Environmental communication and animal welfare

Environmental communication (^{Aguiar & Cerqueira, 2012}; ^{Anderson, 1997}) within all participants engaged in message exchange is permeated by what Julia Corbett refers to as “environmental ideologies” (2006), which are shaped over one’s lifetime according to geographic and cultural contexts. These ideologies provide an interpretative framework for events, encompassing both personally experienced and mediated occurrences, thereby constituting a “way of thinking about the natural world to which an individual turns to justify actions towards it” (^{Corbett, 2006, p. 26}). Although implicit in conservationist and preservationist ideologies, the relationship with non-human animals is primarily addressed within the ethical or value-oriented environmental ideologies described by the author, which adopt more of an ecocentric approach rather than an anthropocentric one.

According to the latter environmental ideologies, which encompass land-based ethics and animal rights, non-human entities possess an intrinsic value that transcends utility, scientific, aesthetic, or even religious considerations. Therefore, humans would have moral and ethical duties towards these entities, which have a “right” to exist. Nonetheless, it is only within transformative environmental ideologies positioned at the most ecocentric end of the spectrum -including ecological sensitivity, deep ecology, social ecology, ecofeminism, and Native American ideologies- where a radical questioning of the moral hierarchy within the biotic community occurs, with all species being regarded on equal footing, as advocated by anti-speciesism (^{Méndez, 2016}).

In Latin America, Andean cosmovision (^{Acosta, 2013}) can be placed on the ecocentric pole of Corbett`s spectrum of environmental ideologies. However, it should be noted that the region’s environmentalism has had a clear focus on the social and political aspects of the environmental crisis -the “ecology of the poor” (^{Martinez Alier, 2011})-, with the defense of human rights at the forefront instead of the biological community (^{Vanhulst, 2015}).

These long-duration interpretative frameworks about the link between humans and non-human nature can contribute to a better understanding of the different discourses articulated around the relatively new concept of animal welfare. Animal welfare, as defined by the Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OMSA), entails “living free of hunger, thirst, and malnutrition, free of fear and distress, free of heat stress or physical discomfort, free of pain, injury, and disease, and free to express normal patterns of behavior” (^{OMSA, 2006, art. 3.7.1.1}).

Recent findings reveal differences marked by age relating to the moral vision about certain animal species compared to others (^{McGuire et al., 2022}), which leads to justifying damage inflicted on them or not. The study reveals that animal-categorization and moral hierarchy based on species -speciesism (Caviola et al., 2019)-, develops and changes throughout the upbringing. Children showed less speciesism, while teens and adults tend to distinguish more in their treatment between animals, with a larger propensity to view farm animals as food.

In this context, this article reports on a study aimed at analyzing the public discourse of non-traditional Uruguayan eco-influencers on the social media platform Instagram. The study sought to describe the extent and the characteristics by which the emerging agenda of animal welfare is reflected in their posts.

Environmental discourse on social media

Analyzing online public discourse, especially the one that pertains to emerging agendas such as environmental sustainability, in their diverse aspects, is a recent and growing trend (^{Anderson, 2021}; ^{Pearce et al., 2019}; ^{Pearson et al., 2016}). Nonetheless, a review of the literature around climate change communication -one of the environmental issues related to animal welfare- concludes that “popular platforms, such as YouTube and Instagram, remain to be scarcely studied” (^{Pearce et al., 2019, p. 3}). The study of influencers also has a brief history in academic literature, even though this character updates the role of the “opinion leader” already conceptualized during the forties by ^{Lazarsfeld et al. (1944)}, some authors refer to them as “digital opinion leaders” (^{Schmuck et al., 2022}).

Social media discourse analysis of antispeciesism organizations revealed that social networks had become “the interactive support for constructing a network of networks and transcending traditional communication channels where the subject [of speciesism] remains expelled” (^{Méndez, 2016, p. 181}).

Additionally, the analysis of vegan influencers on Instagram discovered that they focused on nutritional alternatives associated with a healthy lifestyle; they do not necessarily possess specialized professional education nor do they consult expert or scientific sources (^{Romero-Cantero et al., 2022}). This is a trend that also manifests in the environmental activism of individuals on other social networks: “Non-experts, including teens, youngsters, and adults, use TikTok to express their concerns, frustrations, and personal interest on what they perceive as issues of their time” (^{Hautea et al., 2021, p. 12}).

