Introduction
Over the past few decades, the egg production industry in various countries and regions has been transitioning away from conventional battery cages, with increasing adoption of cage-free production systems (i.e. single-tier, multi-tier, and free-range systems). This shift is driven by scientific inquiry, animal advocacy campaigns, consumer demand, legislation, and corporate commitments to procure cage-free eggs (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Liu and Weary2024; Mendez et al. Reference Mendez, Peacock and Butner2020). Conventional cage systems are widely used in egg production due to their perceived advantages in ease of hygiene management and lower production costs (Duncan Reference Duncan2001), and are associated with reduced disease and feather pecking (Hartcher & Jones Reference Hartcher and Jones2017), and lower mortality rates than some cage-free systems (Hemsworth Reference Hemsworth2021; Weeks et al. Reference Weeks, Lambton and Williams2016). However, hens in cage systems may experience musculoskeletal weakness (Hartcher & Jones Reference Hartcher and Jones2017), osteoporosis (Webster Reference Webster2004; Whitehead & Fleming Reference Whitehead and Fleming2000) and bone fractures (Shields & Duncan Reference Shields and Duncan2009; Tainika & Şekeroğlu Reference Tainika and Şekeroğlu2020). Moreover, the physical constraints of cages restrict movement and behavioural expression, preventing hens from performing highly motivated behaviours, such as foraging, dustbathing, perching, and nesting, and thereby negatively affecting their quality of life (Hartcher & Jones Reference Hartcher and Jones2017; Rodenburg et al. Reference Rodenburg, Giersberg, Petersan and Shields2022). Although cage-free housing presents management and welfare challenges, including higher risks of infectious disease (Erensoy et al. Reference Erensoy, Sarıca, Boz and Uçar2021; McMullin Reference McMullin2022), parasitic infections (Cornell et al. Reference Cornell, Smith, Crespo, Jones, Crossley, Snyder and Owen2022), smothering (Groves Reference Groves2021), bone fractures in certain systems (Rodenburg et al. Reference Rodenburg, Tuyttens, De Reu, Herman, Zoons and Sonck2008), and foot-pad disorders (Nenadović et al. Reference Nenadović, Vučinić, Turubatović, Becskei, Gerić and Ilić2022), it is generally considered to offer greater potential for meeting behavioural needs and supporting improved welfare when well managed (Rodenburg et al. Reference Rodenburg, Giersberg, Petersan and Shields2022).
The progress of cage-free egg production and procurement varies across different regions worldwide. The European Union (EU) banned conventional battery cages in 2012 (European Union 1999) and ten states in the United States of America (USA) have enacted similar bans (Ufer Reference Ufer2022). Furthermore, over 2,000 international companies from Europe and the USA have made public commitments to source cage-free eggs in their global markets (Chicken Watch 2026). A cage-free commitment is a voluntary commitment by food businesses to transition from sourcing eggs from conventional battery cages to cage-free systems within a defined time-frame, often including public targets for both shell and processed egg products (Mendez & Peacock Reference Mendez and Peacock2022; Shields et al. Reference Shields, Shapiro and Rowan2017). According to the latest data, over 60% of laying hens in the EU are housed in cage-free systems (European Commission 2026), and approximately 38.4% laying hens are cage-free in the USA (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2026; USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service 2026). By contrast, uptake of cage-free egg production in the People’s Republic of China (hereafter referred to as China) is limited, with 90% of laying hens housed in conventional battery cages (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Rose, Yang, Pirgozliev and Wang2018). EggTrack (2024) which benchmarks corporate self-reported progress on cage-free commitments across Europe, Asia-Pacific, the USA, and Canada, reports 715 commitments from 444 companies, with deadlines of 2025 or 2026. However, reported fulfilment rates vary regionally: Europe leads at 80%, followed by the USA at 73%, while Asia-Pacific stands at 57% (EggTrack 2024).
Corporate animal welfare commitments, if enforced, are powerful drivers for improving animal welfare (Sullivan et al. Reference Sullivan, Amos and Van de Weerd2017). The development of corporate commitments was associated with the increased adoption of cage-free systems in the egg industry worldwide, with each additional corporate commitment estimated to result in an average 0.035 percentage point increase in cage-free housing within a given country (Mendez & Peacock Reference Mendez and Peacock2022). Previous studies confirm that meeting committed companies’ demand for cage-free eggs is the primary motivator for producers to adopt cage-free housing systems in China, and the lack of purchases from business buyers impedes the adoption and expansion of cage-free operations (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Langford, Vigors, Zhao and Dwyer2025). However, research has yet to examine how Chinese corporates experience and navigate the practical challenges to implementation.
Existing Chinese research largely focuses on producers (e.g., Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Liu and Weary2024; Yang et al. Reference Yang, Langford, Vigors, Zhao and Dwyer2025) or consumers (Lee Reference Lee2024). Although some Chinese consumers prefer free-range products (Liao et al. Reference Liao, Cai, Lian, Huang, Sun and Ni2023; Liu et al. Reference Liu, Liu, Yao and Liu2023), their willingness to pay for cage-free eggs is often driven by perceived quality and taste rather than welfare considerations (He & Xiong Reference He and Xiong2024; Lee Reference Lee2024). Limited familiarity with the term ‘cage-free’ further constrains the development of consumer demand for such products (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Lin and Weary2023). A smaller number of studies, using publicly available information on websites, social media, and corporate social responsibility reports, investigated the policies and practices of global companies to improve animal welfare in their supply chains (Janssens & Kaptein Reference Janssens and Kaptein2016; Sullivan et al. Reference Sullivan, Amos and Van de Weerd2017; Tate et al. Reference Tate, Ellram and Kirchoff2010). Global companies increasingly integrate social and environmental considerations into their supply chain strategies (Tate et al. Reference Tate, Ellram and Kirchoff2010), and many major food companies recognise animal welfare as a business issue (Sullivan et al. Reference Sullivan, Amos and Van de Weerd2017). However, evidence suggested that animal welfare commitments are often less disclosed and less embedded within core governance structures than more established sustainability priorities, such as climate change (Janssens & Kaptein Reference Janssens and Kaptein2016; Sullivan et al. Reference Sullivan, Amos and Van de Weerd2017).
While academic research on food businesses’ implementation of animal welfare policies remains limited, industry-based reports provide insight into corporate experiences. The Global Coalition for Animal Welfare (GCAW), representing major multinational food companies, such as Unilever and Starbucks, has documented common challenges and enablers in meeting animal welfare commitments, including cage-free sourcing (GCAW 2024). However, most existing literature is not China-specific, and there remains limited empirical research examining tailored strategies to support corporates in fulfilling cage-free commitments in China.
