This research was granted ethics approval by the University of Queensland, Australia (2020/HE002934). Data collection was conducted between March and July 2021. Due to COVID-19 and the accompanying travel restrictions, health considerations, and additional strain placed on all industries during the period in which the research was conducted, we used online questionnaires as this involved the least demand, risk, and inconvenience for participants.

This study used purposive convenience sampling through a snowball sampling technique to recruit participants (Christopoulos, 2009; Andrade, 2020). The online questionnaire was made on a Chinese survey platform (Wen Juan Xing 问卷星) for ease of access in China. The questionnaire was publicly available and shared to individuals and groups via a QR code and a HTML link by the research team on WeChat. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire voluntarily and were encouraged to share the links with their acquaintances. There may be potential bias in the sample obtained due to the sampling method. Participants may be more likely to participate if they have stronger personal or professional relationships with members of the research team. This sample may not be representative of all senior stakeholders in China.

Participants in this study consisted of 100 senior stakeholders associated with the animal agriculture sector in China. Participant selection was based on fulfilling one of the following roles within the animal agricultural sector in China:

In addition to being actively engaged in the Chinese animal agriculture sector, each senior stakeholder was considered influential by their colleagues; that being, they were considered to be decision makers or those who influence decisions within the landscape, in a position to influence change on the ground (i.e., livestock leaders), or in a position to change strategic direction (policy, strategy, intellectual advice). Stakeholders were approached to be participants in this study by direct contact from the Chinese-speaking data collection team (all co-authors). In some instances, this involved liaison with “gatekeepers,” and recommendations were accepted by participants with regards to other leaders they considered knowledgeable and influential, but only where contacts were volunteered.

Within this research, participants completed online questionnaires to generate quantitative data using 5-point Likert scale questions and qualitative data using open-ended responses. The research items in this study were refined in consultation with academics specializing in the region (all co-authors), and data were collected in Chinese, coordinated by a Chinese team leader (second author), and operated from a virtual Chinese platform. After being directly or indirectly identified, participants were then invited through local research collaborators (all co-authors). Participants were provided the study information and were requested to confidentially participate by providing 15–20 min of their time to offer their expert insight into the status of animal welfare in China. If they agreed to participate, they were provided a link through which they could access the research questions and input their responses anonymously. Quantitative surveys alone cannot fully uncover participants' sentiments (Weary et al., 2015) or provide a “deeper” understanding of social phenomena (Gill et al., 2008). For this reason, a mixed methodology approach was adopted in this study, with primary emphasis on qualitative items. The research items, as they appeared in Chinese, can be found at the end of this manuscript. Responses were back translated by a bilingual co-author to English for analysis by the lead author. The following statement was adapted from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and presented at the onset of the questionnaire:

“The welfare of animals within this research refers to how well an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal has good welfare if its needs are being met and hence it is healthy, comfortable, well nourished, safe, able to express important behavior, and not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress.”

“动物福利” 在此问卷中定义为动物对其生活环境的适应程度. 如果动物健康、感觉舒适、营养充足、安全、能够自由表达天性并且不受痛苦、恐惧和焦虑的折磨压力威胁，则满足动物福利的要求.” [sic]

The research questions addressed in this manuscript include the following:

The specific research items in this manuscript include questions 1–5 and 9–15 (see Supplementary Material I). Further items in the questionnaire will be presented in companion manuscripts.

The raw data were compiled, coded, and cleansed (checked for repeated or incomplete entries and organized). All responses were translated by a fluent bilingual co-author and subjected to back translation in order to confirm accuracy. Any items of which meaning was unclear were discussed. Binary and numerical quantitative data were summarized, and qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis (Clarke and Braun, 2014) by the lead author using software packages Nvivo (QSR International, 2018) and Microsoft Office, where themes and subthemes were coded and described. If responses were unclear or irrelevant, they were omitted. Data within each theme were then subjected to further analysis to create sub-themes according to their perceived intent, organized, and quantified to understand the frequency and, therefore, importance of theme and subtheme according to the participants. In summary, frequently occurring general sentiments were considered “themes,” and frequently occurring sentiments that could be considered to further illustrate a pre-existing theme either explicitly (by respondents) or logically (to the lead author) were considered as “sub-themes.” Figures and models were developed and presented within results to further illustrate relationships between themes and enable the findings to be readily applied to domestic Chinese animal welfare strategy and collaborative international strategy.

