Anima International

Programs

In this criterion, we assess the expected effectiveness of a charity’s programs without considering their particular achievements. (For more information on recent program costs and achievements, see the Cost Effectiveness criterion.) During our assessment, we analyze the groups of animals the charity’s programs affect, the countries in which they take place, the outcomes they work toward, and the interventions they use to achieve those outcomes, as well as how the charity allocates their spending toward different programs. A charity that performs well on this criterion has programs that are expected to be highly effective in reducing the suffering of animals. The key aspects that ACE considers when examining a charity’s programs are reviewed in detail below.

Method

ACE characterizes effective programs as those that (i) target high-priority animal groups, (ii) work in high-priority countries, (iii) work toward high-priority outcomes, and/or (iv) pursue interventions that are expected to be highly effective. This year, we used a scoring framework to assess the effectiveness of charities’ programs on each of these categories: animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions.

We scored the priority levels of different types of animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions (i.e., categories) using the Scale, Tractability, and Neglectedness (STN) framework; for countries, we also included an assessment of global influence. Members of ACE’s research team individually scored various types in each category using their own percentage weights for STN. We averaged these scores and percentage weights to calculate an overall priority level score for each type. For ease of interpretation, we categorized these scores into priority levels of very low, low, moderate, high, and very high.

We then used information supplied by the charity to estimate the percentage of program funding spent on different types of animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions. Using those estimates and our priority level scores, we arrived at a singular program score for each charity, representing the expected effectiveness of their collective programs.

A note about long-term impact

Each charity’s long-term impact is plausibly what matters most.⁷ The potential number of animals affected increases over time due to an accumulation of generations. Thus, we would expect that the long-term impacts of an action would likely affect more animals than the short-term impacts of the same action. This year, we included some considerations of long-term impact in our assessment of each outcome and intervention type. 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) will skew toward emphasizing short-term effects.

Information and Analysis

Animal groups

Anima International’s programs focus exclusively on helping farmed animals, which we think is a high-priority cause area.

Countries

Anima International’s headquarters are currently located in Estonia, but they mainly develop their programs (and have subsidiaries) in Denmark, France, Norway, Poland, the U.K., and Ukraine. A few of their programs have a more global scope.

For each country, we report Mercy For Animals’ FAOI data and global ranking (out of 60 countries) for scale, tractability, and global influence. We report these scores alongside the human population per farmed animal advocacy organization in the country (out of a total of 753 organizations, excluding sanctuaries, that ACE is aware of worldwide), which we used to assess neglectedness.

Half of these countries are very high priority based on their FAOI data on tractability (the U.K., Denmark, and Norway) and low priority based on their FAOI data on scale (Denmark and Norway). Additionally, our assessment suggests that farmed animal advocacy in Ukraine is highly neglected. Note we have lower confidence that Ukraine’s FAOI scores reflect the current situation in the country. Overall, we conclude that most of Anima International’s work targets high-priority countries.

Description of programs

Anima International pursues different outcomes to create change for animals. Their work focuses on improving welfare standards and strengthening the animal advocacy movement, and to a lesser extent, also aims to increase the availability of animal-free products and decrease the consumption of animal products.

To communicate the process by which we interpret 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 describe each of Anima International’s programs and the main interventions they use, listed in order of financial resources devoted to them in the last 18 months (from highest to lowest). Refer to Anima International’s general information request and our Cost Effectiveness criterion for more detailed information.

Anima International’s programs

Research for intervention effectiveness

We categorized the work Anima International does into nine intervention types: corporate outreach, institutional (or corporate) vegan outreach, capacity building, media outreach, individual outreach, research, legal or policy work, and investigations. Below, we summarize the most relevant research on the effectiveness of each of these intervention types, listed in order of financial resources devoted to them in the last 18 months (from highest to lowest).

Corporate outreach
There is some evidence that corporate outreach leads food companies to change their practices related to chicken welfare, and there are some cost-effectiveness estimates suggesting corporate outreach improves the welfare standards of farmed chickens.⁹ Cost-effectiveness estimates vary widely, and it is unclear which is the most accurate. The longer-term effects of improving welfare standards on the production and consumption of animal products are unclear.