China is the world’s largest egg producer, raising 3.3 billion laying hens in 2023 (FAOSTAT 2025), but only approximately 10% kept in cage-free systems. Expanding cage-free systems is therefore central to improving laying hen welfare at scale (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Rose, Yang, Pirgozliev and Wang2018). While early industry reports suggested that limited cage-free supply contributed to the slow uptake of cage-free production in China (GCAW 2019), more recent evidence indicates that supply has expanded, but insufficient and inconsistent corporate demand has become a key constraint, limiting producers’ ability to sustain cage-free egg sales (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Liu and Weary2024) and to expand large-scale operations (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Langford, Vigors, Zhao and Dwyer2025). According to Chicken Watch (2026), 106 cage-free commitments have been announced by companies operating in China, of which 16 have been fully fulfilled, 26 have not publicly disclosed implementation updates, and most report partial progress. Some challenges have been identified in global food industry reports, including limited or inconsistent supply in complex or emerging markets, difficulties segregating higher-welfare products within supply chains, regulatory constraints, traceability gaps, restricted access to assurance schemes, and limited purchasing leverage, while drivers include strategic procurement planning, credible third-party assurance, strong governance structures, and clearly defined accountability across the company (GCAW 2024). Without regulatory mandates, certification and assurance labelling schemes are often prerequisites for accessing major retail supply chains, serving as tools for compliance verification and market entry (Miele & Lever Reference Miele and Lever2014). In China, a cage-free traceability system was launched in 2024, generating anti-counterfeit codes issued to certified producers for use on packaging (Cage-Free Egg Traceability Platform 2025). Code allocations are aligned with each farm’s production capacity, and buyers can scan the codes to access the producer’s certification details (Cage-Free Egg Traceability Platform 2025). However, their role in supporting the cage-free market remains underdeveloped (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Langford, Vigors, Zhao and Dwyer2025).
Therefore, this study examines how certification schemes influence the transition to cage-free egg production in China and how food businesses perceive the enablers and challenges to sourcing cage-free eggs. By identifying factors that facilitate or constrain corporate implementation, the study aims to inform strategies that support sustained cage-free procurement and improvements in laying hen welfare in China.
Materials and methods
Participant recruitment
This study used semi-structured interviews to explore the perspectives of representatives from food businesses and certification schemes regarding the enablers and challenges to procuring cage-free eggs in China. We targeted food companies with international headquarters that have 2025 cage-free egg commitments, as these companies are considered frontrunners in transitioning to cage-free egg sourcing in China (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Liu and Weary2024). The study used chickenwatch.org, an online platform that tracks corporate commitments to sourcing cage-free eggs, to identify target companies. Managed by a coalition of animal advocacy organisations, the platform provides details, such as company name, industry category (e.g. retailer, food service, manufacturer), commitment date, target deadline, and geographic scope (Chicken Watch 2026). Participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. For food businesses, eligible participants were procurement managers responsible for sourcing cage-free eggs in China. For certification schemes, eligible participants were managers overseeing cage-free certification programmes that had certified Chinese cage-free farms and were operational at the time of the study. Individuals in unrelated roles within the company or organisation were excluded.
Participants were initially identified through QY’s professional network within the food industry and certification sector. Potential participants were contacted directly via WeChat, a widely used Chinese messaging and social media platform, with an invitation message outlining the study’s purpose and the voluntary nature of participation. Interested participants received an information sheet and a consent form prior to scheduling the interview. Snowball sampling was then used, with interviewees asked to suggest other individuals who met the inclusion criteria. In total, nine participants were approached, and two declined the invitation to interview because they did not meet the recruitment criteria.
The study recruited seven participants, including five from food businesses and two from cage-free certification schemes. Among the food business participants, two were from the food service and catering sector, two from restaurant chains, and one from the hospitality industry. Two of the companies were European and three were US-based. The participants held procurement director or manager roles and were responsible for sourcing cage-free eggs in China. The two certification scheme representatives were affiliated with national programmes developed and operated in China, rather than international certification schemes, and were responsible for developing certification standards, managing farm applications and audits, and issuing cage-free certificates. Recruitment of food industry participants stopped when interviews no longer generated new information. As only two active cage-free certification schemes operate in China (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Lin and Weary2023) and each was represented by one participant, no additional certification scheme interviewees were sought.
Data collection
The leading researcher (QY) conducted seven semi-structured interviews with seven participants in Mandarin Chinese between September 2023 and March 2024. Two interview guides were developed: (1) for food business representatives (Table 1); and (2) for cage-free farm certifiers (Table 2). The interview questions were initially created in English to allow all authors’ input and were subsequently translated into Mandarin Chinese for use during the interviews. For participants working in the food industry, the interview questions were tailored to understand their attitudes towards cage-free commitments, the challenges of implementing them, and strategies for successful fulfilment. The questions for the certification scheme managers focused on these schemes’ roles in the transition to cage-free egg production and procurement, and challenges and enablers during the transition.
Questions asked during interviews with representatives from food businesses to explore the enablers and challenges influencing their procurement of cage-free eggs in China
Table 1. Long description
The header row asks about the interviewee’s job position in their organisation. The first question is whether they have heard of the cage-free egg commitment made by many food businesses, with two bullet points: if yes, how they learned about the commitment; if not, the researcher explains what it is. The next question asks their opinion on food businesses’ cage-free commitments. The following question asks if they know any businesses that have fulfilled their commitments, with two bullet points: if yes, why they succeeded; if not, what challenges prevent sourcing cage-free eggs. The next question asks for solutions to overcome these challenges. The subsequent question asks what support food businesses need to source cage-free eggs. The final question asks to what degree companies will successfully fulfil their commitments by 2025 in China.
Questions asked during interviews with representatives from Chinese certification schemes to understand their role in cage-free egg production and procurement
Table 2. Long description
Starting from the header, the table presents the question: Can you tell me why your organisation launched cage-free egg certification schemes. The following rows list: How do you perceive the acceptance of your scheme from producers. Why do you think producers want to get certified by your scheme. Do you think getting certified helps producers to sell their eggs. How do you perceive consumers’ acceptance of your scheme. Why do you think consumers want to buy certified eggs. How does certification affect consumers’ decisions to buy eggs. Have you heard of cage-free commitments. What role does your certification play in cage-free egg sourcing for food businesses to fulfil their commitments by 2025. As a certifier, what support do you need to encourage more cage-free egg production and sourcing.
Additional questions were asked to explore the participants’ perceptions of food businesses’ commitment to implementation and the consumers’ acceptance of cage-free eggs. In line with the principles of semi-structured interviewing, where pre-prepared questions guide the conversation while allowing flexibility to explore topics important to participants (Longhurst & Johnston Reference Longhurst and Johnston2023), the lead researcher used follow-up questions to deepen the discussion and clarify key points raised during the interviews.
