FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Front Vet Sci / Official and private animal welfare inspectors’ percep...
Frontiers in veterinary science2025; 12; 1575471; doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1575471

Official and private animal welfare inspectors’ perception of their own on-site inspections.

Abstract: The presence of a trustworthy and effective animal welfare control system is important both for animal welfare and for public and consumer trust. The inspectors' main task, regardless of whether they are official inspectors or private auditors, is to check for and enforce compliance with any relevant regulations. The aim of this study was to investigate how official animal welfare inspectors and private animal welfare auditors in Sweden perceive their inspection work and to explore any differences in the perception of being an inspector between these two groups. An electronic questionnaire was developed and received responses from 108 official inspectors and 22 private auditors (mainly inspecting the KRAV standard, Arlagården®, and the Trotter Health Standard). The results show that the official inspectors and private auditors usually enjoy their work, and they quite often have similar ambitions and views on what characterizes a good inspector. The respondents stated, for example, that it is important to have good dialog with the inspected animal keeper, that it is important to make uniform assessments (even if this can be challenging to achieve), and that animal keepers quite often show their appreciation after an inspection. However, there were also a number of differences in perception between the groups. For example, the official inspectors felt more exposed to unpleasant and threatening situations, while the private auditors were more likely to report the keeper being expected as acting nicely, professionally and relaxed during routine inspections. The official inspectors had a slightly more negative attitude toward the presence of private auditors than the other way around. Nevertheless, the respondents were in agreement that their collaboration and communication needed to be improved. One should bear in mind that the official inspectors also carry out inspections after complaints and more often make unannounced inspections. They not only inspect farms and horse premises, as the private auditors do, they also inspect different pet premises and have a secondary position of power as representatives of the government compared to the private auditors. These various circumstances may partly explain different views and perceptions between the official inspectors and the private auditors.
Copyright © 2025 Lundmark Hedman, Ewerlöf, Frössling and Berg.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2025-04-25 PubMed ID: 40351763PubMed Central: PMC12062023DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1575471Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study examines the experiences and perspectives of official and private animal welfare inspectors in Sweden, revealing similar motivations and goals but differing experiences tied to their roles and the contexts in which they work.

Objective of the Study

  • The objective of this research was to comprehensively understand how official and private animal welfare inspectors in Sweden perceive their inspection duties. This understanding could highlight differences in perception between these two groups, and any potential areas of improvement.

Method and Participants

  • The researchers used an electronic questionnaire to collect data.
  • It had responses from 108 official animal welfare inspectors and 22 private auditors. Notably, private auditors mainly conducted inspections following the standards set by KRAV, Arlagården®, and the Trotter Health Standard.

Key Findings

  • Both groups of respondents generally enjoyed their work and had similar views and ambitions about what constitutes an excellent inspector.
  • The common perception included the importance of open dialog with animal keepers, the need for uniform assessments, and that animal keepers generally expressed gratitude after inspections.
  • However, there were several discrepancies concerning their experiences and perceptions. For instance, official inspectors felt more exposed to unpleasant and threatening situations. On the other hand, private auditors more often reported that keepers behaved professionally and relaxed during routine inspections.
  • Unless expected, official inspectors expressed a slightly negative attitude towards the private auditors.
  • Both groups agreed on the need for better collaboration and communication.

Differences in Roles and Contexts

  • The differences in perceptions and experiences between official inspectors and private auditors might be due to the varying nature of their work.
  • For instance, the official inspectors frequently conduct unannounced inspections and follow-up on complaints, execute inspections on various categories of pet premises, represent government authorities, and hold a secondary position of power compared to the private auditors.
  • In contrast, private auditors mainly focus on farms and horse premises.

Conclusion

  • The study provides an important foundation of understanding for efforts aimed at improving both the animal welfare inspection process and the working conditions of the inspectors themselves.

Cite This Article

APA
Lundmark Hedman F, Ewerlöf IR, Frössling J, Berg C. (2025). Official and private animal welfare inspectors’ perception of their own on-site inspections. Front Vet Sci, 12, 1575471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1575471

Publication

Frontiers in veterinary science
ISSN: 2297-1769
NlmUniqueID: 101666658
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Pages: 1575471