One hundred senior stakeholders participated in this study. The production sectors of which the stakeholders were experienced are presented in Table 1. The role and experience in years of each participant are presented in Table 2.

Identifying what might be considered important to a target audience can not only serve to better understand a stakeholder group and how to engage them, but it can further illuminate potential mutual benefits for cooperative progression (Sinclair and Phillips, 2018). Participants were asked to participate in an activity of ranking agricultural considerations in order of importance. These considerations included animal welfare, environmental impact, food safety, food security, taste, product quality, and profit margin (动物福利、环境影响、食品安全、粮食保障、味道、产品质量和利润率) [sic]. “Food safety” was considered the most important, followed by “food security” (Table 3). “Animal welfare” and “taste” were ascribed the least importance of those assessed.

In their responses to the question “what would encourage animal industries to pay attention to animal welfare?”, participants (n = 100) offered 130 responses. Over half (59.2%) of the participants suggested that animal welfare should be tied to other more compelling causes and benefits (Figure 1). Within that, and in order of citation frequency, participants suggested to tie animal welfare to (i) “increased market and brand opportunities” (theme, n = 31), such as offering more demand and willingness to pay for higher welfare products (sub-theme, n = 17) and opportunity for publicity (sub-theme, n = 10); (ii) “food safety and biosecurity” (theme, n = 19); (iii) “increased quality of products” (theme, n = 16); (iv) “profit” (theme, n = 15), (v) “increased production performance” (theme, n = 10); (vi) “animal health and reduced medicinal treatments” (theme, n = 6); and (vii) “environmental pollution and management” (theme, n = 6). Participants also cited societal developments that would encourage attention to animal welfare (theme, n = 22), including (i) “the introduction and strict enforcement of laws” (sub-theme, n = 7), (ii) “Chinese government encouragement” (sub-theme, n = 5), and (iii) “the introduction of standards and policy” (sub-theme, n = 4). As one agricultural veterinarian shared, “Farm animal welfare will gain attention when it can be proven to bring benefits to the farm” (agricultural veterinarian working across dairy, cattle, pig, and sheep industries with under 5 years industry exposure).

When attributing a level of agreement or disagreement to statements made about animal welfare in general, including the role of law, standards, and the “Five-Year Plan,” participants remained neutral in most part, with only slight agreement in some instances (Table 4). Participants were mostly neutral that the Chinese livestock industry is currently concerned about animal welfare and mostly agreed that the same industry would be concerned in the next 5 years. Participants most commonly agreed that animal welfare education and training is insufficient in China, that the introduction of animal welfare law is necessary, and that the Chinese livestock industry wants clear directions on how to improve animal welfare that are supported by science (Table 4). Participants also tended to lean toward agreement that cruelty to farm animals should be punished under Chinese law and that, if animal welfare was a focus of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) “Five-Year Plan,” it would have more practical impact than a law created.

