A typology of Australian beef producers and the sustainability challenge

Research aims

This research, therefore, aims to

Study participants and survey method

The survey sought to ensure a representative sample of Australian beef producers across geography, with a target aspiration of between 350 and 400 producers. The survey component of the research was conducted in August and September 2022. The survey was disseminated by a third-party research organisation, Chi Squared Research, a highly respected and well-used survey and research organisation related to agricultural issues in Australia with an extensive panel of agricultural producers. Chi Squared Research recruited participants specifically identifying as beef producers from this pre-existing database, which was not able to be accessed externally to the company. No thresholds were imposed to define the bounds of ‘beef producer’. All survey participation was anonymous and de-identified before the raw data were accessible. Ethical approval was obtained prior to the commencement of the study (Approval number 2022/HE001175).

Survey design

The development of Australian beef producer typologies was based on their perceptions of industry sustainability performance, as well as considering implications for sustainability communication. This included attitudes towards change, the environment, public perceptions and external threats.

Previous research by Faulkner et al. (2022) identified that the Australian beef industry faces challenges to do with culture (attitudes and behaviours reflective of the underlying values of those within the industry) as a barrier to change in the context of sustainability, and potentially skewed views of public attitudes towards industry. A key insight from Faulkner et al. (2022) and earlier work (Witt et al. 2020) is that people in the beef industry hold quite variable views on the definition and focus of sustainability from each other. For example, Faulkner et al. (2022, p. 11) identified the three broad areas of business viability and industry continuity, resource or environmental management, and a more traditional ‘sustainable development’ focus on the triple bottom line or ‘three pillars’ (i.e. economic, ethical (or social) and environmental dimensions). Because of these different perspectives, the current study draws on previous qualitative insights to develop questions that can determine how widely such perspectives are reflected in the survey sample. For this reason, we have deliberately avoided a prescriptive definition of sustainability in favour of a survey design that evaluates the range of potential understandings of this complex topic. A range of questions was also asked, on the basis of prior work (Witt et al. 2020; Faulkner et al. 2022) on media and culture to complement questions on perceptions of external threat to industry and change. The nature of this research, and lack of similar literature exploring producer attitudes to these themes, means that the authors were not in a position to draw from existing survey instruments and had to generate questions aligned with themes described above. Time and financial restrictions also limited the ability to pre-test all the constructs. The authors ensured that there were several questions on most concepts to test for consistency around these themes. To reduce the risk of contributing to survey fatigue or overburdening of participants, the authors avoided a second round of recruitment and participation.

To explore producer responses to sustainability challenges, beef industry emissions and climate impacts and mitigation issues were used as sustainability indicators in the survey because of the range of industry-led action and policies, including the setting of targets on carbon emissions (Australian Beef Sustainability Framework 2017; Red Meat Advisory Council 2019). To understand how underlying values shape different sets of perceptions on these concepts and sustainability challenges more broadly, the survey used the Schwartz PVQ21 instrument (Schwartz 2003). This is a widely used research tool to identify value typologies in sample populations, and has been applied to agriculture previously (Dobricki 2011; Baur et al. 2016; Ngigi et al. 2018). There are a range of approaches and instruments used to explore values, all of which have limitations (Hawcroft and Milfont 2010). Even though the Schwartz approach has been criticised for being influenced by social desirability (Schwartz et al. 1997; Danioni et al. 2020; Danioni and Barni 2021), it is widely used and has applicability in a number of contexts and has therefore been used in an exploratory sense for this research to determine its value.

Variables used for the cluster analysis

Three broad thematic areas, based on previous research (Witt et al. 2020; Faulkner et al. 2022), that appear influential in shaping perceptions of attitudes and perceptions within the beef industry towards both sustainability and a willingness to engage with its many dimensions, were considered as the foundation for determining typologies in this study. These three broad dimensions include attitudes and perceptions on industry sustainability, public support and climate-related impacts as a specific area of focus for the Australian beef industry related to change. These are outlined below, containing between three and four questions each. Each theme was subjected to reliability analysis, which was used to form three factors that underpinned subsequent cluster analysis and typology development. All questions utilised a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Questions that are reversed for analysis are denoted by (R). All analyses for this study were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics program (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Ver 28.0, Released 2021. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA).

