Consumers increasingly rate the ethical dimensions of food production, including animal welfare, as important to them but how these concerns influence their food choices remains unclear. To address this, a Discrete Choice Experiment assesses consumers' willingness to pay for chicken meat. The study aims to understand the effects of food labels (RSPCA Assured and Red Tractor), cause-related marketing campaigns, and price on consumers' willingness to pay. Drawing on a representative sample of 401 British consumers, we estimate a mixed logit model using the hierarchical Bayesian estimation method. The results for the full sample reveal a substantial price premium associated with the animal welfare label (RSPCA Assured); however, this is less pronounced than one of the cause-related marketing campaigns. A latent class analysis identifies two distinct market segments, price sensitive and concerned consumers, which differ on socio-economic and behavioural characteristics. Amongst price sensitive consumers, willingness to pay extra for an animal welfare label is negligible. Complementary, qualitative interviews reveal consumers' difficulties in comparing the varying standards that underpin quality assurance schemes.

越来越多的消费者认为食品生产的道德层面（包括动物福利）对他们很重要，但这些担忧如何影响他们的食品选择仍不清楚。为了解决这个问题，一项离散选择实验评估了消费者购买鸡肉的意愿。该研究旨在了解食品标签（RSPCA Assured 和 Red Tractor）、公益营销活动以及价格对消费者支付意愿的影响。我们利用 401 名英国消费者的代表性样本，使用分层贝叶斯估计方法估计混合逻辑模型。完整样本的结果显示与动物福利标签相关的大量价格溢价（RSPCA Assured）；但是，这不如与事业相关的营销活动之一明显。潜在类别分析确定了两个截然不同的细分市场，即价格敏感型消费者和相关消费者，它们在社会经济和行为特征上存在差异。在对价格敏感的消费者中，为动物福利标签支付额外费用的意愿可以忽略不计。补充性的定性访谈揭示了消费者在比较支持质量保证计划的不同标准时遇​​到的困难。