In response to the question “what do you see as the major opportunities for improving farm animal welfare in China?” (‘您认为在中国提升农场动物福利的契机或突破点是什么?') [sic], participants presented a total of 323 opportunities. The themes that were developed from these data are presented in Table 5. Within their responses, participants appeared to interpret the question in different ways. We classified the responses into two broad categories (themes): “societal opportunities” (external), and “opportunities for intervention” (internal). “Societal opportunities” consist of opportunities (sub-themes) based on existent realities and conditions outside of the immediate control (external locus of control) that could be leveraged. For example, one participant response includes the quote “Zoonosis stimulates the society to pay attention to the relationship between human and animals, which creates a favorable platform for public conversations on improving farm animal welfare (‘人畜共患疾病带来的全社会对人与动物关系的关注，为提升农场动物福利带来了有利的社会舆论环境')” [sic]. On the other hand, “opportunities for intervention” consist of internally-generated interventions or initiatives (sub-themes) that could maximize animal welfare progress under the current societal context (internal locus of control). For example, one participant's response includes the quote “large enterprises take the lead, and small and medium-sized enterprises with special characteristics actively participate in the recognition and purchase of welfare products […] and establish a sound and reliable reputation evaluation system (大企业带头，特色中小企业积极参与福利产品的认可与采购. 并建立完善可靠的评估信誉体)” [sic]. Another stated “at present, Chinese consumers' understanding and attention to farm animals and their welfare issues are not high, so it is difficult to resonate. Therefore, long-term effective communication and education should be prioritized (目前中国消费者对农场动物及其福利议题了解和关注度整体不高，难以产生共鸣. 因为长期有效的传播、教育应该基于充分的重视)” [sic].

Born in human cognitive and behavioral psychology, ‘locus of control' refers to the degree in which an individual perceives outcomes as being contingent on their own actions (Rotter, 1966) or is controllable and able to be influenced. An internal locus of control orientation is a belief that our actions are contingent on what we do, as opposed to external control orientation, in that the events and conditions are outside our personal control (Zimbardo and Ruch, 1975). Here, this refers specifically to the perceivable control that stakeholders have should they be interested in improving animal welfare. Figure 2 presents this visually and further demonstrates the relationship between the societal opportunities to leverage (external conditions leveraged) and opportunities for interventions (internally driven initiatives based on the societal conditions).

When asked if they believed the livestock industry in China needed more support to improve animal welfare, 88% of participants agreed. When asked who the support was needed from, ‘the government' was the most frequent response. Interestingly, participants were likely to identify the agricultural sector that they come from as responsible parties (Table 7). For instance, participants from the government commonly identified government as the party from whom support is needed. Similarly, business leaders identified their own group (the livestock industry). This may represent a reduced tendency to “shift accountability,” a potential to accept accountability to some degree, and a willingness to engage in support for improved animal welfare where the support is understood and deemed possible. It could also be a product of being self-focused and offering a path forward that is in context of what they know, all of which presents opportunities or, importantly, that the nature of “leader” as identified in this study has a tendency for responsibility.

When asked about the nature of support that is needed, some participants shared the need for training, stating that “training needs to be supported by animal welfare institutions and authoritative educational institutions.” Another stated “(we need) training within the industry and development of scientific researchers” and a third stated “(we need) technical guidance; enterprises can cooperate with universities, or the government can provide it. We need scientific research community to provide research findings; we need government support for animal welfare policies; We need schools and media to publicize and educate animal welfare.”

On demonstration and modeling, a participant stated “create demonstration sites, utilizing the success of one/several farms to lead changes across the sector.” Another stated “Demonstration from high welfare enterprises; Support for high welfare enterprises; Official recognition of welfare production practices.”

Highlighting the importance of strategic support, one stated that “we (also) need technological support of farm animal welfare production and strategies to promote animal welfare food products.”

A participant from government stated that support needed comprises of “government guidance, enterprise leadership and public participation.”

The frequency with which participants make statements that emphasize profit or profit-related factors throughout this study, suggests its paramount importance to leaders within China's livestock industry. Furthermore, such profit-related statements were presented by participants from all roles, not limited to those that directly profit from animal agriculture. Given that livestock enterprises are commercial endeavors and that domestic profits also benefit government and civilian interests by raising national GDP, this result is considered expected and indeed echoed by previous findings in the region in which profit is a significant driver of change (Sinclair et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2021) as it is elsewhere in the world (Dawkins, 2017; Ventin, 2020). Demonstrating any profit potential effectively is integral (see animal welfare intersection 1 below for ways in which animal welfare could be tied to profit). In addition to reducing production costs and mitigating losses, increasing the market and consumer demand is a key way to deliver increased profits in higher welfare models. The findings of this research suggest that this could be based on facilitating a consumer shift (complementary with growing societal affluence) from product quantity to quality in such a way that improved animal welfare delivers higher quality products (see animal welfare intersection 2 below for ways in which animal welfare could be tied to product quality).