All interviews were audio-recorded using a Mi 10 device (Xiaomi Communication and Technology Ltd, China), and QY transcribed them into written Mandarin Chinese. The transcripts were then uploaded and analysed using NVivo software (QSR International Pty Ltd, Version 12). QY translated the selected quotations into English to present the findings in this paper. Having a single translator work with the data helped ensure consistency and reliability in translation and interpretation (Twinn Reference Twinn1997). To further enhance the accuracy and contextual integrity of the translations, a bilingual researcher with expertise in a related field was asked to review a selection of translated quotes, associated codes, and relevant excerpts. This process helped to ensure that the original meanings and contextual nuances from the Chinese interviews were preserved. Where needed, contextual details were added in square brackets to improve the clarity of quotations.
Data analysis
Thematic analysis was used to analyse these data. Thematic analysis is a method used to detect, examine, and describe recurring patterns or themes within qualitative data (Braun & Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2006). Thematic analysis has been successfully used in qualitative studies exploring stakeholders’ experience and practices of implementing environmental sustainability commitments in food companies (e.g. Mackay et al. Reference Mackay, Renker-Darby, Robinson, Shaw and Sacks2022; McDonagh et al. Reference McDonagh, O’Donovan, Moran and Ryan2024). QY followed the recommended procedures for the thematic analysis application suggested by Braun and Clarke (Reference Braun and Clarke2006): (1) familiarity with data; (2) initial data coding; (3) searching themes; (4) reviewing themes; and (5) naming themes.
QY listened to all interview recordings and cross-checked them against the transcripts to ensure accuracy and to become familiar with the data. A thematic analysis combining deductive and inductive approaches was applied to code the entire dataset. The deductive aspect of the analysis was guided by the researchers’ analytical interests and focus (Braun & Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2006). Based on previous literature, two overarching themes (i.e. drivers and challenges) and four corresponding sub-themes were identified before coding. These included internal alignment within companies, the availability of certification schemes as drivers, high procurement costs, and the complexity of transitioning multi-tier supply chains as challenges. These themes were then applied to guide the analysis of the interview data.
In parallel, inductive coding was used to capture insights that emerged directly from the data without imposing predefined structures or assumptions (Braun & Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2006). New codes that extended beyond the initial framework were grouped into emerging themes. Based on this process, a descriptive thematic map was developed to illustrate candidate themes, sub-themes, and codes. The final step involved reviewing and refining the codes and themes concerning the entire dataset to ensure coherence and consistency (Braun & Clarke Reference Braun and Clarke2006). In the Results, individual participants are identified using anonymised codes (e.g. P5 for Participant 5), with their affiliation sector (i.e. food business or certifier), following each quotation to ensure participant confidentiality.
Ethical considerations
The study received ethical approval from the Human Ethical Review Committee of the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh (approval code: HERC_2023_064). Before participating, all interviewees gave informed consent, were assured that the information collected would be used exclusively for academic research and were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without repercussions.
Results
This section presents key findings from interviews with representatives of food businesses and certification schemes regarding cage-free egg sourcing in China. The results are organised as follows: (1) the role and limitations of certification schemes in supporting cage-free transition; (2) internal enablers that facilitate corporates’ implementation of cage-free commitments; and (3) challenges that impede corporates from procuring cage-free eggs. These results provide a broader understanding of the current cage-free sourcing landscape by integrating perspectives from both procurement managers and certification scheme representatives.
The role and limits of certification schemes in cage-free egg sourcing
Perceived access to and acceptance of cage-free certification
Interviews with certification scheme representatives highlighted the importance of certification availability and market recognition as a critical external enabler for corporate cage-free egg procurement. Both certifiers noted that their schemes were developed primarily in response to corporate commitments, particularly those with 2025 timelines, and aimed to provide credible differentiation between cage and cage-free eggs. As one certification representative explained: “[We developed the certification programme] mainly because of the commitments set for 2025…there should be a way to differentiate between regular caged eggs and cage-free eggs, to provide a clear distinction” (P2 certifier). Another certifier emphasised that access to certification schemes removes a key challenge for companies that might otherwise delay action, and offers a clear procurement pathway, as well as eliminating plausible deniability: “If China doesn’t have this certification, they will say, ‘Ah, China doesn’t have it. Without it, how can we make a choice? How can we procure?’ But if the certification exists, they will feel the pressure to promote it and push for the procurement of cage-free eggs. Without excuses, they will have to start taking action” (P1 certifier).
In addition, according to P1, certification is used primarily to support business buyers, rather than individual consumers. This further suggests that current certification strategies are not oriented toward the mass market, where awareness of cage-free concepts remains low: “[Obtaining certification] is primarily for [producers expanding sales channels] selling to companies, primarily targeting the business sector. The mass market isn’t very familiar with it yet; the focus is mainly on the businesses … they understand the concept and will look at the certification. In contrast, individual consumers may not even be aware of the certification” (P1 certifier). P1 also noted that major international retailers in China recognise these schemes when verifying producers’ cage-free claims: “For certifications in China, international retailers operating within the country generally recognise them. It primarily applies to companies that require procurement certification. They are aware of these certifications and will verify the [producers’] certificates” (P1 certifier). Therefore, from the perspective of the certification schemes, certification functions as both a market enabler and an accountability mechanism. It verifies production standards and creates pressure on buyers to act.
However, an apparent disconnect emerged between these views and those of the food business representatives. Most corporate interviewees appeared unaware of the existence or availability of cage-free certification schemes in China, even though the certifications were established in 2017 and 2021, respectively, and have been operating across China (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Lin and Weary2023). One procurement manager, for instance, lamented the lack of nationally recognised standards for use in cage-free egg sourcing: “We have our internal standards and recognise some country-specific ones, such as the RSPCA and Certified Humane standards. However, there are currently no equivalent standards in China…” (P4 food business). These findings suggest a misalignment between the certification scheme’s intentions and business awareness. Certifiers position their schemes as market-enabling tools designed to support corporate commitments, yet food businesses report limited visibility or recognition of these schemes in the Chinese market.
Traceability, compliance and the role of government endorsement
A shared concern among both stakeholder groups was the lack of traceability and producers’ compliance with cage-free certification and animal welfare standards. For certification schemes, this issue undermines their credibility and risks diminishing their value. As one certifier explained, without effective monitoring, certification could be manipulated: “While certification is important, the question now is how to supervise certified producers effectively. Are they truly selling cage-free eggs? Or are they passing off caged eggs as cage-free? This is a critical concern. If someone uses a certificate to mislead the market, the certification may lose its intended value, or worse, have a negative impact. That’s why we need to move into a more robust stage of regulation, which requires establishing a traceability system” (P1 certifier).