Researcher Affiliations

Lundmark Hedman, Frida
  • Department of Applied Animal Science and Welfare, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.
Ewerlöf, Ivana R
  • Department of Applied Animal Science and Welfare, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.
  • Department of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Assessment, Swedish Veterinary Agency (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden.
Frössling, Jenny
  • Department of Applied Animal Science and Welfare, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.
  • Department of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Risk Assessment, Swedish Veterinary Agency (SVA), Uppsala, Sweden.
Berg, Charlotte
  • Department of Applied Animal Science and Welfare, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 62 references
  1. Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety - Health and Food Audits and Analysis . (2025). (https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/official-controls-and-enforcement/health-and-food-audits-and-analysis_en).
  2. European Commission . Sweden - country profile: Organisation of official control, DG(Sante)/2022–7383. Brussels: European Commission; (2018). 22 p.
  3. Lundmark Hedman F, Veggeland F, Vågsholm I, Berg C. Managing animal welfare in food governance in Norway and Sweden: challenges in implementation and coordination.. Animals (2021) 11:1899.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11071899pmc: PMC8300303pubmed: 34202333google scholar: lookup
  4. SBA . Djurskyddskontrollen 2021 - En Redovisning av Länsstyrelsernas Arbete (animal welfare control in Sweden 2021). Jönköping: Swedish Board of Agriculture in Sweden; (2022). 114 p.
  5. Hultgren J. Animal welfare risk assessment and management from a national perspective. In: Smulders FJM, Algers B, editors. Welfare of production animals: Assessment and Management of Risks. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; (2009). 461–82.
  6. European Commission. Study on animal welfare labelling: final report. In: Maestre M, Campbell L, Etienne J, Cook E, et al., editors. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union; (2022). 126.
  7. European Commission. Special Eurobarometer 533. Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. (2023). p. 76.
  8. European Commission. Commission staff working document fitness check of the EU animal welfare legislation: final report. Brussels European Commission. (2022). p. 310.
  9. Main DCJ, Mullan S, Atkinson C, Cooper M, Wrathall JHM, Blokhuis HJ. Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends Food Sci Technol (2014) 37:127–36.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2014.03.009google scholar: lookup
  10. Berg C, Lundmark Hedman F. Compliance with animal welfare regulations: drivers and consequences. CAB Reviews (2020) 15:1–10.
    doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR202015025pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  11. Lundmark Hedman F, Hultgren J, Röcklinsberg H, Wahlberg B, Berg C. Non-compliance and follow-up in Swedish official and private animal welfare control of dairy cows. Animals (2018) 8:72.
    doi: 10.3390/ani8050072pmc: PMC5981283pubmed: 29738491google scholar: lookup
  12. Lundmark Hedman F, Andersson M, Kinch V, Lindholm A, Nordqvist A, Westin R. Cattle cleanliness from the view of Swedish farmers and official animal welfare inspectors. Animals (2021) 11:945.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11040945pmc: PMC8066830pubmed: 33801666google scholar: lookup
  13. Väärikkälä S, Hänninen L, Nevas M. Veterinarians experience animal welfare control work as stressful. Front Vet Sci (2020) 7:77.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00077pmc: PMC7042310pubmed: 32140473google scholar: lookup
  14. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol (2006) 3:77–101.
    doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oagoogle scholar: lookup
  15. Lundmark Hedman F, Rodriguez Ewerlöf I, Frössling J, Berg C. Swedish dairy farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare inspections. Front Anim Sci (2022) 3:1079457.
    doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.1079457pmc: PMC9179459pubmed: 35681905google scholar: lookup
  16. Lundmark Hedman F, Rodriguez Ewerlöf I, Frössling J, Berg C. Swedish trotting horse trainers’ perceptions of animal welfare inspections from public and private actors. Animals (2022) 12:1441.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12111441pmc: PMC9179459pubmed: 35681905google scholar: lookup
  17. Holm A. Det risikobaserte tilsynet – inspektørenes oppfatninger av tilsynsprosessen. In: Gezelius SS, Veggeland F, editors. Forvaltning av dyrevelferd i Norge: Hvordan få lovverk til å virke? Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk; (2022). 145–79.
  18. Veissier I, Miele M, Mounier L. Animal welfare official inspections: farmers and inspectors shared concerns. Animal (2021) 15:100038.
    doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2020.100038pubmed: 33515987google scholar: lookup
