Companion Animals at Work

Core position:

Regulate behaviour and conditions, not "types of beings".
Avoid human-first defaults.
Accept justified risk.
Support local self-governance and organisational learning.
Treat animals as political subjects and as workers.
Ensure no exclusion without an alternative.
Recognise and compensate care, emotional, and other labour performed by humans and by animals.
Extend education and co-education across species.

Case study:

Take the university campus as a working case, but argue that the same logics should reshape life with companion animals in the wider city.

Related notes:

Outline

1. Universities as Multispecies Institutions (problem framing)

Universities already function as multispecies environments (wildlife, companion animals, assistance animals, informal presences), yet governance imagines them as human-only.
Evidence from campus research shows widespread support for pet-inclusive spaces, but arguments remain largely anthropocentric, foregrounding human wellbeing while neglecting animal agency and rights.1
Longstanding animal-geography scholarship frames animals as a marginalised social group, subject to sociospatial inclusion and exclusion driven by "human chauvinism".2
Many current mainstream practices are clearly retrograde and reproduce the status quo through inertia and prejudice rather than considered judgement.
The campus is a useful, bounded case, but the argument extends to the city: transport, workplaces, housing, parks, and public space all reproduce similar exclusions.3

Example: Campus debates often accept birds as "background nature" while banning companion animals, revealing selective, political criteria for belonging rather than neutral risk assessment.

2. Risk, Access, and the Politics of Exclusion

Common exclusionary justifications: allergies, fear, hygiene, distraction, safety, professionalism. These concerns are real, but they are typically asserted as opinion rather than tested against evidence on allergies, hygiene, safety, stress, and similar matters.4
Such concerns are typically treated as absolute blockers, producing species-level bans instead of negotiable conditions.
These logics parallel historical exclusions of women, breastfeeding women, infants, disabled people, and minorities, where "risk" masked prejudice.2 Speciesism here intersects with sexism, ableism, ageism, racism, and classism: multiple isms operating together.
Human concerns about allergies, fear, or discomfort limit animal participation or protection, often without evidence; the burden of proof should fall on exclusion, not on inclusion.

Example: Survey respondents propose spatially differentiated access (pet-friendly buildings and zones, warnings for allergies) rather than total bans. However, institutions default to prohibition.1

3. Evidence, Uncertainty, and Risk Balancing

Systematic and scoping reviews show more positive than negative outcomes of pets at work (reduced stress, improved social interaction), alongside concerns (allergies, fear, distraction).5
Major limitation: poor reporting on animal characteristics, training, welfare protocols; biased samples; weak evaluation designs.6
Uncertainty reflects research gaps, not proof of harm. However, institutions respond with blanket bans rather than experimentation.
Decisions should rely on scientific evidence rather than aggregated opinion, and should be revisited as evidence accumulates.

Principle: Move from risk avoidance to risk balancing. Be proactive and accept some risk when it is justified by potential benefits; prototype supports, measure outcomes, and adapt.

4. From Species Bans to Behaviour Governance

Species bans assume behaviour is inherent to species; evidence shows outcomes depend on context, training, relations, and design.5
Shift the governance question from "Which animals are allowed?" to "Which behaviours and conditions are acceptable?"
Police behaviour that is socially or physically unacceptable based on considered consensus, not categories of beings. This reframing is what uncouples exclusion from the intersectional isms identified in section 2.
Draw on municipal policy frameworks that manage nuisances and care rather than excluding beings.7

Examples:

Zoning and time-based access (quiet hours, off-peak use).4
Behavioural standards (noise, harassment, hygiene), applicable to humans and animals alike.
Transparent criteria for training, vaccination, numbers, and welfare.

5. Local Knowledge, Self-Governance, and Learning Organisations

Effective multispecies governance is situated: responsive to local practices, species, spaces, and cultures.
Emphasise self-governance by communities (human and non-human stakeholders), supported by institutional scaffolding and informed by local knowledge.8
Replace static rules with iterative learning: monitoring, feedback, and revision. Expect and encourage organisational learning rather than defaulting to the status quo and the resulting inertia or prejudice.