Concerns about the lack of transparency and verification were echoed by food business representatives, who highlighted the difficulty of tracking cage-free egg use across complex supply chains. This challenge is especially pronounced for companies that purchase processed or egg-containing products through multi-tier supply chains. One procurement manager from an international food brand described the internal uncertainty around confirming that upstream suppliers had fully transitioned: “We find it challenging to claim [100% use of cage-free eggs]. How can we ensure that this transition has actually happened? Who will verify it? Who will oversee it?… we lack a mechanism to 100% ensure that our upstream suppliers, and even their upstream suppliers, use only cage-free egg ingredients for production” (P7 food business).
To address these concerns, one certifier noted ongoing efforts to develop traceability platforms to enhance monitoring capabilities. However, certifiers and several food business representatives emphasised that industry-led initiatives alone are insufficient without broader regulatory support. A recurring theme in the interviews was the absence of government endorsement for cage-free production and certification. One certification representative called for stronger government-led oversight mechanisms, while food business respondents stressed that, in the Chinese context, governmental support is crucial for widespread implementation. One participant commented: “In China, it is impossible to promote something without government support. When it comes to cage-free production, have any government departments officially backed it? I haven’t seen any” (P5 food business). Another participant noted that in the absence of national legislation or policy frameworks, companies must assume full responsibility for traceability and compliance, leading to a challenging transition: “It becomes quite frustrating if I find a poultry farm that claims to meet the [cage-free] standards but cannot provide any government-recognised certification to back it up. Without government support for such policies, although some companies may achieve it in the coming years, the overall implementation will still face many challenges” (P6 food business).
These findings indicate that while certification schemes improve traceability and establish credibility, their effectiveness is limited by a lack of government oversight. Without government-endorsed standards and inspection systems, certification remains vulnerable to compliance risks, and food businesses face difficulties in verifying cage-free sourcing across complex multi-tiered supply chains.
Overall, these results highlight the positive role of certification schemes in promoting cage-free egg production and procurement by offering assurance to corporate buyers. However, limited traceability, compliance risks, and the lack of government recognition constrain their impact. While certifiers viewed certification as a key enabler, food business participants showed limited awareness and raised concerns about verifying supplier compliance, revealing a misalignment between intended function and practical influence.
Internal enablers and support for cage-free egg procurement
Among food businesses, three internal enablers were identified supporting the procurement of cage-free eggs: (1) the establishment and support of cage-free commitments; (2) internal alignment and organisational buy-in; and (3) the adoption of a phased implementation approach.
Corporate cage-free commitments as a procurement driver
All five participants from international food companies were aware of their corporate cage-free egg commitments, which were typically initiated by their global headquarters in Europe or North America. In general, participants expressed strong support for these animal welfare policies. As one representative explained: “From the company’s perspective, I think this decision is entirely understandable and worthy of support… doing this … benefits animal welfare and the company’s brand image… It’s something we can agree with and support” (P7 food business).
These public commitments appeared to serve as guiding principles and strategic drivers, prompting companies to adjust their sourcing practices. One respondent described how their company’s global commitment directly shaped procurement decisions in China: “We are a wholly owned British company, and our Group has made a global commitment [to sourcing cage-free eggs]. This includes requiring all relevant countries to achieve the use of cage-free eggs by a specified deadline. This serves as our internal guidance and direction” (P3 food business). This participant further emphasised the importance of fulfilling these commitments, suggesting that the public nature of corporate commitments creates an imperative to deliver results: “I believe that leading companies ranked among the top are rarely non-compliant in such matters… It’s not just an internal corporate commitment; it’s a public commitment. There has to be a level of enforceability and achievement. So, whether these companies want to or not, or whether they can or not, they must deliver an outcome by 2025” (P3 food business).
The impact of corporate cage-free commitments was also noted by representatives of certification schemes, who observed that sourcing policies from food businesses had begun to influence farm-level production decisions. One certifier explained that producers responded to clear market signals from committed buyers: “These producers are very clever. They see the potential in this market. If they produce more competitively priced cage-free eggs, they can secure a very stable customer base…As long as the purchasing side says, ‘If you do this, you can sell to me,’ then the producer will be motivated to make the changes” (P2 certifier). Additionally, certifiers noted that cage-free eggs have grown more rapidly than other higher-welfare product categories in China, which was an unexpected trend, and they attributed it directly to the demand generated by 2025 corporate commitments. As one interviewee reflected: “The shift toward cage-free eggs is an entirely different trend from other animal welfare products…because there was strong demand from the end buyers. They were the ones driving it and requesting cage-free egg sourcing. In the past couple of years, producers have also started to recognise this shift and…many of them are already transitioning. When we first launched the [certification] schemes, we really didn’t expect the industry to move this quickly” (P2 certifier).
These findings suggest that public, time-bound corporate commitments guide internal sourcing decisions and serve as external drivers of market transformation, influencing upstream production and accelerating industry change.
Internal alignment and organisational buy-in
Participants in this study highlighted the importance of top-down decision-making and cross-departmental collaboration in driving internal alignment to fulfil cage-free commitments. Several respondents stressed that cage-free sourcing must be treated as a strategic priority across all levels of the organisation. Although her company had not yet begun implementing its cage-free commitment, one participant described the necessity of a directive from senior leadership: “Many multinational corporates or large companies that have made early progress in this area often rely on top-down execution. When a directive is issued from the top…the management is willing to bear the costs and has decided to invest in this area… This represents a top-down push to drive progress” (P3 food business). Another participant described her company’s progress in cage-free procurement as a strategic journey, requiring clarity and alignment at all levels: “It is crucial for the company to define this path strategically. This means that management must clarify the direction. At the operational level, once everyone is aligned with this direction, such as prioritising animal welfare and sourcing cage-free eggs, our actions will become much more resolute as we move forward” (P4 food business). This view was echoed by P7, who noted that buy-in from multiple departments, not just the procurement team, was essential for progressive implementation: “This definitely requires a top-down decision. Based on the company’s overall strategy, all management levels must agree with such an approach. Only when there is sufficient authorisation and recognition from the management of different departments, will our cross-departmental operational teams be willing to cooperate with us (i.e. the supply chain and procurement teams) to make such a transition” (P7 food business).
Some participants also described how their organisations were actively working to manage the financial implications of implementation, suggesting that organisational alignment included shared strategies for managing cost challenges. As P3 noted: “From our headquarters and group headquarters down to our local management teams, everyone is thinking about ways to offset the impact of increased costs or communicate and explain this information to our consumers…We also explore other avenues, such as mitigating the increased costs by implementing additional cost-saving measures…the additional costs incurred from these efforts are managed and absorbed through various means” (P3 food business).