Research by ^{Ardèvol et al. (2021)} about environmental activism on Instagram reveals that eco-influencers tend to approach the issue from the perspective of individual action and with an imperative tone. Supplementary studies by the same authors highlight that eco-influencers promote a particular type of activism based on a lifestyle and resort to personal narratives to mobilize and generate change (^{San Cornelio et al., 2021}).

Profile and activity of eco-influencers who refer to animal welfare

22.5 % (45) of the sample of 200 environmental publications were published on Instagram during the studied period reference animal welfare and refer to nine of the 17 Uruguayan eco-influencers identified in the study. The Instagram accounts’ public information provided demographical and socio-economic data that allowed to characterize them (see Table 1).

None of the eco-influencers on Instagram show evidence of education in disciplines related to animal welfare in their biographies or publications. Furthermore, most do not identify as animalist, vegetarian, or vegan, except for Influencer 9, whose publications promote vegetarianism and veganism through actions on the street. In the case of the nine eco-influencers who expressed opinions on animal welfare, it can be observed to what extent they did so compared to their environmental posts and total posts during the one-year period under consideration (see Figure 1).

Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 1 Number of non-environmental, environmental, and animal welfare publications 

Proportions show that animal welfare is not a recurring subject, even among those who accumulate more publications about the issue, and that most eco-influencers dedicate less than a third of the annual posts on environmental problems to animal welfare.

Multimodal analysis of the publications

The 45 publications about animal welfare that form the sample were subject to multimodal analysis (^{Jewitt, 2016}) to characterize environmental discourse and its intersection with the sensitive animal welfare agenda on Instagram.

Mode and semiotic resource

The analysis of these Instagram publications about animal welfare identified different communication modes, such as writing, spoken word, images, and emojis. Audiovisual modes are predominant, although all publications include text in the description. A balance was found between using videos (21 reels) and still images (19), with some cases incorporating additional elements like infographics or texts and logos on the image.

The semiotic resource in the Instagram publications manifests through the utilized words, the text, the image composition, and the elements integrated between them. Most publications (31 out of 45) focus on wild animals in their natural habitat without human presence, while the remaining images referring to animal welfare focus on the influencer or a specific product.

Emojis were utilized in 28 of the 45 publications, but their use wasn’t uniform. In the analyzed publications, emojis serve different functions, such as supporting the statements, expressing emotions, captivating attention, or organizing the text in the description. A specific use pattern was not identified, even though some emojis are used repeatedly (see Figure 2).

Source: Self-made collage. Images taken from “WhatsApp Emoticon Dictionary: Meaning of Each Emoji”, by ^{Valero (2023)}.

Figure 2 Emojis that appeared more than once in the 28 publications that use them 

37 of the 45 publications about animal welfare used hashtags to highlight the text’s central ideas or related concepts. They do not correspond with campaigns or joint actions, except for some publications by Influencer 8, who uses the “#ConocerParaConservar [#KnowToPreserve]” hashtag in 10 of her 25 publications. Another semiotic resource used in various videos by the four photographers was the presence of animal or natural environmental sounds: the croaking of frogs, the singing of birds, or the sound of the waves, for example.

Modal affordance and multimodal ensemble

95 % of publications include photos or videos authored by the influencer, transmitting their direct experience to the audience. When analyzing the publications’ multimodal ensemble, certain repetition is observed in some of them, although there is no predominant trend. In such cases, the spoken discourse (of the videos) or the information provided by the still image is ratified by the written text in the description box.

Other publications, which are the majority, go for complementarity, where the video or still image illustrates the description text’s information, even reversing the traditional Instagram “hierarchy” of image over text. Such publications are the ones centered around animals, ecosystems, and natural sights.

Influencer 8’s multimodal ensemble stands out in the sample. In five of her publications, she creates carousels (galleries) where photos, text, and elements such as color blocks and logos are integrated (see Figure 3).

Source: Self-made collage. Screenshots taken from Influencer 8’s Instagram account.

Figure 3 publications where several semiotic resources converge 

Meaning functions

On an ideational or representational level, two predominant thematic axes are identified in the analyzed publications about animal welfare:

The most widespread environmental issue is represented in these eco-influencers’ discourse as associated with the personal use of more sustainable products. Notwithstanding, when the issue of animal welfare is introduced, ecosystem and animal conservation prevails.

