What does the evidence actually say about the many ways people try to help animals?
Animal Charity Evaluators’ Better for Animals: Evidence-Based Insights for Effective Animal Advocacy resource is an ongoing project to answer it, in which we distill key research on different animal advocacy interventions to help us evaluate their impact in different contexts. We have made this research publicly available to support informed decision making about how to help the most animals. You may read more about the methodology in our recent announcement.
This is a living document and we want to make it as helpful, accessible, and up-to-date as possible, so please feel free to reach out with feedback! To keep up to date with ACE’s research and the work of the amazing organizations that we support, be sure to sign up for our mailing list.
To make the research easier to explore, we spotlighted one intervention each month through a series of blog and social media posts. Now that the series has wrapped, here’s a recap of all 11 interventions we covered, from corporate outreach to government advocacy, along with what we found and how confident we are in each assessment. Click on any of the interventions listed below to read the full post, including the evidence, examples, and caveats behind each assessment.
This category refers to outreach or campaigns to encourage food companies (e.g., retailers, producers, or restaurants) to commit to improving animal welfare standards throughout their supply chains. Unlike ‘farmer collaboration’, which involves directly engaging with farmers and producers to adopt better practices on the ground, this approach targets the organizational policies and commitments that drive supply chain changes.
What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
Corporate outreach for welfare improvements has a strong track record of success, playing a crucial role for hundreds of millions of animals’ wellbeing. However, reports highlight the need for thoughtful implementation and a focus on long-term strategy if these efforts are to translate into sustained, systemic change.
We found significantly less evidence for the producer outreach subcategory than for the impact of corporate outreach as a whole. We expect this is partly because NGOs have not typically prioritized producer outreach, given that producers are less well known to the public and present fewer opportunities for public campaign actions. While we think it is likely that conducting outreach efforts to actors across the supply chain (not just retailers) will significantly increase the likelihood of securing new welfare commitments and ensuring their implementation, we were unable to find robust evidence backing this up.
Overall, we think that corporate and institutional outreach for welfare improvements appears to be a very promising intervention, due to the relative wealth of evidence for impact at least in the shorter term. This is a broad, preliminary assessment and we expect the effectiveness of any intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken.
Our confidence in this assessment is moderate. Further research would be particularly helpful concerning the effectiveness of corporate outreach for welfare improvements across a broader range of animal groups and geographic regions.
This category refers to running vegan or vegetarian (veg*n) pledges to promote individual dietary change. Veg*n pledges are commitments from individuals to eliminate or reduce their animal product consumption for a specific period of time. Organizations typically campaign to achieve sign-ups to their pledge program, and then keep in touch with participants over the course of their commitment, with varying levels of support and information provided. Veg*n pledges likely have other outcomes too, such as increased public awareness of veg*nism and promoting plant-based foods through corporate partnerships.
Summary: What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
Even though Veganuary follow-up surveys report very high success rates, there are several findings that make us uncertain about the effectiveness of veg*n pledges:
Studies that randomly assign participants to pledge conditions are rare, and those that exist generally find that pledges are effective mostly in the short term (i.e., for the duration of the pledge). However, there are considerable uncertainties when generalizing these experimental findings to real-world campaigns.
Veganuary’s own conclusions rely on retrospective self-reports of Veganuary participants who responded to the follow-up survey, which may skew toward the most engaged among the overall pool of participants. Measuring dietary choices through self report is also often unreliable due to factors such as memory recall errors and social desirability bias, where individuals consciously or unconsciously misreport their animal product consumption, especially when primed to consider the ethical consequences of their food choices.
It seems likely that many people who self select into participating in veg*n pledges already reduce their meat consumption or intend to do so. Therefore, it is possible that they would have further reduced their consumption anyway, without the intervention. However, it is also possible that pledges kickstart or otherwise facilitate this process.
Well-known challenges such as Veganuary can leverage their popularity to build corporate partnerships and encourage retailers to increase their plant-based options. This can lead to increased plant-based sales driven by changes to the food environment (e.g., prominent product placement) and active promotion of plant-based options (e.g., through price reductions), but has not been robustly shown to decrease animal product sales.