Phased implementation approach
Although all interviewees reported that their companies had cage-free commitments with a 2025 deadline, many emphasised that implementation was a gradual process rather than an immediate shift. Participants stressed the operational complexity of fulfilling these commitments, including the time and resources needed for suppliers to transition.
P7 described the need for a staged transition across product lines and supplier tiers:
“The proportion for implementing this policy definitely doesn’t mean we have to reach 90% or even 100% by a specific year. Instead, it might involve transitioning certain products or suppliers at specific times. It’s not about making an abrupt change; it’s a gradual process because suppliers need to invest in production, build new henhouses, obtain certifications, and then complete the rearing process. This process is inevitably long. The transition must be adjusted according to actual circumstances” (P7 food business).
In addition to operational feasibility, participants believed that a step-by-step approach supports cost reduction and supply chain stability. As the supply chain matures, cage-free eggs are expected to become more affordable, easing consumer resistance driven by price. As P3 explained: “I think the growth of this industry is also very important. As the supply chain matures, the cost of supply gradually decreases. When the cost of supply decreases, the biggest challenge we previously faced, resistance or lack of acceptance due to high costs, will also gradually ease… As the supply becomes increasingly mature and stable, these premium products, while still high-end, will see their costs gradually become less premium” (P3 food business).
Public commitments set the strategic direction for cage-free sourcing, but participants emphasised that implementation depends on cross-departmental coordination and a gradual approach to managing costs, supplier readiness, and consumer acceptance. Both stakeholder groups recognised commitments as a key driver. As certifiers focused primarily on certification’s role in responding to market signals and shaping producer behaviour, they did not comment on issues of internal alignment or phased implementation.
Challenges that impede corporates from procuring cage-free eggs
All participants responsible for cage-free procurement identified two broad areas of challenge in transitioning to a cage-free egg supply chain: (1) increased procurement costs and financial constraints; and (2) supply chain complexity, stability, and continuity. The second theme encompasses three interrelated concerns: difficulty transitioning multi-tiered supply chains, limited supplier capacity, and risks to consistent supply.
Cost and financial constraints
Cost was consistently identified across interviews as the most significant challenge to cage-free egg procurement. Higher purchasing prices and limited internal budgets made it difficult for companies to source cage-free eggs. Several participants explained that headquarters rarely provide additional funding to support cage-free sourcing, leaving local operations to manage the cost increase within existing budgets. As one respondent described: “I think it’s unlikely that headquarters would provide an extra budget just for [buying cage-free eggs]. Generally, it has to be managed within your regular budget [in the local operations], and you have to figure out how to allocate resources for it…The economy is bad right now, and the external environment is also unfavourable. When the company struggles to survive… there’s no room to absorb [the increased costs for cage-free eggs]” (P3 food business). As such, the participants agreed that cost issues were a key reason why cage-free commitments stall in practice. P5 noted that the transition is unlikely to move forward without more affordable pricing: “The simplest or biggest issue with market acceptance is price… you need to bring the price down. Why can’t this project move forward in the current environment? It’s a pricing issue” (P5 food business).
Cost sensitivity in corporate procurement was also observed by one certification scheme representative, who observed that price remains the top priority for buyers. Those suppliers are excluded from consideration if producer prices exceed a company’s procurement budget. This observation echoed the concerns raised by food business participants regarding the difficulty of securing internal budgets for cage-free sourcing: “For corporate buyers, price is still the top priority. If your price is too high, they simply won’t buy it… These buyers, especially on the corporate procurement side, are cost-driven. You won’t even get into their supplier system if you’re not within their acceptable cost range” (P2 certifier).
Beyond internal budgeting constraints, participants highlighted the difficulty of passing additional costs onto consumers. While free-range or pasture-raised eggs are often perceived as higher quality and more marketable, cage-free eggs lack clear consumer resonance: “The concept promoted by [cage-free eggs] doesn’t align particularly well with the values of China’s end consumers… as it emphasises sustainability. The average consumer doesn’t care about this. When making purchasing decisions, who thinks about these things? Very few people do…these benefits are difficult to directly present to end consumers or to get them to buy into immediately” (P3 food business).
As such, several participants raised doubts about whether corporate cage-free commitments could be realistically fulfilled under current economic conditions. P7, though supportive of his company’s policy, questioned whether the timeline was realistic: “This transition requires consumers to bear additional costs. Most consumers may not agree to pay extra to support a company’s values… Many businesses now focus on improving performance, protecting profit margins, or simply surviving. You must address basic survival before encouraging consumers to understand a brand’s commitments better…I don’t feel particularly optimistic [about implementing cage-free commitment by 2025]” (P7 food business).
Corporates’ reluctance to absorb the additional costs of cage-free eggs also appeared linked to a perceived lack of internal value in such investments. As P3 explained: “Many stakeholders, from investors to shareholders, employees, and management, will have different thoughts, perceptions, and acceptance levels [of cage-free eggs] …When humans haven’t been fully protected, what’s the significance of protecting animals…?” (P3 food business). This tension between global commitments and local implementation challenges was further echoed by P5, who expressed frustration: “In the end, the Chinese operation foots the bill, and the ones spending the money bear the cost…I think foreigners are just a bunch of liars. Everyone is just making empty promises for political or self-interested purposes. … It’s all politics” (P5 food business).
These findings demonstrate that cost remains a significant challenge to cage-free egg procurement. Participants highlighted limited internal budgets, difficulty passing costs to consumers, and a lack of perceived business value in animal welfare investments. Certification scheme representatives echoed that corporate buyers are highly price-sensitive, often excluding suppliers if prices exceed procurement thresholds. Some interviewees expressed scepticism about meeting 2025 cage-free targets without greater consumer demand, external financial support, or a stronger alignment between global corporate commitments and local operational realities.
Supply chain complexity, stability, and continuity in the cage-free transition
Interviews revealed that transitioning to cage-free sourcing is especially complex for businesses reliant on multi-tiered supply chains, particularly those sourcing processed egg products rather than shell eggs. These companies typically procure egg-containing products from direct vendors, such as food manufacturers, who source eggs or egg products from upstream suppliers (i.e. egg producers and processors). For a complete transition to cage-free, changes must occur at multiple levels of the supply chain, which is beyond the direct control of the purchasing company. Moreover, limited purchasing volume reduces these companies’ leverage, as bakeries and manufacturers often use only small amounts of eggs in their products, which makes it harder to influence upstream practices. The layered supply chain structure also complicates oversight, coordination, and negotiation. One participant from an international coffee chain described these challenges: “We are a company primarily using deeply processed egg products. We rely on our contracted manufacturers to source from their upstream suppliers. This involves the high complexity of supply chain management, and the impact of hidden costs is significant. Additionally, our business volume accounts for only a small portion of the supplier’s overall business. So, I doubt whether they would adjust their internal procurement strategies or make upstream supply chain changes for the specific needs of a client like us” (P7 food business).
