Companion Animal Economics

The Economic Impact of Companion Animals in the UK

Sophie S Hall, Luke Dolling, Katie Bristow, Ted Fuller, Daniel S Mills

• Publisher: CAB International
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781786391728
• eBook ISBN: 9781786391742
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Veterinary Medicine

Succinct, highly readable and thought provoking, this important new text is designed to raise awareness of the potential economic impact of companion animals in the UK. It discusses the potential benefits and costs of companion animals to the economy and highlights the need for this matter to be thoroughly researched, given the potential scale of impact and the potential costs of ignoring this matter. The book includes: - case studies to illustrate the savings to the NHS that might be associated with companion animal ownership;- links to up-to-date tables and content that might form templates for use in other countries; and- highly readable information written by expert authors and key opinion leaders in the field.Inspired by the seminal Council for Science and Society (CSS) Report, Companion Animals in Society (1988), this work updates and extends its evaluation of the economic impact of companion animals on society and lays a benchmark for future development. This pivotal new book is important for policy makers at national and international levels and all those involved in animal welfare.

Introduction 1

The UK is renowned as being a nation of animal lovers, with an estimated 12 million (46%) households incorporating about 65 million companion animals into their families (PFMA, 2015). With close proximity comes an opportunity to impact on each other’s health and well-being. More broadly, it reflects a societal impact. The scale of this phenomenon raises the need for insight into the extent to which we share our lives with companion animals, and the nature of the human–animal relationship in these contexts. Indeed, human society is inherently multispecies (Mills & De Keuster, 2009).

In this report we wish to highlight the economic significance especially of the companionship of animals and use the term ‘companion animal’ to refer to those animals (e.g. dogs and cats) that keep us company in a range of contexts. This recognizes the animal’s family member status in Western traditions as well as acknowledging its individuality, and the compatibility of bonds within the relationship. It could be argued that domestic equids fall into this category, but these are beyond the scope of this report. Even within companion animal species, the boundaries are indistinct; for example many working dogs (animals employed to work with a handler in a specific type or range of tasks, such as police and security dogs and working gun dogs) are no longer viewed as important for just their instrumental value, but are of increasingly important emotional value to their handlers, who may work in very stressful conditions. This is particularly the case with assistance animals (animals kept to provide help or assistance to those who are not fully able bodied such as guide dogs or assistance dogs). While it is appropriate to acknowledge the additional economic value of these animals in terms of the work they do, quantifying this value is beyond the scope of this report. Nonetheless, we have tried to scope the demographics of these populations in some of the appendices and include the health benefits of assistance animals as a special case for consideration given that their production is based on the charitable rather than governmental or commercial sectors. We tend to avoid the term ‘pet’ since this implies a somewhat unidirectional, utilitarian relationship, in which the animal is largely a possession of its keeper, kept for the pleasure that the relationship brings that individual (e.g. pet dog). However, we retain the term ‘pet’ as an adjective where it is commonly used (e.g. ‘pet food’ and ‘pet shop’). Companion animals are often considered valuable members of the community, for many different reasons, depending on the role they fulfil. Nonetheless, we also recognize that this is not without a potential cost as well. Where possible we have provided figures relating to these in the supplementary tables. However, the primary aim of this report is to recognize the differing roles that companion animals have within our society and to explore the possible value that they bring through these roles, in an economic sense, so the narrative predominantly focuses on their contribution to society. Indeed, the economic contribution of companion animals to society is reported to be growing annually, despite the current economic downturn. There is increased availability of ever more products and services for animal companions, but also a greater need for the psychological and physical benefits they can bring during times of hardship.

This report serves as a preliminary examination of the scope and extent of the economic value of companion animals within the UK. It is to be hoped that not only will the report act as a point of reference for contextualizing this important function, but also that it will serve as a basis for further refinement and monitoring in the future. The analysis encompasses numerous strands, some of which are more readily measured than others. The scope includes the contribution of the economic impact of the pet care industry, the reported health and well-being benefits of companion animal ownership and the value of working animals in their various roles in society. It is important to note that the ‘role in society’ and ‘social value’ of companion animals are not fixed phenomena but change over time and situation. Indeed, there has seemingly been a shift from objectification to subjectification of companion animals within society in recent years; they are seen less as chattels or possessions and more as individuals in their own right, and as members of the family. This might reflect a shift in our emotional bond with them and our perceptions as a consequence.

The roles that companion animal species are given within our society range from: pets to working animals, leisure performers (e.g. in sport), assistance animals, service animals (e.g. police, military, fire, search and rescue) and laboratory subjects. These categories are neither rigid nor exclusive, but can merge and change over time. For example, while the assistance dog partnered with a person to provide practical support may be perceived by some primarily as a working animal, the owner may well value the dog’s companionship in higher regard than the support or assistance he or she was originally sourced for.

Specifically, this report aims to help to dispel the myth that companion animals are a decadent luxury, and to increase awareness of the social, economic and health impact of companion animals on society, so that better informed debate and decisions can be made for the benefit of society.

Methodology 2

This preliminary study was a desk-based research exercise, inspired by the seminal Council for Science and Society (CSS) report Companion Animals in Society (1988), which was the starting point for the investigation.

The CSS report (1988) attempted to produce a comprehensive evaluation of the significance of companion animals in the UK, providing a benchmark for discussing their economic impact within our society. At the time, the report was seemingly presented as the only report to attempt such an evaluation, with no updates since 1988.

Content analysis and deconstruction of the CSS report was undertaken to elicit core concepts, repeating themes and underpinning assumptions. Specific attention was placed on economic data and figures relating to companion animals and society. Data and figures presented in the original report were extracted and tabulated, with the original assumption and/or references for such figures also noted. Through collection of such data, an attempt was made to source more recent figures giving a revised overview of the economic impact of companion animals.