Factor analysis on variables to generate clusters

The 367 survey responses were subjected to principal component analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics. Prior to performing this analysis, the suitability of the data for factor analysis was calculated. The correlation matrix showed most coefficients to be above 0.3. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value exceeded the recommended value of 0.6 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) for all variables, at 0.74 for perceptions of industry sustainability, 0.64 for perceptions of public support, and 0.70 for recognition of climate impacts. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant for all variables at P < 0.001 (Bartlett 1954). These values support the suitability of factor analysis for these data.

Additional questions used for the analyses

Participants were asked a range of questions related to their perceptions of the following (these are discussed in turn below):

Demographic information was collected, including age, gender, level of education completed, geographic location, type and scale of production system, and which market the producer mainly accessed (i.e. domestic or export). Overall comments were sought from participants as part of the survey, but responses to this were not compulsory.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were based on Dean et al. (2016). Hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis was used to identify clusters of sustainability attitudes of Australian beef producers by using Ward’s method. This approach was preferred because of the lack of existing research on perceptions of sustainability and communication in the context of beef production and allowed the clusters to be determined from the data rather than proposing clusters a priori. All clustering analyses provided the researcher with the opportunity to explore multiple outputs to explain the data. It was then up to the researcher, on the basis of the data, to determine the most meaningful number of clusters relevant to the topic (Tan et al. 2019).

Clustering was conducted using the factor variables of perceptions of public support, perceptions of industry sustainability, and recognition of climate impacts.

The attitudes of participants to a range of questions, that were grouped thematically, were assessed against cluster membership by using one-way ANOVA for continuous variables and chi-squared for tests for categorical variables. For all analyses in this study, a 0.05 alpha value was used to identify statistical significance.

Sample characteristics

Australian beef industry statistics indicated that the survey has captured a representative sample of producers. Survey participants had a mean age of 61.9 ± 11.7 years, with 75.2% being male responses. The mean age of the sample is representative of the average national Australian producer age of 64 (Meat & Livestock Australia 2021). Women represent 29% of red meat producers, which closely aligns with the 24.8% contribution to this survey (Binks et al. 2018). A quarter (25.3%) of the sample completed Year 12 education, and another 46% completed further education. Participants were primarily located in the eastern states of Queensland (Qld), New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria (Vic), with a third in Qld, a quarter in NSW, and a fifth in Vic. Approximately two-thirds of the sample was in southern areas, and the remaining third in the north. The southern regions were made up by participants from NSW, Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Vic, Tasmania (Tas), South Australia (SA) and all but one participant from Western Australia (WA).

Most of the survey participants run either calf to weaner, or grass-finished production systems, primarily at a smaller scale; 74.1% ran up to 500 animal equivalents (AE) and another 14.7% run up to 1500 head. This captures almost 90% of the sample, reflecting the national average herd sizes for both the northern and southern beef industry. The northern beef industry is characterised by a smaller number of larger properties with an average of 1576 head per farm (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2016). The southern industry runs 412 head per farm, on average. Because most of the sample is located in southern areas of Australia, the data captured by this sample reflect national industry data.

Outcomes of cluster analysis

The analysis indicated the most likely number of meaningful clusters (three, four or five). We explored the outputs associated with these and determined that three was far too coarse and provided little nuanced insights into the data. The option of five clusters resulted in one group that was only 9.8% (36 participants) of the sample, making interpretation of statistical analysis difficult. We therefore settled on a balance between simplicity and detail, at four clusters (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Mean factor scores for each of the full typologies. Note that an explanation for the names of the typologies is outlined below in Table 1.

There are two broad groups determined by perceptions of industry sustainability and responses to climate challenges. The first group thinks more positively about industry sustainability and is less concerned with climate and emission issues, whereas the second group is more critical of industry sustainability but is more accepting of, and acknowledges, climate issues as a challenge. The first group consists of Clusters 1 and 4, and the second group includes Clusters 2 and 3.

The perceived level of public support for industry differentiates these two broader groups into four. Clusters 1 and 4 have differing views of public support, where Cluster 1 does not believe industry has support and Cluster 4 has a more positive view. Clusters 2 and 3 differ in that Cluster 2 thinks positively about public support and Cluster 3 is more neutral.

The largest group of these was Cluster 1, which was 38.7% of the sample (142 participants). This was followed by Cluster 2 at 25.1% (92 participants), Cluster 4 at 20.4% (75 participants) and Cluster 3 with 15.5% (58 participants). On the basis of the variables used, almost 60% of producers are positive about industry sustainability and do not see greenhouse gas emissions and climate issues as a priority.