Example: Smart-urban-governance research advocates shifting from legislation to obligation, commons-based governance, and local knowledge, including non-human participation.9

6. Animals as Political Subjects and Campus Publics

Even "pro-pet" arguments often instrumentalise animals (therapy tools) rather than recognising political standing.1 2
Political animal studies frame companion animals as co-citizens, entitled to participation, care, and negotiated access.
"Animaling" public space highlights how animals actively co-produce publics through movement, traces, and interaction.10
Many exclusions are justified paternalistically, on the grounds that animals might suffer or experience stress. Such reasoning denies animals their own choices and reproduces a "for their own good" logic familiar from earlier exclusions of other groups; against this, a nothing about us without us commitment requires that affected beings (and their representatives) participate in decisions about their access and conditions.
Typical animal welfare discourses stop here, failing to address animals as political subjects (publics), and so stop short of the relational ethics that shared life demands.
This implies concrete mechanisms for political representation of non-human beings: rights-based standing, designated human representatives and advocates, participatory forums on campus, and monitoring arrangements that feed back into governance.

Example: Concerns about "problematic agency" (e.g. barking, fear) should trigger human compromise and design responses, not rights denial.

7. More-than-Human Design and Infrastructural Innovation

Bans often compensate for the absence of design.
More-than-human design research demonstrates how infrastructures can pluralise perspectives and make coexistence governable.11 8
Distinguish between incidentally benefiting animals and explicitly designing for their interests.
Prototyping such support is likely to generate flow-on innovations in architecture, urban planning, and biodiversity, well beyond the immediate question of pets at work.3

Examples:

Pet-friendly accommodation with clear signalling for allergies and fears.
Rest, water, hygiene, and circulation infrastructures.
Spatial buffers enabling choice and avoidance.
Playgrounds, shelters, and care facilities that act as the "alternatives" required where access is conditional or restricted.

8. Labour, Compensation, and Legal Standing

Companion animals perform many kinds of labour, including emotional labour: comfort, regulation of human stress, social bridging, security, assistance, presence. This labour is currently made invisible and unpaid.12
Multispecies inclusion also redistributes care and emotional labour among humans (owners, carers, colleagues), often invisibly and unequally.6
Animal-work scholarship shows that such labour is emotional and hierarchical, raising ethical and political questions about who bears the costs and who reaps the benefits.
Institutions should treat companion animals as workers with opportunities to contribute and with corresponding protections. This means extending labour law, property law, and welfare regulation to recognise animal contribution, set limits on extraction, secure rest, healthcare, retirement, and inheritance, and provide compensation (directly to animals via trusts and entitlements, and to their human carers).7
Pet ownership in general should involve greater responsibility for owners, supported by clearer institutional and civic expectations rather than left to private discretion.

Principle: No exclusion without an alternative. As with provision for human children or breastfeeding, restricted access must be paired with playgrounds, shelters, care facilities, and similar supports.

9. Education, Co-Education, and Cultural Change

Extend the right to education to animals; promote co-education with humans.11
Lack of exposure correlates with fear and prejudice; learning enables negotiated coexistence and reduces the "stranger danger" that fuels blanket bans.
Education reframes governance from enforcement to shared competence.
Cultural change should also support positive discrimination based on evidence: deliberately favouring inclusive arrangements where current defaults are demonstrably retrograde.3

Example: "Animaling" frameworks emphasise learning to read contexts and relations rather than applying fixed categories (good or bad, allowed or banned).10

Companion animal populations have significant environmental impacts (food, water, waste, land, biodiversity interactions).3
Inclusive, well-supported arrangements (workplaces, campuses, transport, housing) make it easier to share companion animals across households and contexts, which can lower the total number of animals kept while improving the lives of those that are.7 4
This reframes the campus debate as part of a wider urban question: how to live well with fewer, better-supported companion animals across the city.

11. Implications for Policy, Design, and Research

Policy

Replace categorical bans with conditional, reviewable frameworks.
Embed "no exclusion without an alternative" and behavioural parity across species.
Establish mechanisms for political representation of non-human beings (rights, representatives, monitoring) at institutional and municipal scales.
Extend labour and property law to recognise animal labour and entitlements, with proportionate protections and compensation.

Design

Invest in infrastructures that enable multispecies participation, avoidance, care, and sharing.
Treat campuses as experimental grounds for multispecies justice, with explicit scope to scale to the wider city.

Research

Address gaps identified in reviews: report animal characteristics, welfare protocols, and non-owner perspectives.5 6
Use validated tools to study multispecies boundary dynamics (e.g. work-pet-family conflict and enrichment scales).13
Build better data on what is possible on campus and in the city, including trials of shared-custody and pet-inclusive infrastructures.