The context of companion animals in society and the associated industries has changed in the last 25–30 years, and therefore further economic considerations were also generated that were not included in the CSS report. Such considerations included UK companion animal-related exports and imports, further industry employment information, the impact of companion animals in the workplace, the impact of national trends like an economic downturn on the perceived value of companion animals, pet tourism, expanding veterinary services, new companion animal services and functions, development of animal welfare charities (i.e. number of volunteers and revenue) and companion animal advertising. Where it was easily available, comparable data and analyses from other countries were accessed, to help provide benchmarks and context for the UK data.

Techniques Revisited and Updated

Within the CSS report it was found that a relatively small number of sources were used for figures provided. Sources given included organizations such as: the British Horse Society, the Kennel Club, the Pet Trade and Industry Association, the Governing Council of the Cat Fancy (GCCF), the National Exhibition of Cage and Aviary Birds, the British Federation of Aquarists, the Union of Communication Workers and the Post Office. Charitable organizations were also identified, including The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and Pro-dogs. Further sources encompassed the Yellow Pages™, miscellaneous other studies and reports, a small number of academic articles, as well as estimates from a London wholesaler.

Within this report, organizations that provided information for the CSS report were revisited through websites to update figures given for 1988. If this was not possible, e-mails were sent directly to obtain an updated figure. In some instances, sources no longer held such information or simply did not reply; other organizations no longer existed.

From the number of sources provided in the CSS report, it can be assumed that a relatively small amount of data existed at that time. It follows from this that many of the figures presented in the report were based on assumptions and estimations by the authors. It was often the case that figures relating to the number of establishments (such as pet shops), employment and the revenue of such establishments were estimates, and figures were reported without confidence intervals and apparently accepted by the authors of the report. This poses challenges when trying to provide up-to-date figures.

The approach for updating figures began with broad Internet searches. Websites within the UK only were used. To establish the availability of data, broad terms were first used. Searches conducted were more to locate the sources that would hold the data, rather than assuming that data would be easily available. Terms and phrases such as ‘(UK) pet care industry’ and ‘pet care market’ returned results for organizations associated with companion animals such as the Pet Food Manufacturers Association (PFMA), companion animal services, market research reports, and information on working in the animal care industry (Lantra). Searches were conducted in relation to specific factors, such as searching for the number and revenue of grooming establishments, and other companion animal services. A few attempts were made, changing words and phrases, to source data. If broader Internet searches were unsuccessful, further databases such as EBSCOhost and FAME (a database of companies) were used to source data and company financial information.

Charities, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and Dogs Trust, were known to produce and hold data on companion animals and were therefore consulted to aid the pursuit of data. Indeed, it became apparent early on through initial research that data were still quite limited, and that the data that did exist might be potentially unreliable. Therefore, greater use was made of charities; these were e-mailed, explaining the nature of the project and asking whether they held or knew of sources that could aid possible research. Replies received varied, with some unable to supply figures, whether due to resources or issues recording such data. In the event of information not being able to be sourced, or for any issues surrounding updating the information, comments have been provided in the relevant summary table (Appendix Table 1; www.cabi.org/openresources/91728) to highlight these issues and assist with the potential to gather better quality data in future. Appendix Tables 2 and 3 (www.cabi.org/openresources/91728) provide updated datasets.

UK economic data relating to companion animals and the associated industry has become of increasing value to many organizations, and a great quantity of data are found in market research reports. Websites of organizations such as Mintel, IBISWorld, Euromonitor and Datamonitor were visited, since they produce reports spanning many topic areas and they all have sections relating to various strands of the ‘pet industry’ in the UK and other geographical regions. Generally, the majority of reports related to pet food, pet accessories, pet insurance and veterinary services; excluding topics related to grooming and other companion animal services, suggesting that they are not of such considerable economic value. Of the large number of reports available, only three were used to provide illustrative examples of the data available, and the desire for the report to be largely based around data that should be freely accessible to the public. These reports were analysed with economic data extracted and tabulated with notes made on the trends in the market and reasons given for these changes. Interestingly, some of the data given in the reports are from organizations such as the PFMA and insurance companies, which are easily accessed through the Internet.

Technique for Data-mining Public Information

Where data relating to turnover, number of employees and the purpose of a company were required, the FAME database was generally utilized. However, annual reports for non-profit, voluntary organizations and charities associated with companion animals and assistance animals were specifically targeted. Indeed, reports of this kind often contain valuable information and data used to demonstrate their own economic and social value. Such reports were obtained through organization websites, which were then analysed, with figures and data being tabulated.

Reports were obtained from animal-related organizations and charities including: the RSPCA, People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), Battersea, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust, Wood Green, British Horse Society, The Donkey Sanctuary and the Blue Cross. Factors were dependent on the organization’s report in question, but generally centred around: (i) stray, abandoned and gifted animals; (ii) the number of volunteers and paid individuals working for the organization; (iii) the economic value of volunteers’ work; and (iv) the revenue of the organizations. Other valuable data discovered and thought to be potentially illuminating were also extracted and tabulated.

Reports from assistance-dog organizations included Guide Dogs for the Blind, Hearing Dogs for Deaf People and Dogs for the Disabled (no...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Executive Summary
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Methodology
• 3 Key Features of the Council for Science and Society (CSS) Report
• 4 Updates on the Economic Impact of Companion Animals to the UK
• 5 Indirect Costs: Extending the Scope of Economic Value
• 6 Conclusion: Illustrating the Perceived Economic Impact of Companion Animals
• Acknowledgement
• Afterword
• References
• Index
• Back Cover