Based on the available evidence, we tentatively think that veg*n pledges appear to be a less promising intervention among those we assessed, at least for creating new, sustained diet change in the general population. This is a broad, preliminary assessment and we expect the effectiveness of any intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken.
For corporate and institutional partnerships, we recommend campaigners advocate for interventions with demonstrated success in displacing animal products, such as plant-based defaults or a high proportion of plant-based to animal-based options. Strategic product placement, while effective at increasing plant-based sales, does not seem to reduce animal product purchases.
This category refers to protests or demonstrations to support an animal advocacy initiative. Tactics include organizing or participating in protests, demonstrations, or marches to raise awareness about animal welfare issues and advocate for change; engaging in nonviolent direct action campaigns such as sit-ins, blockades, or banner drops; and developing creative and attention-grabbing stunts or performances.
What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
In terms of influencing public opinion, research on the effectiveness of animal advocacy protests showsmixed results, often with negative short-term impacts. Case studies suggest that awareness of protests can initially lead to more negative attitudes toward animals (the measured attitudes included attitudes toward animals, support for changing how we treat animals in society, and willingness to do something about it). The extent of negative attitudes may vary based on how radical the actions are. While nonviolent tactics are generally associated with greater success than violent tactics, evidence comparing radical nonviolent and moderate nonviolent approaches remains inconclusive. However, one case study suggests that these initial negative effects may fade over time. Months after protests, public attitudes toward animals can improve, alongside increases in media coverage, donations, and sign-ups to Animal Rising, the group behind the protests studied.
In terms of achieving corporate and policy change, protests appear to have been part of many successful campaigns for specific welfare or policy changes, such as the cage-free commitments secured by The Humane League and others, and national bans on fur farming in the European Union. The year after Animal Rising disrupted the Grand National horse race, a number of rules changes were introduced by the organizers to protect the welfare of the horses.3
In terms of increasing media attention and public discourse, protests appear effective at raising the profile of animal issues. Research indicates that especially disruptive or seemingly illogical actions can generate significant media coverage, thereby increasing the salience of the topic in public conversation. For instance, following the Grand National disruption, there was a sharp increase in media attention, as well as direct donations and sign-ups for the organizing group. This suggests that protests can successfully mobilize resources and set the agenda, even if the immediate media framing is negative.
Evaluating the impact of protests is challenging for several reasons. First, protests are rarely used in isolation; instead, they are often integrated into broader campaigns to directly or indirectly advance outcomes for animals. We found no empirical research explicitly testing the added effectiveness of protests when combined with other tactics.
However, there are compelling precedents where protests appear to have served as an important lever of pressure to secure corporate or policy commitments, such as the Open Wing Alliance’s global cage-free victories. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to isolate the specific contribution of demonstrations relative to other campaign activities.
Protests can also theoretically support a “radical flank” strategy, where disruptive actions by one faction make the demands of moderate groups appear more reasonable. However, the evidence for this is mixed: While some studies suggest a positive contrast effect that boosts support for moderates, others indicate that perceived extremism can generate backlash or repression that hinders the movement as a whole.
Second, evaluating the success of a protest depends heavily on the underlying theory of change. Protests can pursue distinct strategic mechanisms, and data that appears negative through one lens (e.g., increased public annoyance) may be viewed as a success through another (e.g., increased issue salience or imposed costs on a target). Therefore, we are unable to come up with a blanket verdict on protests. The evidence suggests their effectiveness is highly variable and depends heavily on the specific outcome targeted — and, crucially, whether that outcome ultimately translates into tangible benefits for animals.
We also think that due to the scarcity of rigorous, long-term evidence supporting their effectiveness, apparent conflicting effects, and the potential risks of backlash, protests require rigorous strategic planning: Distinct goals must be defined, risks to the wider movement assessed, and tactics carefully calibrated to the specific context. Below are some of the contextual factors that may make protests more or less likely to succeed.
In terms of public attitudes and public and policy backlash, we think there is strong evidence that protests have better outcomes and are less risky when using nonviolent tactics. Nonviolent protests are consistently linked to greater success, across social movements, than violent tactics.
Our confidence in this assessment is low to moderate. This means our hesitancy about protests should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness. Rather, it reflects a lack of robust data and the difficulty of isolating the specific impact of protests.
