Anima International

A single circle indicates that a charity’s performance is weak on a given criterion, relative to the other charities we evaluated:
Two circles indicate that a charity’s performance is average on a given criterion, relative to the other charities we evaluated:
Three circles indicate that a charity’s performance is strong on a given criterion, relative to the other charities we evaluated:

Low confidence: Very limited evidence is available pertaining to the charity’s performance on this criterion, relative to the other charities. The evidence that is available may be low quality or difficult to verify.
Moderate confidence: There is evidence supporting our conclusion, and at least some of it is high quality and/or verified with third-party sources.
High confidence: There is substantial high-quality evidence supporting the charity’s performance on this criterion, relative to the other charities. There may be randomized controlled trials supporting the effectiveness of the charity’s programs and/or multiple third-party sources confirming the charity’s accomplishments.1

Criterion 1: Programs

When we begin our evaluation process, we consider whether each charity is working in high-impact cause areas and employing effective interventions that are likely to produce positive outcomes for animals. These outcomes tend to fall under at least one of the following categories: increased availability of animal-free products, decreased consumption of animal products, improvement of welfare standards, increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values, stronger animal advocacy movement, or direct help.

Cause Areas

Anima International focuses primarily on reducing the suffering of farmed animals, which we believe is a high-impact cause area. To a lesser extent, they also work to reduce the suffering of horses being exported alive for slaughter, animals used for fur, as well as companion animals, which we believe are relatively less impactful cause areas.

Countries of Operation

Anima International currently works in Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, Norway, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Russia, and France. We believe that animal advocacy in Eastern Europe and Russia is relatively neglected.

Interventions and Projected Outcomes

Anima International pursues different avenues for creating change for animals: They work to improve welfare standards, increase the availability of animal-free products, and strengthen the animal advocacy movement.

To help communicate the process by which we believe a charity creates change for animals, we use theory of change diagrams. It is important to note that these diagrams are not complete representations of real-world mechanisms of change. Rather, they are simplified models that ACE uses to represent our beliefs about mechanisms of change. For the sake of simplicity, some diagrams may not include relatively small or uncertain effects.

Below, we also describe the work that Anima International does.² Unless otherwise specified, we have sourced the information in this criterion from Anima International (2020c). For each intervention, we provide an assessment of how effective we think that intervention is at achieving a given outcome (weak/moderate/high).³ These assessments are based on the available evidence and are determined through a vote and discussion among our researchers. We flag assessments in which we have particularly low confidence, i.e., if we know of little or no supporting research or expert opinions.

A note about long-term impact

Each charity’s long-term impact is plausibly what matters most.⁴ The potential number of individuals affected increases over time due to population growth and an accumulation of generations of animals. Thus, we would expect that the long-term impacts of an action would be more likely to affect more animals than the short-term impacts of the same action. Nevertheless, we are highly uncertain about the particular long-term effects of each intervention. Because of this uncertainty, our reasoning about each charity’s impact (along with our diagrams) may skew toward overemphasizing short-term effects.

Improvement of welfare standards

Anima International works to improve animal welfare standards through corporate outreach, investigations, legislative work, and media outreach. This work generally seeks to make incremental improvements to the conditions in which animals live, e.g., in factory farms. For farmed animals, welfare reforms generally only result in small improvements to their living conditions. However, this is balanced by the large numbers of animals who can be impacted, and there is some evidence to suggest that farmed animal welfare reforms are likely to be very cost effective in the short term.⁵ Overall, we believe that securing systemic change one corporation at a time is more tractable than advocating for larger-scale legislative change.

Anima International works with corporations to adopt better animal welfare policies and ban particularly cruel farming practices. They campaign for companies to make cage-free egg commitments. Cage-free egg systems are believed to reduce suffering by increasing the space available to hens and providing them important behavioral opportunities, although during the transition process mortality may increase, and there is some risk that it may remain elevated.⁶ We believe that campaigning for companies to make cage-free egg commitments is highly effective in improving welfare standards.

In addition, Anima International campaigns for companies to switch to higher welfare (but likely slower growing) breeds of chickens raised for meat and to commit to provisions on stocking density, lighting, and environmental enrichments. Such commitments may lead to higher welfare but also to more animal days lived in factory farms. We believe that campaigning for companies to switch to higher welfare breeds of chickens raised for meat is highly effective in improving welfare standards.

Anima International has also engaged in campaigns against fur, foie gras, and the sale of live fishes. While these campaigns may affect fewer numbers of animals, they may build momentum to implement other welfare improvements. We believe that campaigning against fur, foie gras, and the sale of live fishes is moderately effective in improving welfare standards.