For ease of communication and meaningful representation of the data, clusters have been accorded names on the basis of their factor responses indicated in Fig. 1 above. The justification and logic that was used to develop labels is shown in Table 1, with examples of overall comments voluntarily offered by participants at the end of the survey. The labels may mask nuances within group perspectives and attitudes towards other sustainability-related concepts; however, the labelling assists in describing the groups.

Sustainability of the Australian beef industry by cluster

Acceptance and recognition of emissions impacts and climate targets

Perceptions of industry culture

Beef producers appear to respond more positively to questions about industry culture, although this varies (Table 8). The majority of participants across the whole sample are proud to be part of the beef industry in Australia, with an average response of 4.53.

The whole sample, on average, tends to agree more than not, that industry is open to new ways of thinking, but the Open minority appeared to be more critical about this than were the Vulnerable majority (P < 0.001), the Moderate quarter (P = 0.001) and the OK with the status quo (P < 0.001) groups. The Moderate quarter also scored considerably lower than did OK with the status quo (P = 0.001).

Despite generally positive views on the openness and responsiveness of industry, the Open minority is more neutral on several of these questions (Table 8 above), and some in this group may feel that industry culture could affect progress on sustainability. This contrasts with the Vulnerable majority (P = 0.001), the Moderate quarter (P < 0.01), and the OK with the status quo (P < 0.001) groups, which tend to disagree more that culture is holding industry back. Most participants appear to respond more neutrally to a willingness to call out poor practices in the industry. This is particularly true for the Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo, which were more likely to score higher on other culture-related questions.

Beliefs about public support

Views on media and public perceptions

Beef producers across the whole sample held largely negative views of the role of media in relation to their industry and public perceptions of its sustainability (Table 11). Negative news stories were, on average, more likely to be perceived as a personal attack (3.40), although the Moderate quarter and the Open minority scored more neutrally than did the Vulnerable majority (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 respectively).

The whole sample of beef producers, on average, perceived media to have too much influence on public perceptions. Although all clusters agreed, the Moderate quarter tended to agree less, particularly compared with the Vulnerable majority (P < 0.001) and OK with the status quo (P = 0.001) groups. The Moderate quarter and the Open minority were slightly more accepting of the media than were the Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo.

Perceptions of sustainability communication in the beef industry

The importance of sustainability communication was recognised by the participants (Table 12), with the whole sample average at >4.00. Internal communication was seen to be done well, although there were slight differences in the level of agreement among groups. This was reflected in responses to the questions on acknowledging poor practices, importance of communication, industry ‘talking to itself’, extension, and perceived internal communications success.

All groups believed that the public needs to be better informed about industry sustainability. The OK with the status quo group tended to feel more strongly about this than did both the Moderate quarter (P < 0.05) and the Open minority (P < 0.001). Questions related to external sustainability communication tended to divide the groups in a way similar to the perceptions of public support factor. For example, across the whole sample, external sustainability communication was not necessarily perceived to be effective, with responses tending to be more neutral. It is unclear whether this perception was driven by a view that the public and other external stakeholders are not receiving messages or whether they are receiving them but not believing them. However, given the respondents felt that the public needs to be better informed (Table 12), this would suggest that many of the participants felt that there is a lack of external communication or that it was not effective. There was more of a positive attitude towards external communication in the Moderate quarter and OK with the status quo groups, which mirrors their views on higher public support for their industry.

Willingness to adopt new ideas and practices

Most producers in the sample felt more confident in changing practices when they have been proven to work (Table 13). However, responses were close to neutral when it came to sticking to known practices. It is notable that the Open minority group did score lower on the questions related to the risk of changing practices, and confidence in practices they know.

However, most participants believed that they are open to new ideas but are more hesitant to change to practices they are unfamiliar with. Although the score for the Moderate quarter was statistically significant for this question (being lower than for the OK with the status quo), it needs to be kept in mind that the average score across all groups was >4.00.

What role do underlying values play?

The Schwartz PVQ21 instrument was used to explore potential differences in underlying values among producers. Overall, the whole sample tended to cluster around the middle of the openness to change and conservation scale, but more towards self transcendence on the self transcendence and self enhancement scale. There were no significant differences among the clusters, except for universalism and traditionalism. The Open minority has self-reported stronger universalism values than has the Vulnerable majority (P < 0.001), Moderate quarter (P < 0.01), and OK with the status quo (P < 0.001). The Vulnerable majority reported stronger traditionalism values than did the Open minority (P < 0.05).