This category refers to programs or schemes to label or certify products as vegan or vegetarian, as well as cruelty-free, eco/climate, health, and higher-welfare labeling and certification schemes. These programs aim to use labels or certifications to increase or decrease the visibility, demand, and consumption of certain products or menu items. Examples of tactics include launching labelling schemes; campaigning for new products to receive veg*n/plant-based labels; and lobbying brands to commit to labeling their products.
What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
Product labels generally fall into three categories: ingredient-based (e.g., “veg*n” or “plant-based”), environmental (e.g. “low-emission”), and welfare-based (e.g. “cage-free”). Studies on ingredient-based labels show mixed results, with most evidence suggesting no or limited impact on reducing animal product consumption. Research on environmental labels suggests that there is a significant risk of these shifting consumption from higher-emitting animal products (e.g., beef) to lower-emitting animal products (e.g., chicken), with no increase in the consumption of plant-based products, resulting in more suffering due to the small animal replacement problem. Almost half of consumers state being willing to pay more for products with labels indicating higher animal welfare, and these do appear to shift increase consumer demand in some contexts, but their effectiveness is reduced by humane-washing (i.e., deceptive labels), the large number of different labels, consumers’ lack of trust in the labels, confusion about their meaning, and consumers’ price sensitivity.
We think that ingredient-based and environmental product labeling appears to be a less promising tactic than others we reviewed due to the evidence suggesting no or limited impact on consumer behavior and the risk of harm when labels are tied to environmental impacts. However, animal-welfare labels appear to be a more promising tactic given research indicates consumers’ concern for animal welfare, their willingness to pay more for high-welfare products, and case studies of this translating into increasing demand for high-welfare products. These are broad, preliminary assessments and we expect the effectiveness of any intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken.
Our confidence in these assessments ismoderate. We think that further research is warranted, especially into how effectiveness varies between countries and products, and how different labels can be more effective for different consumer segments.
Effective advocacy research involves investigating and evaluating strategies, interventions, and cause areas to identify impactful and cost-effective ways to help animals. It can also include more foundational research, such as in the social sciences, to understand the context in which advocates operate.
The aim is to inform the Effective Animal Advocacy (EAA) field and methodology, which entails using evidence and reason to do the most good for animals, adjusting interventions based on available evidence, prioritizing tactics with good evidence of causal effectiveness, and prioritizing more cost-effective tactics.
Research is carried out by academics, research organizations, or researchers at animal advocacy organizations.
Summary: What is our Overall Assessment of This Intervention? How Confident are We in This Assessment?
Effective advocacy research seems to be a bottleneck for the animal advocacy movement, and its funding is relatively low compared to other interventions, and when compared to research funding in other fields. However, advocates don’t simply need more research, but specific types of research, especially in China, Southeast Asia, and Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs).
A major barrier is translating research findings into impactful actions. Given how much interventions vary in their cost effectiveness, effective advocacy research has the potential to be highly impactful if it encourages a shift from less to more cost-effective interventions and tactics. However, advocates generally prefer making small adjustments to their programs rather than adopting entirely new tactics, partly due to funder expectations and contextual constraints. This lack of flexibility could significantly limit the impact of research on advocacy outcomes.
Based on our evidence review, we think the effectiveness of this intervention is highly context-specific. That means each research project needs to be evaluated on its own merits based on who would use the research and its potential impact, whether the research question is strategically actionable, and whether there is a plan to translate the findings into accessible and practical insights.
Given the high cost of research and the challenges in translating research findings into impact for animals, research efforts need to be highly strategic.
All research efforts should be communicated and disseminated with end users in mind.
Our confidence in this assessment is low to moderate.
We think research is indispensable for social movements, and as such, future meta research should place a strong emphasis on identifying strategies to increase the uptake of research findings.
This category refers to conducting investigations to document animal welfare violations and expose the mistreatment of animals on farms, in transport facilities, and in slaughterhouses. It can also include the development and implementation of tools and systems to make it easier for individuals to report animal welfare violations, such as online reporting platforms. Among other things, investigation footage is often shared (through social media, television, or other channels) to encourage people to reduce their consumption of animal products, sign petitions calling for improved animal welfare standards, and support other animal advocacy efforts. It is also used as evidence in legal proceedings. As such, it can be used to complement many of the other interventions listed in the Better for Animals resource.
