt for wool business or government can initiate to process more meat domestically so that the supply of live animals can be controlled to some extent. It will eventually boost the economy of Australia, as more job opportunities will be created with the establishment of new meat processing units.
Campaigns against animal cruelty claims high appreciation yet NGOs must frame strategies to influence government policies regarding this unethical practice. More public support and participation will be helpful in order to draw governing body’s attention towards this economic and environmental sustainable issue.
1. Bergeaud-Blackler, F., 2015. The halal certification market in Europe and the world: a first panorama. In Halal Matters (pp. 105-126). Routledge.
2. Caulfield, M.P., Cambridge, H., Foster, S.F. and McGreevy, P.D., 2014. Heat stress: A major contributor to poor animal welfare associated with long-haul live export voyages. The Veterinary Journal, 199(2), pp.223-228.
3. Coghlan, S., 2014. Australia and live animal export: wronging nonhuman animals. Journal of Animal Ethics, 4(2), pp.45-60.
4. Ferguson, D.M., Schreurs, N.M., Kenyon, P.R. and Jacob, R.H., 2014. Balancing consumer and societal requirements for sheep meat production: An Australasian perspective. Meat Science, 98(3), pp.477-483.
5. Hastreiter, M.T., 2013. Animal Welfare Standards and Australia's Live Exports Industry to Indonesia: Creating an Opportunity Out of a Crisis. Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., 12, p.181.
6. Juan Ding, M., Jie, F., A. Parton, K. and J. Matanda, M., 2014. Relationships between quality of information sharing andsupply chainfood quality in the Australian beef processing industry. The international journal of logistics management, 25(1), pp.85-108.
7. Tiplady, C.M., Walsh, D.A.B. and Phillips, C.J., 2013. Public response to media coverage of animal cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), pp.869-885.