Research suggests that the follow-through rate of cage-free corporate commitments ranges from 48%–84% and that corporate campaigns affect nine to 120 hen-years per dollar spent.¹⁰ Cage-free housing systems are believed to reduce suffering by increasing the space available to egg-laying hens and providing them opportunities to perform important behaviors, although mortality may increase during the transition process, and there is some risk that it may remain elevated. However, more recent research suggests that mortality and injuries are associated with operators’ lack of experience with the new system and should decline over time.¹¹

Institutional (or corporate) vegan outreach
We are not currently aware of any peer-reviewed research on influencing the availability of animal-free products through institutional outreach. However, we could learn from studies that investigate the effectiveness of institutional outreach to hospitals and schools on increasing the availability of “healthy foods” (specifically fruits, vegetables, and whole grains). Reaching out to nonprofit institutions with the effective strategies identified in these studies has the potential to increase the availability of animal-free foods, considering the high participation and success rates in health food outreach to schools and hospitals. Some of these strategies included working with the local hospital association and hospital workers’ unions to encourage participation in the intervention, enlisting in-depth assistance from dietitians, and providing advice on how to incorporate new standards into existing operations.

There is some evidence that increasing the availability of animal-free products in institutions can decrease the consumption of animal products. A literature review concluded that increasing the visibility and variety of vegetarian options in food environments decreases meat consumption.¹² The review also suggested that increasing the portion sizes of vegetable dishes in restaurants or canteens (and reducing meat portions) increases vegetable consumption and decreases meat consumption.

Capacity Building
Capacity building enables organizations to develop the competencies and skills to make their team more effective and sustainable, thus increasing their potential to fulfill their mission and create change.¹³ ACE’s 2018 research on the allocation of movement resources suggests that capacity building is neglected relative to other interventions aimed at influencing public opinion and industry. Others have argued that many effective animal advocacy organizations could benefit from capacity-building services, specifically from career services and greater diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, especially in the longer term.¹⁴

The U.S.-based National Council of Nonprofits suggests that networks can be especially effective for capacity building because they catalyze innovation, improve communications, reduce duplication of past mistakes, and spread ideas faster and more efficiently than other capacity-building approaches.

Media outreach
An experiment found that reading news articles about farmed animal welfare reduced self-reported animal product consumption in meat-avoiders (e.g., reducetarians, pescetarians, and vegetarians) but not meat-eaters.¹⁵ A previous study suggests that media attention to animal welfare has a small but statistically significant impact on meat demand.¹⁶

Individual outreach
Existing research suggests that the effectiveness of interventions addressing consumers’ knowledge and emotions about decreasing meat consumption depends on three factors: (i) whether information is provided on health, animal welfare, or environmental effects; (ii) whether information is emotionally or cognitively framed; and (iii) whether information is aligned with consumers’ information needs.¹⁷ Some evidence suggests that a combination of information on the health and environmental effects of meat consumption appears to be the most effective, especially for individuals who already believe in those effects.¹⁸

Evidence also suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare are generally effective at reducing meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions—at least in the short term.¹⁹ Triggering emotions (e.g., empathy, guilt, or disgust) seems to be even more effective at reducing meat consumption than providing facts, and intervention effectiveness can depend on the animal species being targeted.²⁰ Note that most studies focus on the short-term effects of interventions on individual attitudes and intentions, and studies that measure consumption mostly rely on self-reported consumption data, which can be subject to misreporting and biases.

