As 2025 approaches, dozens of food companies are falling behind on their cage-free commitments. Instead of updating their progress or accelerating their efforts, some are offering excuses—hoping to buy time, avoid public attention, or shift the blame.
At face value, some of these justifications may sound reasonable. But dig deeper, and you’ll find that most don’t hold up to scrutiny.
In this post, we break down the most common excuses companies use to delay their cage-free transitions—and how to respond with clarity, facts, and pressure.
🚫 Excuse #1: “There’s no cage-free supply in the region.”
The Reality:
While cage-free infrastructure is still growing, supply does exist in many Asian markets—especially for large companies willing to invest or work with producers. In countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, cage-free producers already serve hotels, retailers, and foodservice buyers.
How to Respond:
“Have you contacted regional cage-free producers or technical partners like Global Food Partners?”
“Are you using cage-free credits as a temporary solution?”
“Other brands in your sector have managed to source cage-free—what steps are you taking to catch up?”
🚫 Excuse #2: “Cage-free is too expensive for our market.”
The Reality:
Cage-free eggs can carry a premium, but the cost gap is narrowing. More importantly, companies that delay often absorb reputational risks that are far more costly than the price of eggs. Ethical sourcing is an investment in long-term brand trust.
How to Respond:
“Consumers increasingly expect cage-free as the baseline, especially from global brands.”
“Delays may cost more in consumer trust, media scrutiny, and investor concern than transitioning now.”
“Are you budgeting for cage-free in future procurement planning?”
🚫 Excuse #3: “Our global policy doesn’t apply in Asia.”
The Reality:
This double standard is not only unethical—it’s unsustainable. Global food brands have made public commitments that explicitly include all markets. Prioritizing welfare in Europe while ignoring Asia undermines both trust and impact.
How to Respond:
“Your commitment says ‘global’—does that not include Asia?”
“Are you prepared to explain this regional inconsistency to your customers and investors?”
“Other multinational companies are aligning their global policies—why not you?”
🚫 Excuse #4: “COVID-19 disrupted our supply chain.”
The Reality:
The pandemic caused delays across industries—but it’s no longer a justifiable reason for inaction. Many companies have already resumed normal operations and adjusted their strategies accordingly.
How to Respond:
“Other companies met or exceeded their goals during the same period—how did they manage it?”
“What’s your updated timeline and plan now that supply chains have stabilized?”
“Can you publicly share how COVID impacted your sourcing versus other priorities?”
🚫 Excuse #5: “We’ll get to it—but we don’t have an update right now.”
The Reality:
Lack of transparency is part of the problem. When companies delay updates or go silent, it signals a lack of accountability. Commitments without reporting are not credible.
How to Respond:
“When can we expect your next regional progress report?”
“Will you publicly disclose your current percentage of cage-free sourcing in each country?”
“If you’re on track, why not share it?”
✅ Final Thoughts: Excuses Can’t Shield Cruelty
Excuses don’t change the reality: hens are still suffering in cages, and companies are failing to act on the promises they made.
If we want meaningful progress for animals, we must challenge weak justifications, demand transparency, and support public pressure when companies fall short.
Because a commitment means nothing unless it’s kept—and animals can’t wait for another excuse.