Ethical perspectives of the Australian live export trade

Objective To examine the ethical perspectives of the Australian live export trade. Design and method The perspectives of farmers and other industry personnel, overseas consumers, the Australian public, veterinarians and the assumed interests of transported animals are compared in relation to the ethical consequences. Animal welfare, societal, personal and professional ethics are identified and the ratification of different perspectives considered. Results and conclusions There are positive and negative aspects of the trade for each stakeholder group, and the overall position adopted by any individual reflects their perspective of the balance of these components. The debate as to whether Australia should continue with the trade will be best served by consideration of the interests of all parties in the trade, including the consumers and animals, which are among the most affected by the trade. There is a need for further research to address the major welfare problems for the animals, an openness to inspection on the part of the trade and balance in media reporting.

Am I being treated fairly by my leaders? The roles of group identification and self-other comparisons in judgements of procedural justice

The current experiment focuses on the roles of social identity and social comparison in perceptions of procedural justice. Participants are randomly allocated to conditions in a 2 (whether the participant has the opportunity to voice an opinion), X 2 (whether the comparison other has the opportunity to voice an opinion), X 2 (whether the comparison other is an ingroup or an outgroup member), between subjects design. Participants are then asked to report the extent to which they perceive the procedure they are involved in to be fair. It is predicted that participants will have a strong feeling of procedural unfairness when they are not given an opportunity by the leader to voice their opinion, but learn that their comparison other is given that opportunity. It is also predicted that the feeling of unfairness should be stronger when the comparison other is an outgroup rather than an ingroup member. Additionally, participants receiving a fair treatment may regard the procedure as fair when their outgoup comparison other receives an unfair treatment. Results support these predictions and reveal that how people make judgments of procedural justice through social comparison is qualified by the social identities of the parties involved.