An experiment found that social media posts ​​reduced self-reported animal product consumption by meat-avoiders (i.e., reducetarians, pescetarians, and vegetarians) but did not affect full meat-eaters.²¹

Some empirical studies indicate that self-monitoring—a key part of taking a vegan pledge—reduces meat consumption, at least in the short term.²² Other studies suggest that some participants adopt a more plant-based diet for several months after engaging with a pledge.²³ However, an experimental study found a reduction in meat consumption during the challenge but not after it.²⁴

Research
Conducting research relevant to animal advocacy is a generally promising intervention, especially when considering its potential effects in the longer term. Due to the lack of empirical evidence about the extent to which research results are used by the animal advocacy movement to prioritize and implement their work, our confidence in the short-term effects of this intervention is low. We think the impact of research has a particularly high variance; some research projects can be far more influential than others, and researchers’ rigor seems to be a key factor in their impact. Considering an overview of issues in the research system related to the choice of research questions, the quality and reproducibility of research, and the use of results may be particularly important when determining the impact of research projects.²⁵

Legal or policy work
Available evidence suggests that legal work by animal advocacy organizations can contribute to changes and modifications in the law, help ensure law enforcement, and motivate cultural shifts in societal attitudes toward animal welfare. The success of this legal work requires that such laws have a positive impact on the welfare of animals and that the work those organizations do contributes to the introduction of those laws. While legal change may take longer to achieve than some other forms of change, we expect its effects to be particularly long-lasting.

Investigations
A study on the Australian public’s reaction to investigative footage of cows broadcasted in the media concluded that they were emotionally affected, but that did not translate to significant behavioral change.²⁶ A later study on the same footage concluded that many people who view animal cruelty footage will have a long-term memory of it, but would still prefer to be informed about the issues rather than protected from them. ²⁷ Another study examining the impact of an Australian media campaign—which exposed animal cruelty during the live export of sheep—found no apparent difference in people’s concern for sheep or cow welfare, attitudes toward animal agriculture, acceptance of the meat industry, or trust in meat farmers, after the media campaign.²⁸

Room for More Funding

A recommendation from ACE could lead to a large increase in a charity’s funding. In this criterion, we investigate whether a charity would be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that a new or renewed recommendation may bring in. Our assessment of this criterion ultimately guides our recommendation decision; charities are ineligible to receive a particular recommendation status if they would be unable to absorb and effectively utilize the subsequent funding. All descriptive data and estimations for this criterion can be found in the RFMF model spreadsheet.

Method

We begin our room for more funding (RFMF) assessment by inspecting the charity’s revenue and plans for expansion through 2024, assuming that their ACE recommendation status and the amount of ACE-influenced funding they receive will stay the same. Then, we outline how the charity would likely expand if they were to receive funds beyond their predicted income and use this information to calculate their RFMF. Finally, we share our thoughts about the charity’s overall financial sustainability and revenue diversity.

Plans for Expansion

To estimate charities’ RFMF, we request their financial records from the past 30 months and ask them to predict what their revenue will be in the next 30 months. We also ask how they plan to allocate funding among their programs. We then assess our level of confidence in their projections based on factors such as past revenue, past expenditures, and nonfinancial barriers to the scalability of their programs (e.g., time or talent shortages).

Although we list the expenditures for planned nonprogram expenses, we do not assess the charity’s overhead costs in this criterion, given that there is no evidence that the total share of overhead costs negatively impacts overall effectiveness.³⁵ However, we do consider relative overhead costs per program in our Cost Effectiveness criterion. Here, we focus on determining whether additional resources are likely to be used for effective programs or other beneficial organizational changes. The latter may include investments into infrastructure and staff retention, both of which we think are important for sustainable growth.

Unexpected Funding

We ask charities to indicate how they would spend additional, unexpected funding that an ACE recommendation may bring in. This amount varies from charity to charity, but on average is roughly $200,000 per year for Standout Charities and $1,000,000 per year for Top Charities. We also ask previously recommended charities to indicate how they would use additional funding because there is some evidence that repeatedly recommended charities are more appealing to donors; therefore, they may get more ACE-influenced funding over time. We then assess our level of confidence in the charity’s ability to carry out their plans in 2023 and 2024—i.e., how much unexpected funding we believe they could utilize for effective programs in that timeframe—to estimate their RFMF for those years. These estimates are then shared with the charity and adjusted as needed based on feedback. Our RFMF estimates are intended to identify the point at which we would want to check in with a charity to ensure that they have used their funds effectively and can still absorb additional funding.