Additionally, Anima International releases investigations in the animal agriculture industry, fur farms, and live fish markets. Investigations can inform the public about animal raising and slaughter practices and can serve as a resource for animal advocates. We believe that undercover investigations are highly effective in improving welfare standards.

With the goals of encoding animal welfare protection into law, enforcing existing animal welfare laws, and prosecuting animal cruelty, Anima International conducts legislative advocacy. While legal change may take longer to achieve than some other forms of change, we expect its effects to be particularly long-lasting. We believe that working to encode animal welfare protections into law is highly effective in improving welfare standards.

Anima International also engages in media outreach and organizes protests to build public support for their corporate and legislative campaigns. We think that media outreach can have strategic value, especially when it supports other promising tactics such as corporate and legislative campaigns. Similarly, protests may sway public opinion, help set the political agenda, influence political elites and corporations, and recruit and empower activists. ACE’s 2018 protest intervention report finds that the animal advocacy movement spends relatively few resources on disruptive but nonviolent protests. However, there is a risk that protests may lead to harm to individual activists and a negative backlash from targets, witnesses, and the media. A recent empirical study suggests that the effect of protests on support for a social movement may be negative if protests are perceived as harmful or highly disruptive.⁷ We believe that media outreach and protests are moderately effective in improving welfare standards.

Increased availability of animal-free products

Increasing the quality and availability of plant-based foods may help to create a climate in which it is easier for individuals to reduce their use of animal products.

Anima International works with companies to distribute, market, and encourage the development of alternative proteins. Specifically, they (i) consult restaurants and food businesses to help them increase their plant-based options, (ii) provide strategic support to alternative protein start-ups, (iii) consult with food companies about product development, and (iv) work with public and private institutions on their Meatless Monday campaigns. We believe that this type of institutional outreach—and with a low degree of confidence, that providing support to food start-ups—is highly effective in increasing the availability of animal-free products.

Anima International also conducts research on consumer attitudes toward alternative proteins, develops guidebooks for the catering industry, and ranks the availability of plant-based products in coffee chains. We believe that conducting research on alternative proteins is highly effective in increasing the availability of these products.

Finally, Anima International hosts events to grow, develop, and promote connections between actors in the alternative protein industry. We believe that hosting events is moderately effective in increasing the availability of animal-free products.

Stronger animal advocacy movement

Working to strengthen the animal advocacy movement through capacity- and alliance-building projects can have a far-reaching impact. Capacity-building projects can help animals by increasing the effectiveness of other projects and organizations, while building alliances with key influencers, institutions, or social movements can expand the audience and impact of animal advocacy organizations and projects. ACE’s 2018 research on the way that resources are allocated between different animal advocacy interventions suggests that capacity building and building alliances are currently neglected relative to other interventions aimed at influencing public opinion and industry. Anima International’s capacity-building work includes filming undercover investigations, organizing community outreach, training advocates, supporting other animal advocacy organizations, and advancing the field of animal law.

Anima International releases investigations in the animal agriculture industry and shares them with other organizations to be used in corporate campaigns. Investigations can inform the public about farming practices and serve as a key resource for advocates. We believe that investigations are highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

Anima International maintains a network of volunteers and provides trainings in effective animal advocacy. They also organize conferences and run specialized mentor programs. Many of the countries in which they work have relatively young movements—we believe that building the movement in relatively neglected countries may be a particularly impactful way to create a stronger animal advocacy movement. We also believe that community organizing, advocacy training, and conference and event planning are highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement. As for mentor programs, we believe with a low degree of confidence that they are moderately effective in strengthening the movement.

To support the development of the field of animal law, Anima International (i) organizes academic conferences on the legal protection of animals, (ii) assists in the publishing of papers and books about animal law, (iii) builds relationships with law professors who work on animal rights, and (iv) seeks to hire practicing lawyers as volunteers. We believe that supporting the field of animal law is highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

As a member of the Open Wing Alliance (OWA) and the Fur Free Alliance, Anima International collaborates with other groups on corporate campaigns. They co-founded a network of animal advocacy organizations in Baltic and Eastern European countries (NEAR – Network for Eastern European Animal Rights), and they support plant-based outreach campaigns in countries around the world. We believe that supporting other animal advocacy organizations is highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

Anima International builds alliances with key influencers such as star chefs, athletes, and writers. This work could influence public attitudes and behaviors, thereby expanding the movement. The impact of building alliances can vary considerably depending on who the key influencers are and the kinds of decisions they can make. Overall, we believe with a low degree of confidence that building alliances with key influencers is weakly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

Criterion 2: Room For More Funding

We look to recommend work that is not just high-impact, but also scalable. Since a recommendation from us can lead to a large increase in a charity’s funding, we look for evidence that the charity will be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that the recommendation may bring in. To estimate a charity’s room for more funding, we not only consider the charity’s existing programs and potential areas for growth and expansion, but also non-monetary determinants of a charity’s growth, such as time or talent shortages.