In addition to the complexity of multi-tiered sourcing, food business representatives expressed concerns about supply stability and continuity. These included limited production capacity, distribution constraints, and over-reliance on a small pool of suppliers. One participant described the need for adequate national-scale supply and flexible sourcing options: “First, do I have sufficient production capacity to meet my requirements? If I need to purchase 100,000 units but the entire market can only supply 110,000, that won’t work…the supplier must be able to support a nationwide distribution network…I can’t rely on just one supplier. I need multiple suppliers to ensure flexibility, allowing me to conduct proper bidding processes and create comprehensive supply plans…When your [supplier] options are limited, you might not find another suitable supplier to take over quickly if a farm shuts down” (P3 food business).
However, certification scheme representatives offered a contrasting perspective. While acknowledging the need for a reliable supply, one certifier expressed confidence that large-scale producers could meet corporate demand. As the Chinese egg industry has largely industrialised around large-scale conventional cage farms, one certifier cautioned against replicating a similar concentration pattern in the cage-free sector, particularly given that demand for cage-free eggs remains comparatively limited. Instead, they argued that efforts should focus on consolidating and optimising existing cage-free supply rather than expanding production capacity. They warned that over-concentration in a small number of industrial-scale farms could crowd out smaller producers and pose longer-term sustainability risks: “The supply from these existing large farms would already be sufficient to meet the needs of cost-driven buyers…We shouldn’t encourage too many enterprises to engage in large-scale production of cage-free eggs. If one 3-million-layer farm is established, or several such farms producing cage-free eggs are built, there would be no room left in the market for others to survive” (P2 certifier).
These findings show that corporate cage-free procurement is hindered by several challenges: high costs and limited budgets, the complexity of multi-tiered supply chains, and concerns over supply stability and continuity. While both certification schemes and food businesses recognised cost as a major challenge, their views diverged on supply sufficiency and scalability. Corporate participants emphasised operational risks and implementation feasibility, whereas certifiers focused on overall supply availability and the need to avoid market oversaturation. Addressing this disconnect may require mechanisms that balance commercial procurement priorities with long-term industry sustainability.
Discussion
This study examined how certification schemes and corporate procurement professionals perceive the drivers and constraints shaping cage-free egg sourcing in China. The findings suggest that certification schemes are intended to support market development by signalling assurance and responding to corporate demand, but their impact is limited by weak traceability, producer compliance, and a lack of regulatory endorsement. For the corporates, commitments, internal alignment, and phased implementation emerged as key enablers, while cost pressures, multi-tier supply chain complexity, and concerns over supply stability continue to impede progress. These findings underscore the importance of mechanisms that better align procurement practices with supply conditions and certification schemes.
The role and limitations of certification schemes
Cage-free certification schemes in China have primarily developed to facilitate corporate sourcing rather than to influence consumer purchasing, in contrast to markets such as the UK, the USA, and Australia, where certification often functions as a consumer-facing tool (Scrinis et al. Reference Scrinis, Parker and Carey2017). Historically, the absence of recognised certification schemes was cited as a challenge to sourcing (Welfare Egg Advancing Working Group 2023), and third-party assurance remains important for validating supplier compliance (Scrinis et al. Reference Scrinis, Parker and Carey2017). Thus, developing certification schemes can serve as a strategic lever to remove such challenges and accelerate the fulfilment of cage-free commitments.
In contrast, Chinese consumers typically show limited awareness of, and demand for, cage-free eggs (except for free-range eggs) (Liu et al. Reference Liu, Liu, Yao and Liu2023), along with a low level of understanding of cage-free labels (Lee Reference Lee2024). As a result, certifications currently have a limited direct influence on consumer purchasing decisions (Lee Reference Lee2024). To address this, consumer-facing businesses should implement educational initiatives to raise awareness and improve consumers’ understanding. For example, Sodexo, one of the world’s largest catering service providers, has actively sought to increase internal awareness of higher welfare standards and communicate them clearly to its clients (GCAW 2024).
This study also found that many food businesses were unaware of existing cage-free certification schemes and did not recognise their potential to support the procurement and production of cage-free eggs. This limited awareness aligns with previous industry surveys, which reported that companies struggled to source cage-free eggs due to concerns over the absence of authoritative production standards and credible labelling schemes (Welfare Egg Advancing Working Group 2023). This lack of awareness may reflect the timing of the interviews conducted in late 2023 and early 2024, when certification frameworks were probably still under development and not widely known. It may also be because many interviewed companies had not yet begun sourcing, and their representatives had not actively sought the relevant information. Nevertheless, the landscape has evolved. As of 2025, several cage-free egg certification and labelling schemes have been registered in China (State Administration for Market Regulation 2025), and dozens of cage-free farms have already been certified by one of the certification schemes included in the study (Cage-Free Egg Traceability Platform 2025). As such, sufficient communication between the certifiers and corporates needs to accelerate to make the certification schemes more impactful.
Concerns regarding traceability and compliance persist. Prior research identifies limited transparency and misleading labelling as challenges in China (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Lin and Weary2023; Welfare Egg Advancing Working Group 2023; Yang et al. Reference Yang, Langford, Vigors, Zhao and Dwyer2025), compounded by the absence of government-led inspection and labelling regulation. By contrast, some EU Member States have implemented mandatory labelling frameworks (Buller & Roe Reference Buller and Roe2014), and animal welfare organisations have played a watchdog role by publicly exposing fraudulent claims (e.g. Sutherland & Craig Reference Sutherland and Craig2020), including through undercover investigations (Montague Reference Montague2024). In the Chinese context, where advocacy groups tend to adopt cooperative approaches (Sinclair & Phillips Reference Sinclair and Phillips2018), private certification schemes assume greater responsibility for verification. The recent development of a traceability platform represents progress(Cage-Free Egg Traceability Platform 2025), and nine egg processing plants have also been certified under cage-free schemes (Animal Welfare WeChat Official Account 2025). Further research is needed to assess the role of such platforms and certification of processed egg products in facilitating cage-free procurement.
