Inconsistency between auditors in welfare assessments limits their value; training, calibration exercises, and standardised protocols improve reliability and meaningful welfare differentiation.
The value of welfare auditing depends entirely on whether assessments accurately and consistently reflect the welfare conditions they are meant to measure. An auditing system where two trained auditors assess the same farm and generate significantly different welfare scores provides neither meaningful assurance nor useful improvement guidance. Training to written protocols reduces but does not eliminate inter-auditor variation; regular calibration exercises using standardised assessment scenarios are necessary to maintain consistency over time. The development of digital tools that guide assessors through standardised observation sequences and remove opportunities for subjective deviation represents an important technical advance.