Since we can’t predict exactly how an organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, our estimate is speculative rather than definitive. This year, our estimates are especially uncertain, as we do not know the consequences of COVID-19 on financials. It’s possible that a charity could run out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or that they could come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we expect. At midyear, we check in with each recommended charity about the funding they’ve received since the release of our recommendations, and we use the estimates presented below to indicate whether we still expect them to be able to effectively absorb additional funding at that point.

Financial History and Financial Sustainability

An effective charity should be financially sustainable. Charities should be able to continue raising the funds needed for their basic operations. Ideally, they should receive significant funding from multiple distinct sources, including both individual donations and other types of support. Charities should also hold a sufficient amount of reserves.

The chart below shows Anima International’s recent revenues, assets, and expenditures. The financial information for 2019 and the first six months of 2020 was reported by the charities during this year’s evaluation process,⁸ the financial information for earlier years was acquired from various sources, and the values for 2020 are estimated based on the first six months of 2020. Anima International was founded in 2018 and only has a brief history of financials. They did not receive any large donations (>20% of their budget) in the last two years. Anima International has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of their prior recommended charity status. In 2019, donations reportedly influenced by ACE accounted for 4.3% of Anima International’s total revenue. We estimate that in the first half of 2020, ACE-influenced donations may account for 6.4% of Anima International’s revenue.⁹ With about 126% of their current expenditures held in net assets, we believe that Anima International holds a sufficient amount of reserves.

Planned Future Expenditures

Below we list Anima International’s plans for expansion for 2021.¹⁰ For each plan, we provide an estimate of the expenditure as well as a confidence level, which indicates how confident we are that the plan can be realized in 2021.¹¹ For staff salaries, we estimated the number of staff Anima International could hire by considering the number of existing staff they have and the number of staff they have plans to hire in 2021. For the corresponding costs, we made salary estimates based on information about the job’s seniority, type, and location using data from current and past job postings whenever possible.¹² We also factored in additional costs incurred as part of the hiring process. We estimated non-staff-related costs for each charity’s plans for expansion¹³ based on their 2019 program expenditures;¹⁴ in some cases, we also considered Anima International’s estimations of their future expenditures¹⁵ and/or our impressions of how much the expansions would cost.¹⁶ Additionally, we accounted for an estimate—based on a percentage of the charity’s current annual budget—of possible unforeseen expenditures.

Estimated Room for More Funding

We estimated Anima International’s room for more funding for 2021. For this, we relied on an estimate of their predicted revenue for 2021. Anima International has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of their prior recommended charity status, which we subtract from past values when estimating the predicted revenue. We estimate that Anima International’s revenue in 2021 will be $4.0 million or within the 90% prediction interval [$1.9M, $6.1M].²⁰ Anima International did not provide a prediction of their 2021 revenue.

Using our predictions of future revenue, Anima International’s room for more funding was estimated via Guesstimate. Note that when ACE estimates a charity’s room for more funding, we are estimating the amount of funding that the charity could use on top of their predicted, regular funding in the coming year.

The chart shows Anima International’s room for more funding in 2021 distributed across our three confidence levels. For donors influenced by ACE wishing to donate to Anima International, we estimate with high confidence that Anima International’s room for more funding in 2021 is $0.58 million (90% prediction interval: [$-0.65M, $1.9M]). Overall, we have some confidence that Anima International has room for $1.0 million (90% prediction interval: [$-1.2M, $3.1M]) in additional funding in 2021. We believe that Anima International’s room for more funding relative to the size of their organization is of average size compared to the other charities we evaluated this year. We also believe that their absolute room for more funding is of larger size relative to the funding we influence through our recommendations. Given the impact a recommendation may have on a charity’s funding, we base our rating of performance in this criterion on the latter assessment.

Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness

A charity’s recent cost effectiveness provides an insight into how well it has made use of its available resources and is a useful component in understanding how cost effective future donations to the charity might be. In this criterion, we take a more in-depth look at the charity’s use of resources over the past 18 months and compare that to the outcomes they have achieved in each of their main programs during that time. We have used an approach in which we qualitatively analyze a charity’s expenditures and key results and compare them to other charities we are reviewing this year.