Funding and Support Sources

Society for Companion Animal Studies.

References

Allen, Daniel, Jamie Arathoon, and John Walliss. “An Exploration of Dog-Related Policy Through a Legal Animal Geographies Lens.” Geography Compass 19, no. 9 (2025): e70047. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.70047.

Carter, Simon Bruce. Establishing a Framework to Understand the Regulation and Control of Dogs in Urban Environments: A Case Study of Melbourne, Australia. 5, no. 1 (2016): 1190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2843-8.

Carter, Simon Bruce. “Why Planning Limits Its Concern: A Case Study of Planning for Dogs in Melbourne, Australia.” Australian Planner 53, no. 3 (2016): 251–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2016.1210658.

Gardner, Dianne H. “Pets in the Workplace: A Scoping Review.” New Zealand Veterinary Journal 72, no. 6 (2024): 307–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2024.2387562.

Holdsworth, Clare, Daniel Allen, Mark Lucherini, and Cameron Causer. “(No) Pets on University Campuses: ‘Animaling’ Citizenship for Pet-Friendly Spaces.” The Geographical Journal 192, no. 2 (2026): e70062. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.70062.

Jönsson, Li, and Tau Ulv Lenskjold. “A Foray into Not-Quite Companion Species: Design Experiments with Urban Animals as Significant Others.” Artifact 3, no. 2 (2014): 7.1-7.13. https://doi.org/10.14434/artifact.v3i2.3957.

Junça-Silva, Ana. “Development of a Measure to Understand Work-[Pet]Family Boundaries: Conflict versus Enrichment between Work and Families with Pets.” Stress and Health 41, no. 1 (2025): e70020. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.70020.

Junça-Silva, Ana. “How Guilt Drives Emotional Exhaustion in Work–Pet Family Conflict.” Animals 14, no. 23 (2024): 3503. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14233503.

Kaji-O’Grady, Sandra. “Architecture and the Interspecies Collective: Dog and Human Associates at Mars.” Architecture and Culture 0, no. 0 (2020): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/20507828.2020.1792108.

Kent, Jennifer L., Corinne Mulley, and Nick Stevens. “Challenging Policies That Prohibit Public Transport Use: Travelling with Pets as a Case Study.” Transport Policy 99 (2020): 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.08.024.

Kent, Jennifer L., and Corinne Mulley. “Riding with Dogs in Cars: What Can It Teach Us about Transport Practices and Policy?” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 106 (2017): 278–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.014.

Mancini, Clara, Daniel Metcalfe, and Orit Hirsch-Matsioulas. “Justice by Design: The Case for Equitable and Inclusive Smart Cities for Animal Dwellers.” In Designing More-than-Human Smart Cities - beyond Sustainability, towards Cohabitation, edited by Sara Heitlinger, Marcus Foth, and Rachel Clarke, 187–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023.

Mornement, Kate. “Animals as Companions.” In Animals and Human Society, edited by Colin G. Scanes and Samia R. Toukhsati, 281–304. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 2018.

O’Hare, Paul. “A Walk with ‘That Wild Dog of Yours’: Tales of Circumscribed, Co-Negotiated and Adaptive Walking Practices.” Social & Cultural Geography 25, no. 8 (2024): 1311–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2024.2308912.

Philo, Chris. “Animals, Geography, and the City: Notes on Inclusions and Exclusions.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13, no. 6 (1995): 655–81. https://doi.org/10.1068/d130655.

Prȩgowski, Michał Piotr, ed. Companion Animals in Everyday Life: Situating Human-Animal Engagement within Cultures. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

Quan, Shawn Xiaoshi, Carisa Lam, Kira Schabram, and Kai Chi Yam. “All Creatures Great and Small: A Review and Typology of Employee-Animal Interactions.” Journal of Management 50, no. 1 (2024): 380–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231191090.

Rock, Melanie J., Cindy L. Adams, Chris Degeling, Alessandro Massolo, and Gavin R. McCormack. “Policies on Pets for Healthy Cities: A Conceptual Framework.” Health Promotion International 30, no. 4 (2015): 976–86.

Rock, Melanie J. “Who or What Is ‘the Public’ in Critical Public Health? Reflections on Posthumanism and Anthropological Engagements with One Health.” Critical Public Health 27, no. 3 (2017): 314–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2017.1288287.