  19. Anneberg I, Vaarst M, SandØe P. To inspect, to motivate — or to do both? A dilemma for on-farm inspection of animal welfare. Anim Welf (2013) 22:185–94.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.22.2.185google scholar: lookup
  20. Anneberg I, Vaarst M, Sørensen JT. The experience of animal welfare inspections as perceived by Danish livestock farmers: a qualitative research approach. Livest Sci (2012) 147:49–58.
    doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2012.03.018google scholar: lookup
  21. Väärikkälä S, Artukka S-M, Hänninen L, Nevas M. Finnish cattle and pig farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare inspections. Anim Welf (2018) 27:369–77.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.27.4.369google scholar: lookup
  22. Carli L. Women, power, and the career labyrinth. In: Travis CB, White JW, editors. APA handbook of the psychology of women, vol. 2. Perspectives on women’s private and public lives. Washington (USA): American Psychological Association; (2018). 349–65.
  23. Johansson V. Där könsmakten ändras. Umeå: Borea bokförlag; (2001). 286 p.
  24. Jervinge K. Inspektörernas arbetsmiljö i fokus: En ohållbar situation. Stockholm: Naturvetarna; (2013). 18 p.
  25. Jervinge K. Djurskyddsinspektörers arbetsmiljö 2019. Stockholm: Naturvetarna; (2019). 17 p.
  26. Publikt . Missnöje med djurtillsyn bakom pulverbrev till länsstyrelser. (2023). Available at: https://www.publikt.se/nyhet/missnoje-med-djurtillsyn-bakom-pulverbrev-till-lansstyrelser-25161
  27. SVT . Djurskydd måltavla för pulverhot: “Beklagligt”. (2023). Available at: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/djurskydd-maltavla-for-pulverhot-beklagligt (Accessed December 3, 2024).
  28. SBA . Nationell djurskyddsrapport 2023 - En redovisning av kontrollmyndigheternas arbete. (Animal Welfare Control in Sweden 2023). Jönköping: Swedish Board of Agriculture; (2024). 151 p.
  29. Devitt C, Kelly P, Blake M, Hanlon A, More SJ. Dilemmas experienced by government veterinarians when responding professionally to farm animal welfare incidents in Ireland. Vet Rec (2014) 1.
    doi: 10.1136/vropen-2013-000003pmc: PMC4562439pubmed: 26392869google scholar: lookup
  30. SOU 2024:1. Ett starkare skydd för offentliganställda mot våld, hot och trakasserier. Statens Offentliga Utredningar Stockholm: Elanders Sverige AB (2024). p. 531.
  31. Rault D, Adams CL, Springett J, Rock MJ. Animal protection, law enforcement, and occupational health: qualitative action research highlights the urgency of relational coordination in a medico-legal borderland. Animals (2022) 12:1282.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12101282pmc: PMC9138031pubmed: 35625128google scholar: lookup
  32. Wojtacka J, Wysok B, Szteyn J. Analysis of the factors influencing veterinary food inspectors in Poland. Animals (2020) 10:884.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10050884pmc: PMC7278444pubmed: 32438705google scholar: lookup
  33. Johansson V. Tillsyn och effektivitet. Umeå: Borea bokförlag; (2006). 230 p.
  34. Valtonen E, Koskela T, Valros A, Hänninen L. Animal welfare control - inspection findings and the threshold for requesting a police investigation. Front Vet Sci (2021) 8:736084.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.736084pmc: PMC8495059pubmed: 34631860google scholar: lookup
  35. Parker CP, Baltes BB, Young SA, Huff JW, Altmann RA, Lacost HA. Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic review. J Organiz Behav (2003) 24:389–416.
    doi: 10.1002/job.198google scholar: lookup
  36. Carr JZ, Schmidt AM, Ford JK, DeShon RP. Climate perceptions matter: a Meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes. J Appl Psychol (2003) 88:605–19.
    doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.605pubmed: 12940402google scholar: lookup
  37. Rudkjoebing LA, Bungum AB, Meulengracht Flachs E, Hurwitz Eller N, Borritz M, Aust B. Work-related exposure to violence or threats and risk of mental disorders and symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Work Environ Health (2020) 46:339–49.
    doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3877pmc: PMC8506313pubmed: 31909816google scholar: lookup
  38. Mayhew C, Chappell D. Workplace violence: an overview of patterns of risk and the emotional/stress consequences on targets. Int J Law Psychiatry (2007) 30:327–39.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2007.06.006pubmed: 17628681google scholar: lookup
  39. Ongori H. A review of the literature on employee turnover. Afr J Bus Manag (2007) 1:49–54.
  40. Viksten SM, Visser EK, Blokhuis HJ. A comparative study of the application of two horse welfare assessment protocols. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci (2016) 66:56–65.
    doi: 10.1080/09064702.2016.1186726google scholar: lookup
  41. Lundmark F, Berg C, Röcklinsberg H. ‘Unnecessary suffering’ as a concept in animal welfare legislation and standards. In: Röcklinsberg H, Sandin P, editors. The ethics of consumption - the citizen, the market and the law. Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen; (2013). 114–9.