Implications of sustainability perceptions

Most beef producers believe that the industry is sustainable and has a good story to tell about sustainability. However, the Moderate quarter is slightly less strong in its views and the Open minority is much more neutral. How clusters tend to rate industry-level sustainability follows a similar pattern when asked about their own enterprise sustainability. Clusters that perceive the broader beef industry to be sustainable were more likely to perceive their own production system the same way. Interestingly, there was a significant difference in the ranking of individual farm sustainability across all four clusters. Research has found that farmers that perceive their enterprise to be sustainable are less likely to implement sustainable practice change (Creemers et al. 2019). Producers from the Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo (~60% of producers) tended to agree that ‘the current focus on sustainability is distracting us from our core business of producing food’ and is a ‘more urgent issue for other beef-producing countries’, which is likely to inhibit engagement with these issues.

Producers rated how important different dimensions of sustainability were to them. Responses were similar across all groups except the Open minority. Profitability is an important consideration along with acknowledgement of the importance of environmental health and biosecurity. There is also a tendency to recognise the importance of a balance between dimensions of sustainability, which is consistent with existing research (Rivera et al. 2018). The drivers of these perceptions are unclear, although Kessler et al. (2016) indicated that farmers tend to draw on the discourse of balance between environmental and economic concerns for sustainability, but simultaneously hold potentially contrasting (termed ‘fragmented’ by Kessler et al. (2016)) views of industry to allow them to continue to identify as stewards, despite their involvement in a system that affects the environment.

Animal welfare, although rated highly, was not as high of a consideration in sustainability. This may merit more attention considering that animal well-being is a key theme under the Australian Beef Sustainability Framework and is an important consideration for consumer purchase and consumption behaviour. Research suggests that there is a fundamental difference in the way that livestock producers and the Australian public view animal welfare (Coleman et al. 2022). Similarly, although producers and the public are likely to share the same level of environmental concern, research suggests that producers differ from the public in their perceptions of particular environmental issues such as biodiversity or habitat protection, because it may be viewed to conflict with widespread productivist attitudes (Howley et al. 2014, 2015). These differences are important to note because a failure to meet public expectations for animal welfare and environment may have implications for industry social licence to operate and production costs.

The inclination for beef producers overall to consider productivity to be the most significant aspect of sustainability could suggest that producers are perceiving sustainability in terms of farm sustainability, rather than as a holistic system (Faulkner et al. 2022). This could have implications for the framing of sustainability issues within industry and would benefit from a more in-depth study on beef producer definitions of sustainability.

The Open minority tended to differ from the Vulnerable majority, the Moderate quarter, and OK with the status quo in most of the areas described above. For example, where all other groups questioned the urgency of sustainability issues for the Australian beef industry in comparison to other beef-producing countries, the Open minority tended to believe it was more salient in the Australian context. The Open minority were less likely to believe that sustainability is a distraction to the business of beef production and were more likely to be critical of their own sustainability, which appears to align with their perceptions of industry sustainability. This pattern was reflected in the Moderate quarter, although to a lesser extent. The Open minority was more accepting of, and willing to acknowledge, sustainability challenges facing the Australian industry than were Vulnerable majority, the Moderate quarter and OK with the status quo.

This study indicated that sustainability challenges are not necessarily widely acknowledged, accepted, or owned by many producers, which means that communications and engagement for practice change will need to be carefully planned and evaluated. At the very least, many beef producers may see sustainability challenges and priorities differently from external stakeholders.

Implications of perceptions of beef emissions and climate impacts

Many participants in this study believed that the claimed impacts of beef production on the climate are exaggerated, emissions reduction should not be prioritised, and were on the whole not worried about how beef emissions affect the climate. These views tended to be held more strongly by the Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo groups, and because these groups comprise approximately 60% of the beef-producer population, the average result has been skewed. The Moderate quarter and the Open minority were more neutral in their responses towards the exaggeration of emissions claims, supported the prioritisation of emissions reduction, and appeared to be more concerned about the impact of emissions on the climate. These results have significant implications for the communication of, and engagement with the own carbon neutrality target of the industry (referred to as CN30).

Most producers reported low levels of understanding and support for how they are to reach the CN30 target. Despite this, there was a perception mainly held by the Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo that the CN30 target is a threat that is placing unnecessary pressure on the beef industry. The Open minority was more neutral towards the CN30 initiative than were the other groups.