We categorized the charity’s programs into different outcomes—improvement of welfare standards, increased availability of animal-free products, decreased consumption of animal products, increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values, and stronger animal advocacy movement. Then, for a given outcome, we compared the charity’s key results and expenditures from January 2019 to June 2020 to other charities we evaluated in 2020 and gave our assessment of how cost effective we think their work toward that outcome has been.

Stronger Animal Advocacy Movement

Anima International engages in one program that we have categorized as contributing to strengthening the animal advocacy movement—their movement building program.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for Anima International’s program focused on strengthening the animal advocacy movement, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of this program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see Anima International (2020a).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

Building a stronger animal advocacy movement encompasses a broad category of outcomes for animals that are typically indirect, and, as such, it is difficult to make an assessment of their cost effectiveness. Anima International’s movement building program focuses on recruiting and training volunteers and supporting other organizations. In the past 18 months, they have organized events, training sessions, and presentations for activists in Eastern Europe and other areas that are currently neglected. Particularly when taking a long-term view, capacity building in countries that do not yet have an established animal advocacy movement may be particularly cost effective.

Overall, we think the estimated cost effectiveness of Anima International’s work toward strengthening the animal advocacy movement seems similar to the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Increased Availability of Animal-Free Products

Anima International engages in one program that we have categorized as contributing to increased availability of animal-free products—their plant-based product promotion program.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for Anima International’s programs focused on increased availability of animal-free products, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of each program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see Anima International (2020a).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

Anima International’s plant-based product promotion program focuses on influencing companies via rankings and awards. In the past 18 months, they published rankings and awards and worked with 12 restaurants and 21 companies. They also hosted events and conferences, and they are running a plant-based pledge campaign targeting companies. Many of these outcomes have indirect impacts on animals, so we are particularly uncertain in our assessment of their cost effectiveness. In some instances, these outcomes may contribute to more direct outcomes, such as leading companies to introduce new plant-based products.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of Anima International’s work toward increasing the availability of animal-free products seems similar to the average cost-effectiveness of other charities’ work towards this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Improvement of Welfare Standards

Anima International engages in two programs that we have categorized as contributing to the improvement of welfare standards: legislative advocacy and obtaining corporate commitments to higher welfare. As the resource usage and key results of each program are distinct, we have kept them as separate categories in our analysis.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for Anima International’s programs focused on the improvement of welfare standards, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of each program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see Anima International (2020a).

Table: Estimated number of animals affected²⁷ by corporate commitments, January 2019–June 2020

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

Anima International’s corporate commitments program focuses on securing commitments to improve welfare standards for farmed animals. In the past 18 months, Anima international has reported securing—alone and in cooperation with other groups—101 cage-free commitments and 24 commitments related to chickens raised for meat. After factoring in the proportional responsibility that Anima International has for securing these commitments, we estimate these commitments have the potential to affect 20 million to 620 million animals once implemented.

A detailed analysis of these estimates can be found in this Guesstimate model. Our estimates for the effects of corporate outreach take into account the uncertainty about the rates at which companies follow through on their commitments. In the U.S., for example, companies have made commitments often with deadlines five to 10 years from the time of the commitment, which leaves the risk that they will not be followed through on without continued campaigning.²⁹ Anima International actively follows up on commitments; they have launched implementation projects of cage-free commitments in Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland.

Anima International’s corporate commitments program has also reported convincing seven retailers to stop selling live fishes, 66 retailers to stop selling fur, and 42 restaurants and hotels to stop selling foie gras. As fishes are currently one of the most neglected and largest of the farmed animal groups, it may be that their work in this area is particularly cost effective in comparison to corporate outreach targeting other animal groups. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think the cost effectiveness of Anima International’s work in their corporate commitments program seems similar to the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward improving welfare standards we have evaluated this year.

Anima International’s legislative advocacy program focuses on improving welfare standards for farmed animals. The majority of their results are indirect, and as such, it is difficult to make an assessment of their cost effectiveness. For example, they are advocating to achieve fur farming bans at the national level via petitions, demonstrations, exhibitions, and legislative advocacy. They also won a court case related to using wild animals in a circus in Ukraine. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think the cost effectiveness of Anima International’s work in their legislative advocacy program seems similar to the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward improving welfare standards we have evaluated this year.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of Anima International’s work toward improving welfare standards seems similar to the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Criterion 4: Track Record

Information about a charity’s track record can help us predict the charity’s future activities and accomplishments, which is information that cannot always be incorporated into our other criteria. An organization’s track record is sometimes a pivotal factor when our analysis otherwise finds limited differences between two charities.

In this section, we evaluate each charity’s track record of success by considering some of the key results that they have accomplished prior to 2019.³⁰ For charities that operate in more than one country, we consider how they have expanded internationally.