In light of the six supra-groups of animal welfare subjects identified by ^{Renzi et al. (2016)}, 36 publications (80 %) were aligned with Protectionism in defense of wild animals, based on the preservation-devastation discursive dynamic.

A considerable distance away, five of the 45 publications about animal welfare belong to Protectionism focused on consumption (nourishment, clothing, experimentation, etc.), based on the life-death discursive dynamic; three belong to Protectionism focused on animals’ new legal rights, with its subject of law-object of law dynamic; and one to Protectionism focused on urban fauna (pets), that distances from the adoption-profit argumentative duality towards advertising a product destined to sedate dogs and cats suffering from stress.

The sample did not contain any publications referring to Entertainment-based protectionism or Protectionism focused on animal rehabilitation, an indicator that this group of eco-influencers is not associating these issues with any environmental concern (see Figure 4). Neither veganism nor vegetarianism were relevant subjects in the sample.

Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 4 Number of publications in each supra-group of the public discourse analyzed 

The issue’s treatment variable accounts for the communications’s tone and allows to approach the feelings and the intention of the influencer’s communication. Most analyzed publications (32 out of 45) have a descriptive tone. Among them are multiple publications that show and simply describe wild animals, their habitat, and their importance, with the call to action only appearing on hashtags like “#ConocerParaPreservar”, where the publication’s persuasive intention is revealed.

Another group of nine publications utilizes a celebrative tone, where a favorable action towards animal welfare, the beauty of a species or, mainly, the product’s qualities, are highlighted. Four publications carry a predominantly imperative tone, where a direct and urgent call to action is made around two subjects: the use of single-use plastics and their disposal, and the urgency to preserve oceans in order to ensure the survival of marine species such as the southern right whale, the Franciscan dolphin, the Commerson’s dolphin, sea lion colonies and occasional specimens such as elephant seals and various species of birds and sea turtles. No publications treated the subject as critical (see Figure 5).

Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 5 Treatment of the subject 

The publication’s function identifies the objective that the influencer apparently has with the multimodal ensemble they generate. In the analyzed sample, 31 of 45 publications focus on providing information and educating their audiences, under the premise that knowledge is the motor of change and action. Secondly, eight publications were placed in the consumer awareness category, where the main focus is on the use of cruelty-free products and fashion with alternative materials. Thirdly, seven publications spoke about recent actions or events, such as the rescue of a beached whale, and three of them focused on veganism (see Figure 6).

Note: Publications are categorized into educational function (left), conscious consumption (center), and event or action (right).

Source: Self-made collage. Screenshots obtained from the Instagram accounts of Influencers 8, 1, and 6.

Figure 6 Publications corresponding to the analyzed functions 

Although the predominance of the educative function in the publications and the persuasive approach on others is evident, only eight of the 45 posts mention information sources qualified to support data, information, or certain assertions. The other 37 do not specify any source of information.

The variable named Scope of development of the subject refers, via any semiotic resource, to the place where the influencer sets the subject of the publication or the call to action. The vast majority place the agenda of animal welfare on the sphere of individual lifestyle, with decisions on the domestic level and consumption choices that prevent negative effects on animal welfare and preservation, although without a large emphasis on vegetarian or vegan practices (only three of the 45 publications make direct mention and three others mention vegan beauty products). Trailing far behind is the community aspect, with two publications referring to actions that imply joint effort at the social-community level, such as the rescue of a beached whale. Lastly, there is one publication on the political area where a trip to Isla de Lobos with a tourism agency, a congressman, and national and departmental authorities is mentioned.

As more concrete evidence of meaning through interaction, there is explicit mention of other stakeholders’ Instagram accounts in 28 of the 45 publications. Nine were directed to commercial brands or ventures, with four of them being the same hair cosmetics brand, as part of their alliance, and three others to state stakeholders.

Hand in hand with the scope of the development of the subject and the mention of other Instagram accounts, the attribution of responsibility of the publications was analyzed, identifying who the influencers deem responsible for acting on the situation. The responsibility attributed to the individual as a consumer is emphasized (22 allusions), in line with the predominant placement of the subject in the individual’s lifestyle. Mentions of corporations, ngos, and the State only appeared in a reduced number of posts, whereas public figures and the media were not mentioned as stakeholders with a duty or responsibility towards the problem or its solutions.