There was also a lack of readiness for producers to engage with the CN30 target. Almost half of the producers were interested in beginning carbon assessments for their enterprise, but were unsure how to begin. Considering that there is a widespread perception that producers are not well supported so as to get involved, this may be an area of improvement for communicating the CN30 initiative. The Open minority, as well as the Moderate quarter, were much more interested in undertaking carbon assessments and would therefore be more easily engaged to be involved in the initiative because they appeared more willing to acknowledge and take ownership of emissions issues. The Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo groups may be more difficult to engage. However, despite the tendency to reject climate challenges by the Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo, these groups had the highest level of reported action for carbon assessments.

It could be that the limited engagement and understanding of what actions to take influence producers’ sense of threat and opportunity. If a large proportion of producers perceive the CN30 target as a threat and are not concerned about industry emissions impact on the climate, then the industry will face considerable challenges in developing effective engagement, given the apparent level of ambivalence and even resistance.

Implications of perceptions of public support, and media

The four clusters were separated into two groups on the basis of perceptions of public support. The Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo tended to be similar in their attitudes towards aspects of sustainability, as were the Moderate quarter and the Open minority. However, in the case of public support, the Moderate quarter and OK with the status quo were much more positive in their views, believing that the Australian public see industry and its sustainability in a positive light. In contrast, the Vulnerable majority and the Open minority believed that the public perceives industry negatively, which reflects the findings of Faulkner et al. (2022).

The shared perception here of the Vulnerable majority and the Open minority may be driven by different viewpoints. To explain, the Vulnerable majority does not necessarily see public views as legitimate and may feel a need to defend against perceived negative views, whereas the Open minority is more accepting of the perceived negative views and is more willing to understand those perceptions. This may relate to how the Open minority views sustainability, where they tended to be more neutral in how they perceive industry sustainability than the much more positive views exhibited by the other clusters. As such, they may be more understanding as to why the public may hold perceived negative perceptions of industry. The Vulnerable majority, being more positive in their views of industry sustainability, may feel personally threatened by these perceived negative views. However, research has shown that the Australian public trust farmers (Witt et al. 2007, 2009; Henderson et al. 2011; Ward et al. 2011; Berry et al. 2016; Ariyawardana et al. 2017; Voconiq 2020, 2021).

There is a clear disparity between producer views of public support and the reality of public trust in farmers, which calls into question what factors drive differing perceptions of public views of industry. For example, further research would be beneficial to identify factor(s) driving the Vulnerable majority and the Open minority to view the public as unsupportive of industry, and the Moderate quarter and OK with the status quo to view the public as supportive.

Despite apparent industry respect for public attitudes, this contrasts with responses to the right of the public to influence the beef industry, where particularly the OK with the status quo group is hesitant to accept external perceptions. This is also a view shared by the Vulnerable majority, but not the Open minority. The Open minority appears to be more accepting of public views, although they may not agree with those views.

Because all clusters in this study did indicate agreement with the need to better understand public perceptions, there is a need for much more research in this area to improve industry understanding of public perceptions, so that they are better placed to respond effectively.

The media is viewed by people in the beef industry to be a key communications channel for information about sustainability to be portrayed to the public (Faulkner et al. 2022). The results of this survey supported Faulkner et al. (2022)’s research, where producers believe the media portrays industry inaccurately, focuses too heavily on negative news, and has too much influence over public perceptions. Interestingly, the Moderate quarter tended to believe this to a lesser extent than did the other clusters. Additionally, all clusters felt that negative news about industry sustainability is a personal attack. The Open minority was more neutral about this, again suggesting there is more acceptance of external views than in other groups.

The disparity between, and inconsistency of, industry perceptions of public views and the reality have implications for the relationship of the industry with the public and external groups, which is crucial for the social licence to operate (Hampton et al. 2020). In addition, this could be influencing industry willingness to engage with change that is seen to be driven from outside of the industry. There is a longstanding view for many rural industries that there is a divide between urban and rural communities (Witt et al. 2009) in terms of their perceptions of industries such as livestock. In a predominantly urban country such as Australia, where public attitudes will be dominated by the urban majority, the insights from this study may indicate the risk of perpetuating the perceived rural–urban divide and potentially a resistance to accept external perceptions and concerns (Gleeson et al. 2006; Witt et al. 2009; Brett 2011; Lyons and Utych 2023). It may be that producers perceive pressure to adopt practices that are driven by a lack of public education on agriculture, and inaccurate and biased media (Witt et al. 2009; Worsley et al. 2015; Faulkner et al. 2022).