Overview

Anima International was founded in 2018 as an umbrella of organizations, in particular Anima, which has been working in Scandinavia since 2000, and Otwarte Klatki (Open Cages), which has been working in Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe since 2012. As a newly formed organization, Anima International has a relatively short track record. However, Anima and Open Cages have been working in similar programs for years. Together, they have a strong track record of success in achieving fur-, foie gras-, and cage-free corporate commitments and influencing bans on fur farming and other legislative initiatives. Their combined record of success in achieving welfare commitments to benefit chickens raised for meat is shorter than in achieving bans on fur, foie gras, and cages for egg-laying hens. They have worked on media campaigns and movement building for eight years and their plant-based product promotion program for five years.

Key Results Prior to 2019³¹

Below is a summary of Anima and Open Cages’ programs’ key results prior to 2019, ordered by program duration (with the longest-running programs listed first). These results were reported to us by Anima International, and we were not able to corroborate all their reports.³² We do not expect charities to fabricate accomplishments, but we do think it’s important to be transparent about which outcomes are reported to us and which we have corroborated or verified independently. Unless indicated otherwise, the following key results are based on information reported in Anima International (2020c).

Note that many of these results have been achieved in collaboration with other organizations and individuals.

International Expansion

We think that expanding internationally can be a way for effective charities to increase their impact. By introducing effective programs into countries where similar work is not being done—or where similar work is being implemented relatively ineffectively—those charities can expand their audience and impact. That said, international expansion needs to be handled thoughtfully; in addition to the strategic value of expanding to a new country, charities should consider the linguistic, social, political, economic, and cultural factors that could pose challenges. We think that charities should work carefully with local activists³³ during any expansions and that organizations founded in Western countries should consider the historical effects of colonialism in their expansion to non-Western countries.

Anima International was founded in 2018 as an umbrella organization of several organizations that have been working in different European countries for years. Anima has been working in Denmark since 2000, and Open Cages has been working in Poland since 2012. In 2014 they started working in Lithuania, and in 2017 they expanded to Belarus, Estonia, Norway, and Ukraine. They expanded to the U.K. in 2018, Russia in 2019, and France in 2020. They selected the countries to expand to based on two approaches. The first approach is based on identifying specific countries with a lack of resources and actively looking for potential collaborators there. The factors they consider for identifying those countries include the scale of the factory farming industry and the political significance or state of local animal advocacy movements. Anima International recognizes that this approach is risky since it is possible to fail to grasp the cultural context properly. The second approach includes considering requests from culturally and value-aligned individuals who want to become part of Anima International. This approach was used for the creation of Anima International as a coalition of organizations, and it seems to be the most common in their international expansion.

Anima International reports that each local team working on the ground is responsible for decision-making for the programs they carry out themselves.³⁴ Each subsidiary adopts the decision-making and strategic planning methods of its local members. The coalition leadership does not have formal power over its subsidiaries; its role consists only of providing guidance, minimizing coordination costs, and providing funding and mentoring. To minimize errors stemming from ignorance of cultural differences, Anima International hires local advocates with experience in animal protection and hosts conferences that provide opportunities to network with and listen to experienced activists. They also encourage mentors to spend time in the countries in which they operate to learn about the local context. Most of their subsidiaries have independent boards and are financially independent; Anima International strives to help local groups become independent, except in countries where the political context has created an environment not safe for local activists. Although they report their subsidiaries would be able to operate well without Anima International’s support, one of their goals is to provide more resources to less privileged regions to boost activist efficiency.³⁵

We think that Anima International has been strategic in their international expansion by focusing on neglected regions. They might have expanded too quickly to too many countries, especially in 2017, when they expanded to four countries. We are concerned that expanding too quickly can spread attention and resources too thin. However, because of the decentralized nature of their organization, overall, we think that Anima International has been thoughtful in their approach to international expansion; they have considered the local context of the countries in which they operate and have taken a supportive role in the local movements.

Criterion 5: Leadership and Culture

Leadership directly affects an organization’s culture, performance, and effectiveness. Strongly-led charities are likely to have a healthy organizational culture that enables their core work. We collect information about each charity’s internal operations in several ways. We ask leadership to describe the culture they try to foster, as well as potential areas of improvement. We review each charity’s human resource policies and check that they include those we believe are important. We also send a culture survey to the staff of each charity.^{36, 37}

Key Leadership

In this section, we describe each charity’s key leadership and assess some of their strengths and weaknesses.