What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
The evidence that we found is subject to various limitations. Much is theoretical or subjective, and the empirical studies are often over five years old, have small sample sizes, or show correlation without being able to prove causation. Most evidence pertains to the U.S., with questionable generalizability to other regions. Evidence also typically focuses on the effect of investigations used for vegan outreach, rather than, e.g., legislative change or corporate campaigning. As such, our confidence in our assessment is low.
Overall, our evidence review suggests that investigation footage is likely to elicit positive changes in attitudes toward animals, at least in the short term, but less likely to elicit meaningful behavioral change, such as dietary change or active pro-animal engagement. Public attitudes toward investigations appear to be positive, especially when abuse is uncovered, property damage is limited, and the footage highlights both the plights of individual animals and the systemic cruelty of intensive animal agriculture.
Investigations are also frequently used in tandem with other interventions listed in the Better for Animals resource, such as corporate welfare campaigns and social media outreach, so for context, we recommend also reading the summaries for those interventions.
We would welcome more empirical research that tests the impact of investigations on public attitudes toward animals and dietary habits, especially well-designed studies that provide reliable evidence of causation (or lack thereof), rather than merely correlation. We would also welcome research testing how investigation footage impacts the effectiveness of other interventions. Further case studies of the impact of specific investigations and research into the impact of direct rescue work are also warranted.
This category refers to building or strengthening networks, alliances, and coalitions within animal advocacy. Tactics include organizing events and conferences to facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing and the development of strategic partnerships with other organizations to enhance collective impact. Networking initiatives for veg*ns and advocates are also used to improve motivation, wellbeing, and retention.
Network building is a broad intervention category. In order to organize the evidence systematically, we identified the three main levels at which network building can occur:
Interpersonal, which refers to building personal connections within veg*n and activist networks. Expected outcomes include improved retention of veg*ns and advocates, reduced burnout, stronger identification with the movement, and increased motivation for sustained engagement.
Interorganizational, which refers to collaborating and building coalitions with other animal advocacy organizations. Expected outcomes include improved coordination and reduced duplication of effort, more effective resource sharing, resulting in greater collective impact than organizations could achieve independently.
Intermovement, which refers to alliances between different social movements, such as environmental and animal advocacy groups. Expected outcomes include increased political leverage, access to new audiences and resources, and policy influence that would not be achievable by the animal advocacy movement alone.
These interventions overall aim to increase the capacity and effectiveness of the movement, and thereby the pace and scale at which impact for animals can be achieved.
What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
Our research indicates that there is currently a small evidence base regarding network building relative to other animal advocacy interventions. Most evidence we found consists of qualitative interview studies, self-report surveys, and case studies about the experiences of veg*n and advocate communities (at the interpersonal level) and the processes of coalition formation and sustainability in other social movements (at the interorganizational and intermovement levels). We are not aware of any evidence that directly demonstrates the impact of network building on outcomes for animals.
Strength of evidence is low to moderate and our confidence in our overall assessment is currently low to moderate relative to other interventions.
Network building is also frequently used in tandem with interventions such as corporate campaigns, government outreach, and skill building, so, for context, we recommend also reading the evidence reviews for those interventions. Please note that effectiveness likely differs depending on the combination of interventions.
Due to the high potential of network building as a force multiplier for other interventions, and the current scarcity of evidence,future research could be particularly valuable.
This category refers to books, documentaries, and podcasts intended to spread anti-speciesist values, promote behavioral change, or increase public support for and engagement in animal advocacy initiatives.
Tactics can include, e.g., collaborating with authors to publish books that highlight animal welfare issues; producing and distributing documentaries that raise awareness of animal welfare issues; or producing or appearing on podcasts that feature discussions with experts and advocates.
Summary: What is Our Overall Assessment of This Intervention? How Confident Are We In This Assessment?