Sheikh, Hira, Marcus Foth, and Peta Mitchell. “From Legislation to Obligation: Re-Thinking Smart Urban Governance for Multispecies Justice.” Urban Governance 3, no. 4 (2023): 259–68. https://doi.org/10/g989zv.

Stahl, Sophie Kaitlyn, Jane Kinkus-Yatcilla, and Leanne O. Nieforth. “Positive, Negative, and Neutral Outcomes of Pets in the Workplace: A Systematic Review.” Anthrozoös 39, no. 1 (2026): 133–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2025.2568293.

Instone, Lesley, and Jill Sweeney. “The Trouble with Dogs: ‘Animaling’ Public Space in the Australian City.” Continuum 28, no. 6 (2014): 774–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304312.2014.966404.

UNEP and UN-Habitat. Global Environment for Cities—GEO for Cities: Towards Green and Just Cities. No. 6. Global Environment Outlook for Cities. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2021.

Yan, Yihan. “Pet’s Right to the City: Animaling Public Space.” Geography Compass 19, no. 3 (2025): e70024. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.70024.

Footnotes

Holdsworth, Clare, Daniel Allen, Mark Lucherini, and Cameron Causer. “(No) Pets on University Campuses: ‘Animaling’ Citizenship for Pet-Friendly Spaces.” The Geographical Journal 192, no. 2 (2026): e70062. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.70062.˄
Philo, Chris. “Animals, Geography, and the City: Notes on Inclusions and Exclusions.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13, no. 6 (1995): 655–81. https://doi.org/10.1068/d130655.˄
UNEP and UN-Habitat. Global Environment for Cities—GEO for Cities: Towards Green and Just Cities. No. 6. Global Environment Outlook for Cities. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme and United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2021.˄
Kent, Jennifer L., Corinne Mulley, and Nick Stevens. “Challenging Policies That Prohibit Public Transport Use: Travelling with Pets as a Case Study.” Transport Policy 99 (2020): 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.08.024.˄
Stahl, Sophie Kaitlyn, Jane Kinkus-Yatcilla, and Leanne O. Nieforth. “Positive, Negative, and Neutral Outcomes of Pets in the Workplace: A Systematic Review.” Anthrozoös 39, no. 1 (2026): 133–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2025.2568293.˄
Gardner, Dianne H. “Pets in the Workplace: A Scoping Review.” New Zealand Veterinary Journal 72, no. 6 (2024): 307–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2024.2387562.˄
Rock, Melanie J., Cindy L. Adams, Chris Degeling, Alessandro Massolo, and Gavin R. McCormack. “Policies on Pets for Healthy Cities: A Conceptual Framework.” Health Promotion International 30, no. 4 (2015): 976–86.˄
Mancini, Clara, Daniel Metcalfe, and Orit Hirsch-Matsioulas. “Justice by Design: The Case for Equitable and Inclusive Smart Cities for Animal Dwellers.” In Designing More-than-Human Smart Cities - beyond Sustainability, towards Cohabitation, edited by Sara Heitlinger, Marcus Foth, and Rachel Clarke, 187–204. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023.˄
Sheikh, Hira, Marcus Foth, and Peta Mitchell. “From Legislation to Obligation: Re-Thinking Smart Urban Governance for Multispecies Justice.” Urban Governance 3, no. 4 (2023): 259–68. https://doi.org/10/g989zv.˄
Yan, Yihan. “Pet’s Right to the City: Animaling Public Space.” Geography Compass 19, no. 3 (2025): e70024. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.70024.˄
Jönsson, Li, and Tau Ulv Lenskjold. “A Foray into Not-Quite Companion Species: Design Experiments with Urban Animals as Significant Others.” Artifact 3, no. 2 (2014): 7.1-7.13. https://doi.org/10.14434/artifact.v3i2.3957.˄
Quan, Shawn Xiaoshi, Carisa Lam, Kira Schabram, and Kai Chi Yam. “All Creatures Great and Small: A Review and Typology of Employee-Animal Interactions.” Journal of Management 50, no. 1 (2024): 380–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231191090.˄
Junça-Silva, Ana. “Development of a Measure to Understand Work-[Pet]Family Boundaries: Conflict versus Enrichment between Work and Families with Pets.” Stress and Health 41, no. 1 (2025): e70020. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.70020.˄