Leadership staff

• Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO): Kirsty Henderson, involved in the organization for 2.5 years
• Director of Campaigns: Jan Sorgenfrei, involved in the organization for 16 years
• Director of Development: Jakub Stencel, involved in the organization for 6 years
• Director of Corporate Outreach: Marta Cendrowicz, involved in the organization for 5 years
• President of Nahtamatud Loomad (Estonia): Kristina Mering, involved in the organization for 3 years

About 99% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that Anima International’s leadership is attentive to the organization’s strategy. In comments, respondents emphasized that strategy is regularly discussed. All respondents agreed that leadership promotes internal transparency, and almost all agreed that they promote external transparency (95%). Some respondents commented that leaders are proactive in sharing mistakes they’ve made and that transparency is a key value.

Recent leadership transitions

Anima International had a recent transition in leadership. Kirsty Henderson took the role of Acting CEO in April 2020, after being elected by the managing board of Anima International. Their new leadership describes the transition as an opportunity to re-evaluate their goals, structure, work, and values, through frequent communication with staff about the transition process and challenges. Henderson is requesting more in-depth feedback from staff members and having one-to-one meetings with all of them to learn more about who they are and how they see Anima International’s work. In the next few months, a new CEO will be elected. We are yet to see how successful the leadership transition turns out.

Board of Directors

Anima International’s governing board consists of five members, all of whom are staff at different organizations belonging to Anima International.³⁸ Their managing board also consists of five members, four of whom are also leadership staff, including the Acting CEO Kirsty Henderson. We think including non-staff members in Anima International’s governing board would increase the board’s capacity to oversee the organization from a more independent and objective perspective.³⁹ We consider the board’s lack of independence to be a weakness.⁴⁰

Members of Anima International’s Governing Board

• Joh Vinding: co-founder of Anima International and staff member at Anima, MA degree in Danish and Media Studies
• Thorbjørn Schiønning: co-founder of Anima International and staff member at Anima in Denmark, MA degree in Business Administration and Communication
• Lina Lind Christensen: staff member at Anima in Denmark and founder of Frie Vinger sanctuary, MA in Philosophy with a specialization in animal ethics
• Gabriele Vaitkeviciute: co-founder of Tušti Narvai (Open Cages Lithuania) and coordinator of the fur campaign in Lithuania
• Pawel Rawicki: co-founder, President, and coordinator of welfare campaigns of Otwarte Klatki, MA in Sociology

Members of Anima International’s Managing Board

• Kristina Mering: president of Nähtamatud Loomad (Open Cages Estonia), MA in Sociology
• Jan Sorgenfrei: co-founder of Anima and Anima International, advisor to other organizations
• Jakub Stencel: co-founder and Director of Development of Anima International, board member of Otwarte Klatki
• Marta Cendrowicz: board member and International Corporate Campaigns Director in Otwarte Klatki, MA in Czech studies
• Kirsty Henderson: board member and Acting CEO of Anima International, MA in History

About 93% of our culture survey respondents agreed that Anima International’s board supports the organization in achieving its strategic vision.

We believe that boards whose members represent occupational and viewpoint diversity are likely most useful to a charity since they can offer a wide range of perspectives and skills. There is some evidence suggesting that nonprofit board diversity is positively associated with better fundraising and social performance⁴¹ and better internal and external governance practices,⁴² as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision-making.⁴³ Anima international’s board potentially lacks a diversity of occupational backgrounds and experiences. We consider the board’s relative diversity to be a weakness.

Policies and Benefits

Here we present a list of policies that, if properly drafted and enforced, we find to be beneficial for fostering a healthy culture. A green mark indicates that Anima International has such a policy and a red mark indicates that they do not. A yellow mark indicates that the organization has a partial policy, an informal or unwritten policy, or a policy that is not fully or consistently implemented. We do not expect a given charity to have all of the following policies, but we believe that, generally, having more of them is better than having fewer.

Culture and Morale

A charity with a healthy culture acts responsibly toward all stakeholders: staff, volunteers, donors, beneficiaries, and others in the community. According to Anima International’s leadership, their organizational culture consists of shared values such as compassion, freedom, and ownership; creating a psychologically safe organization; and promoting transparency and self-development.

The survey we distributed to Anima International’s staff supports leadership’s claim that Anima International’s culture is overall positive. Respondents noted in an open-response box that Anima International is a great place to work, is friendly, and has a welcoming atmosphere. A few common adjectives that respondents used to describe Anima International’s communication style were “transparent,” “open,” “inclusive,” “friendly,” “supportive,” or similar.

According to our culture survey, Anima International has an overall level of employee engagement higher than the average of charities under review.

