
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Vet. Sci.
Sec. Animal Behavior and Welfare
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fvets.2025.1575471
This article is part of the Research TopicThe Future of Farm Animal Welfare Science: Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on the Welfare Assessment of Animals at Farm Level (WAFL)View all 4 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
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 dialogue 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 towards 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.
Keywords: assessment, Control, experience, legislation, private standards, Working environment
Received: 12 Feb 2025; Accepted: 10 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Lundmark Hedman, Rodriguez Ewerlöf, Frössling and Berg. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Frida Lundmark Hedman, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary Material
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.