Food safety is already a well-communicated and legislated priority amongst Chinese leadership, with serious repercussions to industry if they fall short of requirements. Through investing heavily in resources and skills, the Chinese government has prioritized advancing the domestic food system to provide national food security (Zhou, 2010) and to continue building the nation into the only trillion-dollar economy with a positive GDP growth rate [International Monetary Fund (IMF), 2020; The World Bank, 2021]. China experienced severe food safety scandals in the mid 2000s, such as the 2008 incident where toxic chemical melamine was added to milk, which led to expedited and comprehensive reform of the national food safety regime (Pei et al., 2011). Food safety has firmly remained on the national agenda since, setting a shift from focusing on the quantity of food production (an issue largely addressed in China) to the quality of food. Leveraging the ways in which food safety and biosecurity can be tied to animal welfare represents a major opportunity for immediate application. High animal welfare products have the potential, in China, to state a level of product safety (See animal welfare intersection 1 below for ways in which animal welfare can be tied to food safety) (Yang, 2020). This is the case not just in regard to framing and communication to build support for animal welfare but also in practical application. Existing laws can be leveraged and expanded, and certification frameworks and infrastructure could be extended (Li, 2021b). One example includes the current certification process required for animals entering slaughterhouses, accrediting that they are disease-free (General Administration of Quality Supervision, 2002; Ministry of Agriculture China, 2005). In addition to other trade transparency practices, such as confirming live animals have not been injected with water to falsely increase weight at sale, these established practices could be extended to incorporate reliable and trustworthy checkpoints for key welfare indicators.

Tied to both product quality and food safety is COVID-19. The still active pandemic of COVID-19 has caused great loss to China and international peers. Impacts to agriculture, including threatened production chains and agricultural employment, have been far reaching in China (Huang, 2020) and internationally (Siche, 2020). As is the case with Ebola, HIV, Avian Influenza, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease, meaning that it is likely to have originated back to a critical human-animal interface–the preparation and consumption of animals by humans (Magouras et al., 2020; United Nations Environment Programme, 2020). Consumer behavior demonstrated a drop of wild animal consumption from 27% during the SARS outbreak in 2003 to 17.8% during COVID-19 Hubei province, China (Liu et al., 2020). This shift has now been backed by a national ban on terrestrial wildlife consumption (Koh et al., 2021). On a larger scale, with repercussions beyond wildlife consumption and China, it has been reported that the food supply chain disruptions, media coverage of food safety issues, and restaurant closures associated with COVID-19 have all influenced consumer dietary behavior, resulting in reduced consumption of animal products (Attwood and Hajat, 2020) and an increase in plant-based diets (Loh et al., 2021). The findings in this study, coupled with these statistically reported trends, represent substantial opportunity to further underpin a consumer behavior shift from quantity to quality produce in animal industries, with improved animal welfare positioned and marketed alongside food safety as integral elements of quality.

Despite a proposed animal welfare law by Chinese scholars (Lu et al., 2013), at the time of writing, there is no focused animal welfare law and there is a lack of animal protection legislation in Mainland China (Li, 2021a). Although another study in the region also presented quantitative survey findings that suggested that legislation was a powerful motivator to improve animal welfare (Sinclair et al., 2017), a follow-up qualitative focus group study uncovered a more complex relationship with law (Sinclair et al., 2019). The focus group study found that the potential for profit was a stronger motivator than law to drive or inhibit animal welfare improvement in China. The findings of this study support that. Caution is also advised in using the presence of animal welfare legislation as the sole barometer for animal welfare progress across borders. For interested parties outside of China, it is important to be aware of one's own cultural lens. Sociopolitical and geographical contexts vastly shape constructs around law, the motivations to create it, how and what is influencing the introduction of laws, and its impact in different countries, different issues, and different solutions.