Anima International has a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, about 76% agreed with the statement that their compensation is adequate. Anima International offers between 20–30 days of paid time off per year to their employees depending on the country, as well as paid sick days and personal leave. About 95% of respondents agree that these paid benefits provided are sufficient. Some respondents mentioned that salaries are comparable to other nonprofits and that they are satisfied with flexible working hours. Anima International reports that employees have clearly defined essential functions for all positions and regularly evaluate performance. However, 21% of respondents in our culture survey agree that the system of staff performance evaluation needs to be changed or improved upon.

Anima International distributes an annual culture survey to staff in all countries where they operate. They have conducted an anonymous survey about communication to all their employees and identified the following areas for improvement: re-evaluation of their values, psychological safety, diversity and inclusion, feedback collection, cultural understanding, and better transfer of knowledge.

Overall, we think that Anima International’s staff satisfaction and morale are higher than the average charity we evaluated this year.

Representation/Diversity,⁴⁶ Equity, and Inclusion⁴⁷

One important part of acting responsibly toward stakeholders is providing a representative/diverse,⁴⁸ equitable, and inclusive work environment. Charities that have a healthy attitude toward representation/diversity, equity, and inclusion (R/DEI) seek and retain staff and volunteers from different backgrounds. Among other things, inclusive work environments should also provide necessary resources for employees with disabilities, protect all team members from harassment and discrimination, and require regular trainings on topics such as equity and inclusion in conjunction with year-round efforts to address R/DEI throughout all areas of the organization.

Among the staff that participated in our culture survey, 92% agree that Anima International has members from diverse backgrounds. Anima International made an effort to increase representation/diversity through their recruitment process by integrating best recruitment practices advised by research. These practices include sharing materials during the pre-recruitment stage, performing recruitment by rounds, prioritizing transparency, and anonymizing test answers in the evaluation process.

According to our culture survey, Anima International is diverse along the lines of gender identity and sexual identity, however, they are not diverse on racial identity. This is not surprising, as most of the countries in which their member organizations operate are very racially homogenous; in practice, we think it would be particularly difficult for them to successfully attract and hire advocates who are Black, Indigenous, or of the global majority⁴⁹ (BIPGM) in those countries. Our impression, however, is that the racial homogeneity at the organization has resulted in a limited understanding of racial issues, which has presented itself in some of the public and private communications⁵⁰ we’ve witnessed from Anima International’s staff in the last year. In particular, we think leadership staff publicly engaging in conversations about the relevance of racial equity to the animal advocacy movement may have had a negative impact on the progress of racial equity in the movement.⁵¹ While we think this issue is less salient in the more racially homogenous countries in which they operate, for their work in more racially diverse countries, we think it is particularly important that they prioritize developing an understanding of racial equity. Additionally, for any organization working on an international scale, there are spaces that all staff may encounter that are more racially diverse—such as coalitions, conferences, and online forums—in which it is again important to have an understanding of racial equity. This is particularly important so as to ensure the safety of BIPGM and to not impede—and to eventually contribute to—work on racial equity in the broader animal advocacy movement, which we believe will be crucial to its long-term success.⁵² Note: Our concern here is specifically about their understanding of racial issues and not issues relating to ethnicity, of which they report frequently encountering in their work in Eastern Europe and Russia—we have no reason to doubt their handling of those situations.⁵³

In our culture survey, some respondents mentioned that leadership could offer training to be more inclusive or to better support staff who are members of marginalized groups.

Anima International supports R/DEI through their human resources activities. Anima International has a workplace code of ethics/conduct and a written statement that they do not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other characteristics. Anima International has a written procedure for filing complaints, as well as explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment⁵⁴ or discrimination.⁵⁵ In our culture survey, 96% of respondents agreed that Anima International protects staff, interns, and volunteers from harassment and discrimination in the workplace, and 98% agreed that they have someone to go to in case of harassment or discrimination. However, our culture survey suggests that Anima International’s staff experienced or witnessed some harassment or discrimination in the workplace during the past year, more than the average charity under review. Some respondents mentioned that they witnessed troubling behavior from the former CEO but that they were satisfied with leadership’s handling of the situation, i.e., suspending and removing the former CEO. Because staff feel overall protected from harassment and discrimination, and Anima International seems to have in place systems to prevent and handle harassment and discrimination in the workplace, we are not highly concerned about this finding.

Anima International does not offer regular trainings on topics such as harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In our culture survey, 75% of staff agree that they and their colleagues have been sufficiently trained in matters of R/DEI. Respondents mentioned that training has not taken place, or they are not needed. We believe that the opportunities for the team to learn about R/DEI at Anima International should be increased.

Overall, we believe that Anima International is less diverse, equitable, and inclusive than the average charity we evaluated this year.

