By Ken Opengart, DVM, PhD, DACPV
3 Birds Consulting
Signal Mountain, Tennessee
As a veterinarian with experience leading live operations and animal welfare programs, I have spent my career focused on improving animal welfare. I have worked globally across farms, facilities and leadership settings, emphasizing the importance of education, training and risk mitigation. I have also built systems designed to promote accountability and ownership and empowered those on the front lines to act in ways that mitigate welfare compromise for the birds and risk to the business.
Over time, one truth has become unmistakably clear to me: Animal welfare programs succeed or fail not because of audits, policies or even good intentions but because of the cultivation — or lack thereof — of a robust culture. And culture is something that we must build deliberately.
Role of audits
When I first entered the industry, welfare programs were primarily audit-based. We focused on compliance: meeting industry standards, passing annual third-party audits and responding when gaps were identified.
Audits were, and still are, an important tool. They provide structure, accountability and a common language around expectations. Routine point-in-time audits, however, are poorly suited to actively manage dynamic fields like animal welfare performance because they capture only a moment in time, fail to reflect normal variability or emerging trends and often incentivize short-term compliance rather than sustained performance.
Historically, audits have emphasized documentation and program management over true outcome-based performance, although audits today are much more focused on animal outcomes. Prior auditing programs were unlikely to detect rare but consequential failures and provided little insight into learning or continuous improvement. Most importantly, their episodic nature shifted accountability away from daily ownership, reinforcing the misconception that performance is something to be demonstrated occasionally rather than managed continuously.
As customer expectations, societal scrutiny and our own understanding of animal welfare evolved, so did the opportunity to fundamentally improve our approach to welfare management.
Cultural shift
Organizations faced a choice. Would they continue to treat animal welfare as a regulatory- and customer-compliance exercise, or would it be treated as a core expression of its values? Ultimately, the answer to this question would define an organization’s welfare approach and culture.
When an organization relies on a compliance-driven approach, it tends to be reactive, focused on risk avoidance, minimum standards and correcting problems after they occur. Engagement and transparency are limited, and success is defined almost exclusively by audit results rather than by sustained performance or outcomes.
In contrast, a culture-driven approach is proactive. It treats animal welfare not only as a moral obligation but as a strategic priority — investing in people, processes and systems to prevent problems before they occur. Data are used to drive learning and improvement rather than defensiveness, and welfare objectives are intentionally aligned with enterprise goals, incentives and long-term planning.
Culture is built, or undermined, through communication and action. Employees quickly discern whether animal welfare messaging is authentic or merely performative. Clearly articulated, welfare-specific mission and vision statements can serve as powerful strategic and cultural anchors, but they carry weight only when reinforced through consistent messaging, predictable action and visible leadership commitment.
When words are backed by resources, training, recognition and well-communicated goals, a strong and durable animal welfare culture takes hold. For those leading welfare programs, this requires clearly communicating both short- and long-term strategic objectives that signal priorities, build leadership alignment and enable progress to be tracked over time.
Laying the foundation
As organizations moved away from a purely audit-based model toward a more holistic, operationally grounded approach focused on intentionally building an animal welfare culture, several key questions that would define the evolving program had to be addressed.
One of the first and most important questions was a basic one: Who owns animal welfare? In our case, we wanted to create a program in which it was clear that everyone who worked directly with our birds had the shared responsibility of owning animal welfare. We recognized that culture did not exist in a vacuum; it was shaped every day by engagement, empowerment and appropriate actions of every individual involved in the process.
Another question that organizations had to address was where within the structure the animal welfare function should reside. There is not one correct answer. In practice, I have seen the welfare function housed within operations, food safety and quality, or sustainability. It may operate as a standalone group or be integrated directly into operations.
Where it sits is not critical. What is critical for effective poultry welfare programs is explicit leadership. Roles and responsibilities must be clearly defined, and accountability must be embedded across the organization, from the hatchery to the farm and from live haul to processing. Ultimately, if the individuals responsible for welfare cannot influence the decisions that shape bird care, welfare becomes symbolic rather than operational, eroding accountability and undermining the culture needed to consistently deliver strong welfare outcomes.
As we assessed our program and set its future direction, we had to be honest about the operational maturity of our production system. Poultry production is complex, fast-moving and highly automated, with birds constantly interacting with people, equipment and environments that must function efficiently at scale. In that context, foundational welfare elements are non-negotiable.
We established clear expectations supported by robust standard operating procedures, job-specific training and competency testing, and strong accountability mechanisms such as whistleblower protections and verification through first-, second- and third-party audits. These were not administrative box-checking exercises; they were safeguards for the birds and for the people who handled them.
Just as importantly, the structure and governance of these programmatic components provided the scaffolding that sustained and reinforced the organizational culture being cultivated, ensuring welfare expectations were not only stated but also consistently lived.
Culture in action
We believed a culturally based program would sustain employee engagement because it intentionally connected organizational intent to the operational realities of the people who handled the birds. Shared values and purpose clarified why animal welfare matters, while a common language and clear expectations helped employees understand what “good” looked like and how their actions contributed to animal welfare outcomes.
We reinforced this through simple, memorable phrases that emphasized both individual ownership (“100/0” — 100% accountable, zero excuses) and collective responsibility (“See it? Stop it!” — awareness and action for the birds, each other and the process). When managers consistently modeled welfare-first behaviors and held themselves accountable, they signaled that engagement was expected, supported and safe.
Psychological safety and trust are critical, allowing concerns to be raised early and recognizing frontline ownership and expertise as strengths rather than risks. This shared ownership at every level reinforced the idea that animal welfare did not belong to a single function or role but was lived by those working with birds every day.