Finally, the absence of binding legislation and supportive policy frameworks constitutes a broader structural challenge to sustained cage-free sourcing in China. In contrast, bans on conventional battery cages in the EU and several states in the USA have acted as catalysts for industry-wide transition (Caputo et al. Reference Caputo, Lusk, Tonsor and Staples2023; Majewski et al. Reference Majewski, Potori, Sulewski, Wąs, Mórawska, Gębska, Malak-Rawlikowska, Grontkowska, Szili and Erdős2024). Prior research also suggests that legislation and regulation are China’s most direct means of improving farm animal welfare (Sinclair et al. Reference Sinclair, Lee, Chen, Li, Mi, Chen and Marchant2022). However, the introduction of animal welfare laws remains unlikely in the near future due to competing national priorities, such as food security, economic development, and agricultural modernisation (Li Reference Li2009; Reference Li2021). In this regulatory context, financial incentives and market-based instruments may offer a more feasible pathway for advancing welfare standards (Sinclair et al. Reference Sinclair, Lee, Chen, Li, Mi, Chen and Marchant2022). As GCAW (2024) noted, economic and technical support for producers is key to scaling up cage-free production and ensuring a reliable supply that meets business demand. While long-term legal reform may be desirable, near-term strategies should focus on leveraging corporate influence as non-regulatory enablers to close the implementation gap.
Internal enablers: commitments, alignment, and phased approaches
Corporate cage-free commitments provide strategic direction and are positively associated with housing system transitions (Mendez et al. Reference Mendez, Peacock and Butner2020; Sullivan et al. Reference Sullivan, Amos and Van de Weerd2017). In China, committed buyers have incentivised producer adoption and expansion (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Liu and Weary2024; Yang et al. Reference Yang, Langford, Vigors, Zhao and Dwyer2025), although animal welfare remains a secondary priority for many Chinese companies (Williams et al. Reference Williams, Amos and Button2025). However, commitments alone do not guarantee welfare outcomes. Reporting gaps, missed deadlines, and weak accountability mechanisms undermine progress (EggTrack 2024; n.d.; Open Wing Alliance n.d.; The Humane League 2025), potentially discouraging producers’ transition (Caputo et al. Reference Caputo, Lusk, Tonsor and Staples2023). Transparent reporting and credible monitoring remain essential. Participants emphasised that implementation depends on cross-departmental coordination and leadership engagement, consistent with prior findings on governance and sustainability integration (GCAW 2024). Assigning clear responsibility for farm animal welfare initiatives, whether at the senior management or operational level, is crucial for enhancing governance and ensuring effective delivery (Sullivan et al. Reference Sullivan, Amos and Van de Weerd2017). Case studies from other sectors, such as sustainable palm oil sourcing, suggest that the development and execution of sustainability strategies are inherently complex and depend on effective communication and cross-departmental collaboration (e.g. Kasim et al. Reference Kasim, Stöhr and Herzig2021). Clear internal responsibility and shared understanding of long-term objectives were viewed as critical to maintaining momentum (McDonagh et al. Reference McDonagh, O’Donovan, Moran and Ryan2024). A phased approach was considered particularly important and useful for corporates operating complex multi-tier supply chains (GCAW 2024; Gong et al. Reference Gong, Jia, Brown and Koh2018), though gradual implementation must remain time-bound to preserve accountability.
Challenges to cage-free procurement: costs, supply chain transition complexity, stability and continuity risks
Higher production costs remain a primary challenge to cage-free sourcing, particularly in emerging markets (GCAW 2024; Welfare Egg Advancing Working Group 2023). In China, surveys indicate that cage-free egg production costs are approximately 20–25% higher than those in conventional caged systems (Wright Reference Wright2022), with some estimates reporting increases of up to 150–300% (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Liu and Weary2024). These higher estimates likely reflect limited economies of scale and the relative immaturity of the cage-free sector in China. As most Chinese cage-free farms remain small-scale, it will take time for the industry to scale up production, reduce operational costs, optimise management to achieve price reductions and strengthen the cage-free supply chain (Welfare Egg Advancing Working Group 2023).
The challenge of overcoming higher procurement costs and financial constraints may partly arise from the difficulty of passing these additional costs on to consumers. Although consumers may express support for cage-free production, this does not consistently translate into a willingness to pay a premium or actual purchasing behaviours (Lusk Reference Lusk2018). In China, consumers’ willingness to pay for cage-free eggs remains limited due to price sensitivity (Lee Reference Lee2024), a lack of understanding of the term ‘cage-free’ and broader animal welfare concepts (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Lee, Lin and Weary2023), and a tendency to prioritise attributes, such as free-range, organic, or other specialty eggs (He & Xiong Reference He and Xiong2024; Liu et al. Reference Liu, Liu, Yao and Liu2023). However, it is debatable whether consumers should be expected to bear the full cost premium, particularly where this may compromise consumer welfare (Allender & Richards Reference Allender and Richards2010; Oh & Vukina Reference Oh and Vukina2021; Xie Reference Xie2023). Therefore, reliance on consumer demand alone is unlikely to drive a full transition (Caputo et al. Reference Caputo, Lusk, Tonsor and Staples2023). Collective procurement approaches or industry coordination mechanisms may offer alternative pathways, and their feasibility in the Chinese context requires further investigation.
The complexity of multi-tier supply chains emerged as a significant structural challenge, particularly for food and beverage companies sourcing processed egg ingredients rather than shell eggs. Similar governance challenges have been documented across sectors, including food, apparel, and livestock production, where transparency gaps and communication challenges across supply chain tiers impede the implementation of higher welfare standards (Johnsen et al. Reference Johnsen, Johnsen, Beske-Janssen and Marques2025; Santos et al. Reference Santos, Silva and Pereira2023; Wilhelm et al. Reference Wilhelm, Blome, Wieck and Xiao2016). Transitioning to cage-free sourcing in such systems requires coordination across multiple supplier tiers, where purchasing companies often have limited visibility, reduced leverage over indirect suppliers, and restricted control over upstream practices (Gong et al. Reference Gong, Jia, Brown and Koh2018; Johnsen et al. Reference Johnsen, Johnsen, Beske-Janssen and Marques2025; Najjar & Yasin Reference Najjar and Yasin2023). In this context, sourcing difficulties are not solely a matter of production capacity but reflect structural coordination constraints embedded within complex supply networks.
Perceived instability in cage-free egg supply has been identified as a key challenge for food businesses seeking to meet their commitments (GCAW 2024). While such concerns may be valid in certain Asian countries, such as India, where cage-free production remains limited (Rokade et al. Reference Rokade, Champati, Sonale, Wadajkar, Madheshwaran, Bhaisare and Tiwari2024), they appear less tenable in the Chinese context. It is estimated that approximately 115 million eggs are required annually to meet existing procurement commitments, with projected demand reaching 230 million by 2026 (Lever 2021). Yet, as of February 2026, the Chinese cage-free egg supply had already reached nearly 382 million per year (Cage-Free Egg Traceability Platform 2025), with several large-scale producers actively expanding their operations (Yang et al. Reference Yang, Langford, Vigors, Zhao and Dwyer2025). At an aggregate level, production therefore appears sufficient to meet projected committed demand. Concerns about supply instability may thus reflect informational gaps or perceptions of procurement risk rather than absolute shortages. Nevertheless, procurement outcomes may still be shaped by geographic distribution, product specifications, assurance requirements, and continuity considerations. Addressing these structural factors may require closer collaboration between corporates and key stakeholders, particularly cage-free egg producers, to improve transparency and coordination across the supply chain.
