While some zoos seem to be adequately concerned for their animals’ welfare and actively strive to improve any flawed living condition, others, such as the notorious Surabaya Zoo, show complete and blatant disregard for their animals’ wellbeing. Perhaps these huge contrasts in maintenance among zoos and among countries, as well as the seemingly irreconcilable stances of the different stakeholders involved (including zoo organisations, animal rights activists and biological conservationists), fuel the controversies surrounding animal welfare in zoos has been ongoing.

In 2004, Govindasamy Agoramoorthy, chairperson of the Ethics and Welfare committee of the Southeast Asian Zoo Association, led zoo evaluations with the help of various stakeholders including conservation and zoo specialists. According to Agoramoorthy, most of the directors of evaluated were compliant to the recommendations made to solve problems found in some aspects of the zoos and did not hesitate to improve problematic conditions for the animals’ wellbeing. This shows that at least for Southeast Asian zoos, majority of the zoos strive to improve conditions with the animals’ welfare in mind (Agoramoorthy, 2004). Since the Ethics and Welfare community attempts to bring together the efforts of zoo managers, animal rights activists and conservationists to achieve better welfare for zoo animals, and this has succeeded in part, it also shows that different stakeholders are able to find common ground in seemingly incongruous ideologies to employ animal ethics (Agoramoorthy, 2004).

An example of an animal welfare organisation is the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society, or ACRES for short. ACRES help improve animal living conditions in zoos by assessing the animals’ Five Freedoms via Zoo Surveys. After conducting these surveys, findings are concluded in reports, which are then evaluated. If the reports show  that the Five Freedoms are not met, ACRES will contact the zoo in question and recommend measures to make sure that conditions are met to improve zoo animal welfare (ACRES, 2014). Achievements include Zoo Negara’s administration of the recommendations put forth by ACRES, for instance ceasing elephant shows and releasing the elephants from their chains. (ACRES, 2014).

However, not all zoos are as focused on the welfare of their captive animals, as seen in a report in the Daily Mail UK in 2012, where it was found that only 47 (24%) British zoos assessed by zoo inspection officers met every animal welfare requirement, 25% of zoos inspected had inadequate veterinary programmes, and 25% failed to meet the requirements for provision of basic food and water (Reporter, 2012). However, 83% of the 192 zoos inspected were considered to have met the requirements for animal welfare standards, showing that the zoo inspection system is effective (Reporter, 2012). Perhaps, in a few more years’ time, this number can increase, and more zoos will improve animal welfare standards with subsequent inspections.