Note that assessing the impact of this intervention as a collection of many activities is particularly challenging, as effectiveness is likely to vary substantially across individual books, documentaries, and podcasts. Some publications may achieve an outsized impact by reaching large audiences or shifting public discourse, while others may have negligible effects. A related challenge is that findings from any single book, documentary, or podcast are unlikely to generalize to others. For these reasons, we think future research would be most valuable if it focused on identifying the factors that distinguish successful publications from unsuccessful ones, rather than attempting to estimate an overall average effect for this category of intervention.
Books
We found a very small amount of evidence on the effects of books in animal advocacy. The scarce evidence comes from a few surveys asking veg*ns what interventions were the most influential in their behavior change, and results are mixed. In one survey, books are one of the interventions most-commonly cited, and in the other two surveys they were one of the least-commonly cited. These surveys are based on self-report data and caution is therefore needed when interpreting results, and they cannot establish causality. We also found a few peer-reviewed articles on the effects of books in changing attitudes toward animals, with results again mixed. Two studies (one in Poland and the other in Japan) showed positive effects while a U.K. study found null results.
Overall, the literature is so scarce that we do not feel confident enough to provide an assessment of how promising this intervention is.
We expect the effectiveness of this intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken. The relatively weak and limited evidence suggests this intervention may be stronger when animal welfare themes are woven into the narrative rather than stated explicitly.
Our confidence in this assessment is low due to the lack of methodologically-rigorous studies measuring effects on behavior, and the lack of agreement between studies.
Because of the limited evidence available, we think that further research is warranted, especially experimental and longitudinal studies testing the causal effects of books on animal product consumption and other types of pro-animal behavior change, the factors that can increase book success for different audiences, and cost-effectiveness analyses.
Documentaries
We found mixed evidence on the effectiveness of documentaries. In surveys asking veg*ns what interventions were the most influential in their behavior change, veg*ns generally report documentaries as more influential than books and most other interventions. However, experimental research in the short term generally suggests that while documentaries can significantly affect intentions to reduce meat consumption, they don’t seem to reliably lead to actual behavior change.
We think that documentaries appear to be amoderately promising intervention: While they can influence attitudes and possibly consumption, the best experimental evidence shows effects that are inconsistent and often limited to intentions.
Our research indicates that there is currently a moderate evidence base regarding documentaries relative to other animal advocacy interventions. Note that a very large body of evidence in animal advocacy may still be much smaller than what is available for human interventions. Most evidence we found consists of surveys and experimental studies about their influence on behavior change and intentions to reduce meat consumption.
We expect the effectiveness of this intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken.
Documentaries appear to be more effective when they are emotionally engaging, supported by well-funded promotional campaigns, released at strategic times, and supported by major distribution channels.
Conversely, documentaries are likely to be less effective when there is disproportionate expenditure on production value rather than strategic audience reach, or when they do not align with local cultural norms, which can lead to backlash.
Our confidence in this assessment ismoderate due to the lack of agreement between studies and the lack of generalizability of findings due to differences in methodology, outcome measures, documentaries studied, and cultural contexts—combined with small samples and self-report biases.
Podcasts
Research on this intervention is very scarce, with publications generally limited to opinion pieces and just one peer-reviewed article suggesting that horse caretakers adopted more animal-friendly behaviors after tuning into an animal welfare science podcast. While not about animal advocacy specifically, we found a couple of scoping reviews on health podcasts that suggest they can be a promising intervention to improve awareness and knowledge of health improvements, yet there remain uncertainties on whether they are effective at promoting behavior change, especially in the long-term.
While the literature we found can provide some insights about the effectiveness of podcasts, the literature is so scarce that we do not feel confident enough to provide an assessment of how promising this intervention is.
We expect the effectiveness of this intervention to vary significantly depending on the context and the approach taken. The relatively weak and limited evidence suggests this intervention may be stronger when podcasts:
Include specific calls to action
Are authentic and relatable, including personal stories and lived experiences through narrative-based approaches.
Feature hyper-targeted niche audiences and involve relationship building with the host before recording.
Use nonpartisan voices and credible experts, which can build trust more effectively than overtly partisan content.
Our confidence in this assessment islow due to the lack of empirical studies available related to podcasts and animal advocacy.