Reserves

We may adjust RFMF based on the status of a charity’s reserves. It is common practice for charities to hold more funds than needed for their current expenses in order to be able to withstand changes in the business cycle or external shocks that may affect their incoming revenue. Such additional funds can also serve as investments in future projects. Thus, it can be effective to provide a charity with additional funding to secure the organization’s stability and/or provide funding for larger, future projects. Therefore, we increase a charity’s RFMF if they are below their targeted amount of reserves. If a target does not exist, we suggest that charities hold reserves equal to at least one year of expenditures.³⁶

Revenue Diversity

The charities we evaluate typically receive revenue from a variety of sources, such as individual donations and grants from foundations.³⁷ A review of the literature on nonprofit finance suggests that revenue diversity may be positively associated with revenue predictability if the sources of income are largely uncorrelated.³⁸ However, there is evidence that revenue diversity may not always be associated with financial stability.³⁹ Therefore, although revenue diversity does not play a direct role in our recommendation decision, we indicate charities’ major sources of income in this criterion for donors interested in financial stability.

Information and Analysis

The chart below shows Anima International’s revenues, expenditures, and net assets from 2020–2021, as well as their own projections for the years 2022–2024.

_{Revenue, Expenditures, and ACE-Influenced Funding Over the Years 2020–2024}

Plans for Expansion

Anima International plans to expand all of their programs.

Below, we share Anima International’s plans for each of their programs in more detail. Projected changes in expenditure are the charity’s own estimates from August 2022. We also include a surface-level assessment of the feasibility of their plans. More details can be found in the corresponding estimation sheet and in the supplementary materials.

Based on our assessment of Cost Effectiveness, Animal International’s programs on public outreach, strengthening the animal advocacy movement, and building alliances with key Influencer groups are less cost effective compared to their other programs, as well as some programs at other charities that we consider to be highly impactful. Looking forward to 2023 and 2024, we estimate that about 64% of Anima International’s planned expenditures would go toward programs that ACE currently considers to be highly cost effective.

Unexpected Funding

In addition to other sources of funding, Anima International has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of their recommended charity status for the past five years. Thus, their RFMF analysis will focus on our assessment of whether they could continue to effectively absorb funding that comes from our recommendation.

Anima International outlined that if they were to spend an additional $200,000 per year, $140,000 would be focused on scaling corporate outreach programs or more medium-to-high risk plans, like securing footage from industry whistleblowers. The next $40,000 would be dedicated to food system transformation, and the final $20,000 would be dedicated to capacity building and/or grants. We believe this is an effective and plausible use of funding relative to their current expenditure on these activities. Overall, we have high confidence that Anima International could effectively absorb at least an additional $200,000 per year beyond their plans for expansion outlined in the previous section.

Anima International outlined that if they were to spend an additional $1,000,000 per year, $400,000 would be focused on higher-risk-and-reward corporate outreach programs. The next $300,000 would be dedicated to food system transformation, and the final $300,000 would go toward E.U.-level policy work, capacity building, and/or grants. We believe this is an effective and plausible use of funding, with some uncertainty regarding their ability to manage high-projected growth and recruit all the staff necessary to achieve that growth. Overall, we have high confidence that Anima International could effectively absorb at least an additional $1,000,000 per year beyond their plans for expansion outlined in the previous section.

Reserves

With more than 100% of their current annual expenditures held in net assets—as reported by Anima International for 2021—we believe that they hold a sufficient amount of reserves compared to their target level of 100%.

Revenue Diversity

Anima International receives the majority of their income (over 89%) from grants/donations. In 2020 and 2022, they received approximately 20% and 40% of their funding respectively from donations larger than 20% of their annual revenue. They have several restricted donations of $6,000,000 USD over 2021–2023 for corporate work for broiler chickens and movement building. They also have grants amounting up to $1,300,000 in 2022 for work on policy, food system transformation, corporate outreach, and investigative work.