Given this scenario, it is not surprising that the study showed a potential mismatch between producer perceptions on where they are in the sustainability space and those of other stakeholders. This may account for the often-heard call to inform the public and ‘tell their story’ (Faulkner et al. 2022). However, research has shown that informing people as part of the ‘telling our story’ approach does not necessarily lead to attitude or behaviour change, and to achieve this is a much more nuanced and complicated process (Kolandai-Matchett 2009; Happer and Philo 2013; Marinescu et al. 2021). This indicates a communications challenge for industry and its sustainability.

Sustainability communication considerations for cluster types

Existing adoption typologies of farmers and producers have characterised different types of producers on the basis of their engagement, or willingness to engage with different types of practice change. This study merely sought to understand whether each cluster of beef producers was likely to adopt new practices or ideas based on different perceptions and attitudes towards elements of sustainability.

This study showed a tendency for producers to feel more comfortable with known practices or those that have been shown to work; yet, a belief persists that they are open to change or new ideas. They also believed people in the industry are open to change and responsive to sustainability challenges. Despite this, producers appeared to disregard or become defensive in response to perceived negative public perceptions. Additionally, the Schwartz PVQ21 survey results contradicted this, suggesting that producers are positioned around the neutral point with regard to openness to change. The Open minority tended to report stronger environmental and social care values, as well as more acceptance of external views and sustainability challenges, than did the other three clusters. Members of the Vulnerable majority exhibited a stronger commitment to existing customs and cultures than those of the Open minority. The fact that the Schwartz survey instrument found few differences among the groups indicates that it may not be the best tool for testing values of a potentially more homogeneous subset of a larger population, such as beef producers, who may share similarities in culture, background, and experiences.

On the basis of producer responses to questions on public perceptions and media, it could be suggested that they are open to change provided it is driven from within the industry or by other beef producers. Although it is well-known from the literature that peer-to-peer or farmer-to-farmer approaches are important in terms of trust (Reichelt et al. 2022), what we identified here is a deep-seated inclination to dismiss or find threatening what is perceived to be external agendas around sustainability and change. Members of the Open minority were more inclined to see some aspects of culture as a barrier to addressing sustainability challenges, although none of the groups would feel overly comfortable speaking out against poor practices to address sustainability. This is particularly the case for the Vulnerable majority and OK with the status quo.

It is important that the sustainability attitudes of producers and their willingness to engage with change are understood to tailor sustainability communications to specific value sets as part of behaviour and attitudinal change strategies (Graham and Abrahamse 2017; Blair and Moran 2023). For example, connecting the values of sustainability initiatives or programs to different types of producer values could contribute to increased participation and foster stewardship values (Chapman et al. 2019).

This study identified that all types of beef producers recognise the importance of communication in relation to sustainability. However, much of the results here, and the work of Faulkner et al. (2022), indicated that the assumption behind the need, and importance of communications for the beef industry, may be based in the deficit model where communication is largely seen as correcting misinformation and the misguided public in their attitudes towards the industry. Research into the application of the deficit model, particularly in agriculture, has shown that this approach to changing perceptions is not effective (Meijboom et al. 2006; Ahteensuu 2012; Gustafson and Rice 2016; Bray and Ankeny 2017; Metcalfe 2019). Given this, the use of a deficit-model approach to communication used by the industry could be connected to a tendency for producers to reject the idea that the public has a legitimate right to influence industry affairs. In this way, the perception that the public lack the right to influence industry could be underpinned by the view that the public is not sufficiently educated about industry, and therefore their concern and input are not warranted. Industry then tends to respond to this perceived education deficit by attempting to educate the public (i.e. ‘telling our story’; Faulkner et al. 2022), to correct perceived public misconceptions about, and attitudes towards industry.

This survey comprehensively covered a range of themes but there were inherent limitations in terms of scope and representation. It is often discussed that research and survey participants feel over-surveyed and so it is difficult to encourage wider participation (Porter et al. 2004; Clark 2008; Zahl-Thanem et al. 2021). Additionally, certain types of producers may not respond to, or are not part of the panels used by research organisations for survey participation and therefore cannot be accounted for in analyses. There is likely to be an over-representation of male respondents to this survey, which is unlikely to reflect actual business ownership contributions and decision-making for producers. The gender differences in responses are therefore worthy of further study in terms of engagement and communication. Finally, further research may address the identification of values in population subsets, because the Schwartz PVQ21 does not seem nuanced enough to identify differences among subsets of a wider population such as the Australian beef industry.