Criterion 6: Strategy

Charities with a clear and well-developed strategy are more likely to be successful at setting and achieving their goals. In this section, we describe and assess each charity’s strategic vision and mission, plan, and planning process.

Given our commitment to finding the most effective ways to help nonhuman animals, we assess the extent to which the charity’s strategic vision is aligned with this commitment. We believe that their strategic planning should clearly connect the charity’s overall vision to their more immediate goals. Additionally, we assess the extent to which their strategic planning process incorporates the views of all their staff and board members and whether the frequency of this process is adequate, given the nature of their work. There are many different approaches to strategic planning, and often an approach that is well suited for one organization may not work well for others. Thus, in this section, we are not looking for a particular approach to strategy. Instead, we assess how well the organization’s approach to strategy works in their context.

Strategic Vision

Anima International’s vision: “[A] world where animals are not treated as products”

Strategic Position in the Movement

We asked Anima International how they see their organization’s work fitting into the overall animal advocacy movement. They report that they aim to focus on movement building in countries where animal advocacy is relatively neglected, with a focus on adjusting their advocacy to the cultural context. For instance, they mention their work in Eastern European countries, other post-Soviet states, the Baltic countries, and the Scandinavian countries. They also note that they see cooperation with other organizations as a central strategy of their organization.

Strategic Plan and Planning Process

Type(s) of plan: No formal strategic plan

Contents of plan: Anima International does not have a formal strategic plan. Instead, they have a document summarizing their key activities. This is reportedly because their work requires them to be more flexible to be able to react to opportunities that may arise.

Goal Setting and Monitoring

Anima International’s goals are set according to the Objectives and Key Results (OKR) goal management framework. Employees and teams set and document their goals on a quarterly basis. Anima International’s goals are monitored quarterly in meetings of employees with their supervisors, the local team, or the country-wide team. Leadership provides primarily operational support. Anima International also holds retrospective meetings following major projects. These “debriefing” meetings involve the participation of staff and volunteers who discuss what went well, what results they have achieved, what challenges they have faced, and what can be improved.

Our Assessment

We think that Anima International’s vision is highly aligned with ACE’s—we share the goal of reducing suffering and the view that advocates should be focused on effectiveness. We think that they have a clear notion of how they fit into the wider animal advocacy movement and that this is reflected in their strategic decision to focus on neglected European countries. Given that Anima International is an umbrella of grassroots organizations, we think it makes sense that they do not have a formal, centralized strategic plan, as we think it is likely that the optimal strategy will vary substantially across the countries in which they operate. That said, we do think that they may benefit from strategic planning at the country level if they are not already doing so.⁵⁶ Their goal-setting process appears to be particularly well designed, and they monitor their goals frequently. We think they have a strong approach to self-assessment. Overall, we think Anima International’s approach to strategy is average compared to other evaluated charities, given the context in which they operate and the type of work they do.

Criterion 7: Adaptability

A charity’s self-assessment should inform their decisions. This will aid them in retaining and strengthening successful programs and modifying or discontinuing less successful programs, and will enable them to see if or when it is necessary to change their organizational structures. When such systems of improvement work well, all stakeholders benefit: Leadership is able to refine their strategy, staff better understand the purpose of their work, and donors can be more confident in the impact of their donations.

We have identified the following examples of how Anima International has adapted to success and failure:

Anima International reports that they continuously evaluate their programs and actively foster a culture of being capable of failure.⁵⁷ They give an example of how they adjusted a corporate outreach initiative in France that aimed to increase the number of plant-based options in public catering restaurants. They changed their initial strategy of advocating for one plant-based meal per day to a few plant-based options per week in a selection of restaurants to create a more achievable initial goal for the restaurants’ administration and chefs.

Anima International also reports that they changed their plans to increase their presence in the U.S.⁵⁸ Active in ten countries already and having faced a difficult leadership transition recently, they decided to focus on their existing operations instead. Anima International mentions that they now prefer to invest these resources into their work in Russia and Ukraine, where the movement is relatively smaller.

Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected Anima International’s ability to carry out some of their programs, mainly their corporate campaigns.⁵⁹ They report that they changed their campaigning strategies, such as moving away from pressure tactics and toward appraisal of animal-friendly companies and maintaining good relations with companies with existing commitments rather than approaching companies for new commitments. Further, Anima International mentions that the COVID-19 pandemic may have a negative effect on their recruitment of volunteers and that they are more cautious about new hires at the moment. Anima International also reported on how they have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic on ACE’s blog.

Overall, we believe that Anima International is just as able as the average charity evaluated this year to adequately respond to success and failure.