Many consumers, including pet owners, say they’re interested in sustainability and buying products that fall in that category, but their actual purchases often don’t follow suit. That seems to be more the case as financial concerns spur people to establish spending priorities and make hard decisions.
However, new survey data may indicate a way forward for pet food and treat brands with a sustainability strategy: Link sustainability to longtime core purchase drivers, such as nutrition, health, safety and quality. These are what pet owners truly value, according to Lonnie Hobbs Jr., Ph.D., assistant professor in Kansas State University’s Department of Agricultural Economics, who presented data from the survey during Pet Food Collab at the university on September 9, 2025.
Another factor when trying to appeal to pet owners with a sustainability message: That word means so many different things to so many different people. Hobbs’ data shows homing in on specific definitions and claims and, again, bundling them with other drivers, could pay off.
What does sustainability mean to pet owners?
Titled “Pet food perspectives: Exploring customer perceptions and value of sustainability and other product attributes,” Hobbs’ presentation highlighted how that bundling can work. As a product attribute on its own, sustainability appeared in only 8% of the survey respondents actual pet food purchases, far below ones like high protein, natural and no additives, artificial colors or flavors. Yet, in a higher-level bundle of features under a sustainability umbrella, 28% of the 1,000 U.S. pet owners surveyed indicated that as a buying influence, just below the 30% choosing price. (Most, 42%, chose protein type.)
Delving into those sustainability features, Hobbs’ survey found that animal welfare ranked as more important than environmental impact, 8.29 to 7.02 on a scale of 1 to 10. That was especially true for respondents in the gen X demographic, at 8.55, slightly ahead of younger generations (gen Y plus millennials) at 8.28 and older generations (mainly boomers) at 8.06.
Interestingly, a survey question asking respondents to what degree they agreed with specific statements indicated they don’t necessarily see a clear distinction between animal welfare and environmental impact as aspects of sustainability, and in fact, seem to consider them overlapping. For example, 76% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “It is possible to prioritize both animal welfare and environmental sustainability equally when choosing pet food.”
Similarly, 69% agreed or strongly agreed that products with high animal welfare standards are also better for the environment; 63% agreed or strongly agreed that “environmentally friendly” pet food usually means animals were treated humanely; and 61% agreed or strongly agreed that improving animal welfare in pet food production often increases the environmental impact.
Fewer than a quarter of respondents had specific ideas of what “animal welfare” might mean, ranging from 15% for regular veterinary care/health monitoring of livestock to 21% for humane slaughtering methods as what first comes to mind when they think about animal welfare. (Lack of use of growth hormones in livestock and proper livestock housing conditions were in between.)
The respondents seemed to have greater awareness of environmentally sustainable concepts; most said minimizing waste is what they first think of, from 26% to 30% depending on the age demographic. Other aspects named included low chemical use (23% to 30%), recycling systems, water conservation and low carbon emissions.
As Hobbs concluded, “Pet owners are unaware of the tradeoffs between animal welfare and environmental sustainability.”
But will they pay for it?
That lack of awareness begs for consumer education, which might also help address the elephant in the room when it comes to sustainability: Pet owners are not willing to pay for it, at least not yet. And not according to Hobbs’ survey, particularly when compared to other types of product attributes like high protein and skin/coat care — though younger pet owners show slightly more willingness. However, when the survey applied the “willingness to pay” question to specific sustainability-related claims and attributes, these pet owners seemed more game, especially about paying for products with animal welfare attributes.
When asked how much they were willing to pay for a 15-lb. bag of dry dog food, the respondents gave an average of US$20.10 for a product certified to follow animal welfare practices, followed by claims like “ethically raised” (US$15.40), “pasture raised” (US$15.10) and “cage free (US$12.50). An environmentally friendly claim netted a price of US$11.20, with claims like “reduced carbon paw print” and “pro-planet” dropping down to US$5.40 and US$1.30, respectively.
Of course, saying they’re willing to pay for something and actually doing so are two completely separate things. The bottom line for this data is that sustainability features can and do have an impact on pet food purchasing, but which features and to what degree they affect purchasing matter, a lot. And, the more you can tie them to attributes that pet owners have proven they’ll pay for, the more likely you’ll succeed.