  42. Wahlberg B. Reglering och förvaltning av produktions-och slaktdjurs välbefinnande - En offentligrättslig undersökning (legislation and supervision on the welfare of farm and slaughter animals). [dissertation thesis]. Åbo, Finland: Åbo Akademi University; (2011).
  43. Mullan S, Edwards SA, Butterworth A, Whay HR, Main DCJ. Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare out-come measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes. Vet J (2011) 190:e100–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2011.01.012pubmed: 21377385google scholar: lookup
  44. Lundmark Hedman F, Berg C, Stéen M. Whose interest matters when regulating animal welfare? A Swedish case study. In: Schübel H, Wallimann-Helmer I, editors. Justice and food security in a changing climate. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; (2021). 283–8.
  45. Holm A. I valget mellom straff eller overtalelse – inspektørenes oppfatninger av egen funksjon under tilsyn. In: Gezelius SS, Veggeland F, editors. Forvaltning av dyrevelferd i Norge: Hvordan få lovverk til å virke? Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk; (2022). 117–43.
  46. Lipsky M. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, US: Russell Sage Foundation; (2010). 300 p..
  47. Visser EL, Kruyen PM. Discretion of the future: conceptualizing everyday acts of collective creativity at the street-level. Public Adm Rev (2021) 81:676–90.
    doi: 10.1111/puar.13389google scholar: lookup
  48. Zang X. Research on street-level discretion in the west: past, present, and the future. Chin Polit Sci Rev (2016) 1:610–22.
    doi: 10.1007/s41111-016-0041-zgoogle scholar: lookup
  49. Hupe P, Buffat A. A public service gap: capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Manag Rev (2014) 16:548–69.
    doi: 10.1080/14719037.2013.854401google scholar: lookup
  50. Lundmark F, Röcklinsberg H, Wahlberg B, Berg C. Content and structure of Swedish animal welfare legislation and private standards for dairy cattle. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci (2016) 66:35–42.
    doi: 10.1080/09064702.2016.1198417pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  51. Staaf Larsson B, Jansson A, Holmberg M, Winblad von Walter L, Stéen M, Dahlborn K. A comparison of three animal welfare assessment protocols applied to Swedish dairy cow herds. Acta Agric Scand a. Anim Sci (2024) 73:153–64.
    doi: 10.1080/09064702.2024.2317708pubmed: 0google scholar: lookup
  52. Lundmark F, Berg C, Wahlberg B, Röcklinsberg H. ‘One animal is no animal’ – consequences of measuring animal welfare at herd level. In: Dumitras DE, Jitea IM, Aerts S, editors. Know your food – Food ethics and innovation. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; (2015). 31–5.
  53. Winckler C. Assessing animal welfare at the farm level: do we care sufficiently about the individual?. Anim Welf (2019) 28:77–82.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.28.1.077google scholar: lookup
  54. Habte OA, Holm HJ. Competition makes inspectors More lenient: evidence from the motor vehicle inspection market. Rev Ind Organ (2022) 61:45–72.
    doi: 10.1007/s11151-022-09864-zgoogle scholar: lookup
  55. Vogeler CS. Market-based governance in farm animal welfare - a comparative analysis of public and private policies in Germany and France. Animals (2019) 9:267.
    doi: 10.3390/ani9050267pmc: PMC6562795pubmed: 31121958google scholar: lookup
  56. Animal Rising. RSPCA assured: covering up cruelty on an industrial scale. (2024). p. 52.
  57. SVT . 210 gårdar bröt mot djurskyddslagen förra året – flera levererar mjölk till Arla. (2020). Available online at: www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/210-gardar-brot-mot-djurskyddslagen-forra-aret-flera-levererar-mjolk-till-arla (Accessed April 1, 2025).
  58. Expressen . Bilder inifrån Krav-gårdar avslöjar de lidande djuren. (2021). Available online at: www.expressen.se/nyheter/bilder-inifran-krav-gardar-avslojar-de-lidande-djuren/ (Accessed April 1, 2025).
  59. Clark CCA, Crump R, KilBride AL, Green LE. Farm membership of voluntary welfare schemes results in better compliance with animal welfare legislation in Great Britain. Anim Welf (2016) 25:461–9.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.25.4.461google scholar: lookup
  60. KilBride AL, Mason SA, Honeyman PC, Pritchard DG, Hepple S, Green LE. Associations between membership of farm assurance and organic certification schemes and compliance with animal welfare legislation. Vet Rec (2012) 170:152.
    doi: 10.1136/vr.100345pubmed: 22331783google scholar: lookup
  61. Lomellini-Dereclenne AC, Miele M, Mounier L, Veissier I. Implementation of the European legislation to protect farm animals: a case study on French inspections to find solutions to improve compliance. Anim Welf (2017) 26:311–21.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.26.3.311google scholar: lookup
  62. Gender BR, Participation S. An event history analysis of the Gender effects of survey Participation in a probability-based multi-wave panel study with a sequential mixed-mode design. Methods Data Analyses (2022) 16:3–32.
    doi: 10.12758/mda.2021.08google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,005 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.