Once commercial benefit is understood and accepted, the creation of and training around prescriptive science-based standards would offer a clear usable path for industries to improve animal welfare. This process is underway. Commencing in 2014, official authorities of the China Association for Standardization have been meeting and publishing prescriptive documents on farm animal welfare requirements for select farmed species, including pigs, cattle, sheep, and laying hens (Yang, 2020; China Association for Standardisation, 2021).

With a majority of participants agreeing that the inclusion of animal welfare in the “Five-Year Plan” would be even more compelling than the introduction of new legislation, it is clear that this is an important policy in China. With a series of social and economic development focussing on the nation as a collective, the “Five-Year Plan” approach was introduced in 1953 by the Chinese Communist Party and remains a steadfast institution not dissimilar to a company strategic plan, with engagement and buy-in at all levels of Chinese society toward these collective tangible goals. As a powerful platform that successfully underpins the direction of attention, resources, and delivers large scale outcomes in China, with inclusion of animal welfare in future plans being reformative on a large scale. Moving an agenda into the Five-Year Plan, however, could prove to be more difficult than introducing laws. Therefore, while potentially resembling the most powerful opportunity for large scale reform, this opportunity requires further research as to the viability and appropriateness of advocating such an outcome. In the meantime, the current plan, the fourteenth, which commenced in 2021, includes focussed goals that could be tied to animal welfare in many ways. Specifically, this could include the current goals of “agricultural modernization,” “improvement of animal disease control,” “to address sustainability and adapt to climate change through improving agricultural practices,” and an “increase in smart farming” (e.g., use of technology, big data, block chain and AI) (Chinese Communist Party, 2021).

High quality education and training around the application of animal welfare for agriculture professionals is a critically important element to the larger picture. Government guidance is frequently sought, and the establishment of a government-based center to advise on standards and current international best practice is also indicated and likely to be powerful. Integral to the success of these initiatives is the foremost education of the educators, university staff and government representatives, in order to build the contingent of Chinese experts with whom industry can reliably consult. While hosting highest levels of education, these agricultural leaders may not yet have an appreciation or understanding around animal welfare. Once benefits are accepted and standards and training are available, the establishment of demonstration farms and pilot models could provide cornerstones to industry reform. In response to famine, Deng Xiaoping adopted a scientific, evidence-based pragmatic approach to improving agricultural output (Butt and Sajid, 2018). The national government encouraged pilot farms and regions to test improved practices, and when successful, encouraged implementation across regions (Butt and Sajid, 2018). Another example of this is the decollectivisation of agriculture from People's Communes to Household Responsibility System, where farmers became personally incentivised to produce more (Lin, 1988; Bai and Kung, 2014). With a shift from “more” to “better” and quantity to quality, this approach to model farms could again be utilized to test and demonstrate improved animal welfare practice while more widely building evidence and trust in the practices. During one on-farm ethnographic study in the China's dairy industry, workers, managers, and an executive shared with the researcher that they were highly receptive to evidence that improving animal welfare would increase profits and were willing to trial changes on a smaller scale in their own farms (Chen et al., 2021). Separate to state-owned units, private enterprises in China have been noted to be more eager to innovate to adapt and improve profit and may also be in a unique position to demonstrate these practices to industry peers and discerning consumers.

The findings in regards to how animal welfare requirements from trade partners are being enforced and monitored are diverse, indicating a lack of consistency across trade partners. This is possibly due to a variation in what is required across individual commercial partners. Therefore, the development of a consistent, clear, and prescriptive best practice approach to the implementation of improved welfare practices for trade partners in China could prove useful and meaningful.