Future research should prioritize conducting empirical studies on the effectiveness of podcasts in animal advocacy on changing podcast listeners’ behavior — such as reducing animal product consumption, donating to animal charities, or volunteering — and should focus on identifying the specific factors that distinguish successful podcasts from unsuccessful ones.
This category includes ballot initiatives, propositions, referendums, and other citizen-led efforts aimed at changing laws and policies affecting animals. These initiatives serve as tools for law and policy advocacy, with some considerations overlapping with the Government Outreach intervention. However, they are treated separately here due to their distinct theories of change. This intervention encompasses both direct democracy mechanisms, where the electorate directly votes on a policy without needing the involvement of elected representatives (for example, U.S. city and state level ballot initiatives), and indirect democracy mechanisms, where a petition meeting specific requirements can compel a legal process to address a proposed measure (for example, the E.U. European Citizens’ Initiatives).
What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
Citizen-led initiatives can drive significant legal changes that improve animal welfare at scale, especially by leveraging the voter-buyer gap, whereby public support for animal welfare often exceeds consumer willingness to pay more for higher-welfare products. However, the effectiveness of these initiatives is highly context-dependent, hinging on political stability, legal structures, enforcement capacity, and the presence of well-funded counter-lobbies. While these campaigns can mobilize public support and shift norms, they are costly, complex, and vulnerable to backlash or dilution through legal and political resistance. Overall, the research suggests they offer high potential impact but high dependency on favorable conditions. Whether an initiative is likely to succeed can be estimated to some degree beforehand.
The strength of evidence for this area is moderate, with a mix of empirical case studies, survey data, and cost-effectiveness analyses, though few are rigorous or generalizable across contexts. Much of the evidence is context-specific or reliant on expert opinion, limiting confidence in broad conclusions.
We think that citizen-led initiatives are a highly context-dependent intervention, with mixed promise. Evidence on their impact is mixed, they often entail high resource demands, and they can carry risks of legal or political backlash. However, in jurisdictions with enabling legal frameworks, strong public support, and the potential for global positive spillover effects, these initiatives may offer high-leverage opportunities and deserve targeted exploration.
Voters rely heavily on party endorsements, requiring costly lobbying and risking partisan backlash or rule changes that restrict future initiatives.
Our confidence in this assessment is moderate. Due to the high potential of this class of interventions under the right conditions, future research could be particularly valuable.
This intervention covers three tactics: divestment (withdrawing or withholding capital from companies that harm animals), impact investment (directing capital toward companies developing solutions such as alternative proteins), and shareholder advocacy (using shareholder rights to influence companies from within). These tactics aim to reduce animal suffering by limiting harmful industries’ access to capital, stigmatizing animal agriculture to build public and political support for change, and pressuring companies to adopt higher welfare standards or shift toward animal-free products.
In practice, this summary focuses primarily on divestment and shareholder advocacy, as these appear to be the tactics most commonly used by animal advocacy organizations and the ones for which the most evidence is available.
Summary: What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
Ethical investing or divestment generally appears to have limited direct impact; i.e., they appear unlikely to directly and measurably change targeted companies’ share prices or access to capital. This is primarily due to market efficiency, with other investors likely to fill the gap left by socially conscious ones. Divestment may still have value if used strategically to publicly highlight the harms an industry causes and to build momentum for the broader advocacy movement, especially when paired with efforts to ensure follow-through and accountability. Indirect benefits — such as reputational damage that deters a company’s business partners, employees, and customers — may also arise from the stigmatization of a certain company or industry, though the empirical evidence for such effects is not firmly established. Of the available tactics, shareholder advocacy appears most promising, as it allows engaged investors to influence harmful companies from within, with relatively low costs and a modest but meaningful success rate.
Our research indicates that there is currently a small evidence base regarding investor advocacy relative to other animal advocacy interventions. Shareholder advocacy appears to be a fairly novel animal advocacy strategy, and we found little information relating to its effectiveness in different contexts. There is a larger body of evidence — including theoretical models, empirical studies, and qualitative observations — pertaining to other social causes beyond animal advocacy. We expect much of this evidence to be reasonably applicable to animal advocacy, as the underlying financial mechanisms (such as market efficiency and shareholder rights) are not cause-specific. However, differences in public attitudes toward animal agriculture — compared to other causes such as climate change — may limit the transferability of findings on stigmatization and movement-building. Our current confidence in our overall assessment is therefore moderate.