Towards market-based strategies for short-term progress
The interviews with corporate and certification representatives reveal that key challenges to sourcing cage-free eggs in China include cost and financial constraints, traceability and compliance issues, the complexity of transitioning multi-tier supply chains, risks to supply chain stability and continuity, and regulatory limitations. To address these challenges, participants suggested strategies, such as internal alignment, organisational buy-in, access to cage-free certification schemes, and phased implementation plans. While these strategies may address the challenges to each company’s operations, they do not directly tackle the systemic challenges of high costs and an underdeveloped cage-free supply chain. Given the higher costs and extensive scope of the required transformation, participants anticipated that scaling up production and fulfilling corporate commitments would likely take longer than the 2025 deadlines, before cage-free eggs can fully replace caged eggs for corporate buyers. Although reducing the costs of sourcing cage-free eggs will require time, the pledged companies must be further engaged to make progress towards a 100% cage-free commitment.
As the procurement of cage-free physical eggs and egg ingredients remains limited, the cage-free egg credits scheme may serve as a market-based intervention to help corporates fulfil their cage-free commitments and incentivise cage-free producers, particularly in challenging markets. Global Food Partners (GFP), a Singapore-based supply chain consultancy, develops and manages the scheme. Farms participating in the scheme can convert cage-free eggs into tradable credits, which companies and brands can purchase to offset their use of conventional eggs when sourcing physical cage-free eggs is not feasible (GFP n.d.-b). The physical cage-free eggs and the credits are traded independently, and the farms providing the credits do not need to be part of the corporates’ current supply chains (GFP n.d.-b). While this precludes businesses from making direct product claims, the model eliminates the complexity and cost of managing lengthy or opaque supply chains. By buying credits from certified producers, companies provide direct financial support to cage-free farms, helping them absorb higher production costs and scale up operations (GFP n.d.-b). This model, often called book-and-claim schemes, has been applied in various agricultural commodity sourcing to achieve sustainability goals, such as those for palm oil, soy, and sugar (Mol & Oosterveer Reference Mol and Oosterveer2015). Its potential applications have been discussed in the sustainable aviation fuels sector (Kranich & Haas Reference Kranich and Haas2024) and rice production (Demont & Rutsaert Reference Demont and Rutsaert2017). Companies can advance their cage-free commitments through this mechanism, promote better animal welfare, and support supply growth, even in markets where sourcing physical cage-free eggs and egg ingredients remains impractical (GFP n.d.-a).
The potential of the cage-free credits scheme has been discussed with stakeholders in the food business industry. A GCAW consultation report proposed credit schemes to address challenges related to availability, costs, and traceability. While respondents generally viewed such schemes as helpful in lowering costs and reducing logistical complexity for business buyers, concerns were raised regarding their effectiveness in supporting the development of local supply chains (GCAW 2022). Furthermore, another concern is the risk of greenwashing if credits are used as a substitute for physical sourcing (GCAW 2022), which can be mitigated through transparent reporting, clear claims guidance, and time-bound transition plans (Zu Ermgassen et al. Reference Zu Ermgassen, Bastos Lima, Bellfield, Dontenville, Gardner, Godar, Heilmayr, Indenbaum, Dos Reis and Ribeiro2022). Nevertheless, the cage-free credits scheme is recommended in markets where cage-free egg production remains limited or underdeveloped (GCAW 2022). Producers from various regions across Asia have already joined the scheme (GFP n.d.-c), and food businesses, such as Unilever and Compass Group, have announced their potential use of this strategy (Compass Group 2024; Unilever 2024). Recently, Lagardère Travel Retail, a leading global travel retailer, purchased cage-free credits to offset its use of caged eggs, achieving 67% cage-free fulfilment in Asia (Lagardère Travel Retail 2025). As this initiative is relatively new, the extent to which credits purchases drive additional housing conversions in China remains context-dependent and warrants further empirical evaluation. Future research should assess its effectiveness and potential trade-offs, particularly in relation to engaging corporate buyers, supporting commitment fulfilment, and enabling the growth of cage-free production.
Animal welfare implications
China is the world’s largest egg producer, yet the uptake of cage-free production systems with greater welfare potentials remains limited. While large-scale cage-free egg producers are primarily motivated by demand from corporate buyers with public commitments, slow progress in corporate cage-free egg procurement risks stalling or reversing producers’ transition decisions. Understanding the enablers and challenges committed companies face is essential for identifying strategies that can accelerate commitment fulfilment, sustain the momentum of cage-free production, and ultimately improve the welfare of tens of millions of laying hens in China.
This study highlights that corporate procurement teams are concerned about the costs and risks associated with supply chain transition, including supply chain complexity, stability, and continuity. Additionally, certification schemes must strengthen their traceability and assurance mechanisms to better support cage-free sourcing. As many 2025 corporate commitment deadlines have now passed, with many companies yet to fulfil their commitments, there is a need for practical strategies to address persistent bottlenecks and facilitate further implementation. Market-based mechanisms, such as the cage-free egg credits scheme, can provide financial support to producers and reduce procurement risks for buyers. This can help maintain corporate engagement and keep laying hens in cage-free systems while potentially enabling more hens to transition out of cages. As many corporate commitment deadlines have now passed and producers continue to face economic uncertainty, strategic incentive mechanisms may help translate commitments into concrete action and sustain improvements in laying hen welfare.
Conclusions
This study provides the first empirical analysis of the role of Chinese certification schemes and corporate actors in advancing cage-free egg sourcing in China. The findings suggest that while certification schemes have supported the development of cage-free production and procurement, structural challenges, including traceability limitations, high costs, multi-tier supply chain complexity, and policy gaps, continue to constrain implementation. Corporate enablers such as internal alignment and phased adoption strategies are important, yet insufficient on their own to ensure fulfilment. Addressing these challenges will require improved coordination, stronger assurance systems, and complementary market-based interventions. Emerging mechanisms, such as the cage-free credits scheme, may offer transitional support, but their effectiveness and long-term impact require further empirical evaluation.
Acknowledgements
We thank all participants for sharing their time, insights, and experiences.
Competing interests
The lead author (QY) is employed by Global Food Partners, the consultancy that manages and facilitates the cage-free credits scheme discussed in this paper. This affiliation is disclosed in the interest of transparency. The author affirms that the research was conducted independently and that no commercial or financial interests influenced the study’s design, analysis, or conclusions.
Open access