Education and training, grounded in science and a framework like the Five Domains, helped employees connect the assessment of animal welfare outcomes to both the physical and affective states of birds, shifting welfare from rule-following to informed, active engagement. A focus on behaviors and outcomes, supported by continuous learning and improvement, keeps employees involved in promoting positive outcomes and mitigating welfare compromise, rather than solely reacting to system failures.
Finally, sustained engagement depends on reinforcement. When incentives, recognition and consequences align with welfare goals, employees see that what they are asked to value is genuinely valued by leadership. Celebrating progress, highlighting innovation and acknowledging teams when things go right reinforce desired behaviors and build pride. In this way, culturally based programs do more than drive compliance; they empower people, strengthen accountability and create conditions for sustained engagement and better outcomes for the birds.
Evolution of animal welfare programs
Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to design, develop and assess a wide range of animal welfare programs. Over time, I have found it helpful to broadly classify these programs as elementary, maturing or enriching, based on several factors: their core components and activities, the approach to welfare management and, most importantly, the level of culture the organization has achieved. Although organizations may move between these stages over time, each category reflects a fundamentally different mindset about how animal welfare is understood, managed and sustained.
Elementary programs
Elementary programs are largely compliance-driven. They focus on meeting industry standards and passing required audits, with success defined almost entirely by audit performance. These programs tend to prioritize rules over continuous improvement and are often reactive rather than proactive, responding to issues after they occur rather than working systematically to prevent them.
Transparency is limited, and stakeholder engagement is typically confined to what is strictly required. Although elementary programs can establish a basic foundation and provide assurance that minimum expectations are being met, they rarely drive meaningful or sustained improvements in welfare outcomes.
Maturing programs
Maturing programs represent an important evolution. At this stage, organizations begin to build cultural commitment supported by more robust foundational elements. Governance structures become clearer, with formalized roles and responsibilities for animal welfare defined across the organization. Standard audits remain important, but they are supplemented by an increased focus on continuous improvement and the introduction of key welfare indicators (KWIs) to help monitor performance.
Organizations may begin to share select welfare metrics with customers or other stakeholders, signaling greater transparency. Success is no longer judged solely by audit scores but by a combination of compliance and performance on measurable welfare outcomes. Although culture is still developing, the organization is actively moving beyond checklist compliance toward a more operational and outcome-oriented approach.
Enriching programs
Enriching programs reflect the highest level of maturity. In these organizations, animal welfare is fully embedded in culture, strategy and leadership identity. Engagement, accountability and ownership are sustained at all levels, and routine, meaningful engagement with stakeholders is the norm rather than the exception.
Research, innovation and data-driven decision-making are actively used to drive continuous improvement. Clear welfare goals and KWIs are established, tracked and often reported publicly. Importantly, welfare objectives are integrated into broader enterprise goals, with incentives aligned to performance outcomes. Leaders not only model welfare-first behaviors internally but also demonstrate leadership externally, contributing to industry advancement. At this stage, animal welfare is no longer a program — it is part of how the organization defines success.
Across all three classifications, the distinction is not whether audits or standards exist — they do at every level — but how they are used. Elementary programs use audits to prove compliance. Maturing programs use them as part of a broader management system. Enriching programs treat them as one verification tool within a deeply rooted culture of accountability, learning and continuous improvement. This progression reflects a shift from managing welfare as a requirement to leading welfare as a core organizational value.
Knowing your starting point, raising the bar
Every organization is at a different stage in the maturity of its animal welfare program, and meaningful progress begins with an honest assessment of where you are today, followed by a deliberate commitment to take the next step.
Here are three steps an organization can take to continue to evolve its program:
- Move beyond audits and build welfare as a management system. Stop treating animal welfare as something you demonstrate periodically and start managing it as something you deliver every day. Use audits as verification tools, not the definition of success. Incorporate outcome-based indicators, continuous feedback loops and operational ownership that reflect how welfare performs over time, not just how it looks on audit day.
- Make animal welfare everyone’s job. Clarify ownership. If the people responsible for animal welfare cannot influence decisions affecting bird care, then welfare will remain symbolic rather than operational. Define roles, decision rights and accountability across the system, and ensure frontline teams are educated, empowered and expected to act. Culture does not emerge organically; it must be intentionally designed and reinforced.
- 3. Align leadership, incentives and culture with welfare outcomes. Examine what your organization truly rewards. Align incentives and recognition with welfare performance. Communicate clear short- and long-term welfare objectives, resource them appropriately and celebrate progress. When leadership commitment is visible and consistent, sustained engagement and better outcomes for birds follow.
The evolution of animal welfare programs ultimately reflects a shift from demonstrating compliance to delivering consistent outcomes. Audits and standards remain essential, but their role changes, from defining success to verifying it within a broader, outcome-driven management system.
Organizations that make this transition recognize that welfare cannot be integrated into a system. Rather, it must be intentionally designed, operationalized and reinforced through clear ownership, aligned leadership and the disciplined use of data. When these elements are in place, animal welfare becomes both a moral obligation and a source of operational strength.
The progression from elementary to enriching programs is less about added complexity and more about deeper accountability and engagement. As organizations advance, responsibility shifts from centralized oversight to shared ownership, and success is defined by sustained performance, not point-in-time results. Organizations that lead treat culture as the primary lever for change by sharing ownership, aligning incentives, empowering frontline teams, embracing continuous improvement and embedding welfare into everyday decisions. In doing so, they move beyond meeting expectations to setting the standard for the future.
Editor’s note: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.