Investor advocacy is frequently used in tandem with interventions like government outreach. Effectiveness likely differs depending on the combination of interventions, so we recommend reading the government outreach evidence review for context.
Further research into the effectiveness of this intervention specifically for animal advocacy would be valuable, including additional case studies of organizations or investor groups that have trialed this approach, the degree of success they achieved, and the factors that may have influenced the outcome.
This category refers to engaging politicians, governments, or public institutions to change laws or policies affecting animals. Tactics include lobbying legislators to propose or support animal-friendly legislation, collaborating with policymakers to draft and refine policies that enhance animal welfare, and providing expert input or research to inform decision making.
Note: This review currently only covers government outreach as an intervention for farmed animals, and not for wild animals, although many of the findings may be transferable.
Summary: Our assessment, and how confident we are in it
Government and legislative advocacy have the potential to create substantial positive change for animal welfare due to the scale of influence and the enforcement mechanisms available to governments.
Effectiveness varies greatly depending on the political, social, and economic context, and is likely substantially higher when there is public and media support, strategic alliances, and effective enforcement mechanisms.
We have significant uncertainties around advocating to reduce subsidies for animal agriculture, as some evidence suggests this could increase the overall number of animals farmed.
The strength of evidence is moderate, drawing on a mix of academic literature, expert opinion, case studies, and survey data. However, it lacks rigorous studies that would allow for causal attribution, has limited coverage of low- and middle-income countries (with most research focusing on North America and Europe), and relies heavily on context-specific findings.
Our research indicates that there is currently a moderate evidence base regarding government outreach relative to other animal advocacy interventions. The evidence we found largely consists of descriptive articles, expert opinion, case studies, and survey data.
Strength of evidence is mixed because the literature lacks rigorous studies that would allow for causal attribution and relies heavily on context-specific findings concentrated in North America and Europe.
Therefore, our confidence in our overall assessment is currently moderate.
A key gap is the net effect of specific asks. Some reforms could either reduce animal suffering or increase it, for instance by shifting production toward the far more numerous chickens, and more research is needed to be able to better predict the direction and effect size for different asks. Research should also map which legislative wins are actually enforced by tracking reforms through to measured welfare outcomes. Better research designs are also needed to test the causal and counterfactual impact of lobbying and other forms of government outreach. Other priority gaps include transferability of findings beyond North America and Europe and to legislative outreach for wild animals.
Across all 11 interventions, a few themes came up again and again. Context matters enormously: the same tactic can succeed in one setting and fall flat in another, depending on the country, the target, and how it’s carried out. Strong evidence is still scarce in many areas, so several of our assessments come with real uncertainty, and low confidence reflects a lack of data rather than proof that something doesn’t work. And most interventions are rarely used alone, which makes isolating the impact of any single one genuinely hard.
None of this points to one “best” way to help animals. It points to the value of staying evidence-led, thinking carefully about context, and updating our views as we learn more.
As a reminder, Better for Animals is a living resource, so if something is unclear, out of date, or missing, we’d still love to hear from you, and you can keep up with our latest research through our mailing list.
While we hope advocates find this resource helpful for their strategic and tactical decisions, it is subject to various limitations. As such, we encourage advocates to consider the evidence presented alongside their on-the-ground knowledge of how interventions function and complement one another in specific contexts.
Our compassionate team of researchers, communicators, advocates, and experts come from all over the world. We're united by our shared goal to reduce animal suffering and use evidence and reason to guide our efforts. Together, we write to reflect on our work, share what we're learning, and support a world where all animals can flourish.
ACE is dedicated to creating a world where all animals can thrive, regardless of their species. We take the guesswork out of supporting animal advocacy by directing funds toward the most impactful charities and programs, based on evidence and research.
167
Recipients working on promising projects.
42
Countries across six continents.
$68M
Donations within the animal advocacy movement.
$58,000,000+in donations already made to our recommended charities between January 2019 and March 2025
Looking to make your first donation? We’re happy to help
