Top

Animal Charity Evaluators

Helping People Help Animals

ACTAsia

Evaluated Charity

ACTAsia works to drive long-term, sustainable change for animals, people, and the environment through a range of education programs for children, consumers, and professionals. The award-winning programs, recognized by the UN, drive positive and sustainable long-term change in Asian societies, helping people to understand and appreciate the importance of the interdependence of animals, people, and the environment. Education helps to increase awareness and understanding of animal sentience and interconnectivity of all living things—something which can be lacking in parts of Asian society owing to a complex range of historical, political, and socio-economic factors. ACTAsia is registered as a nonprofit organization in the U.K., the Netherlands, and Australia, with 501(c)3 status in the U.S. and offices in China. ACTAsia has a Special Consultative Status with UN ECOSOC.

Primary Areas of Work Fur Industry
Secondary Areas of Work General Animal Advocacy Capacity Building
Review Published 2023
Website ACTAsia

To create a more compassionate world for animals, people, and the environment.

Why did ACTAsia not receive our recommendation?

ACTAsia’s work to increase knowledge and skills for animal advocacy, improve animal welfare standards, and increase engagement in animal advocacy is promising because it primarily focuses on countries and interventions that we consider high priority. For more information, see their Impact Potential spreadsheet. However, despite their impactful work, we estimate that additional funds would have marginally more impact going to our recommended charities. See 2023 Criteria Methods and Limitations for a detailed explanation of how we conduct evaluations and our 2023 Evaluation Process for information about our decision-making process. While ACTAsia did not receive a recommendation from us this year, we recognize them as one of the most effective charities in their space.

Are ACTAsia’s programs cost effective?

After analyzing the recent achievements and expenditures of ACTAsia’s programs, we assessed the fur-free retailer scheme as particularly cost effective because it reached a high number of companies compared to other corporate outreach achievements. In contrast, we assessed their updated report on the China fur trade as less cost effective because we consider anti-fur advocacy lower-impact and more resource-intensive than other cause areas1. For more information, see ACTAsia’s Cost-Effectiveness spreadsheet.

$645K

Funding Gap
2024-2025

10–19

Staff Size

2006

Year Founded

How is ACTAsia’s organizational health?

Organizational factors can influence a charity’s effectiveness and stability. Based on our assessment, we are confident that ACTAsia has the key policies and processes in place necessary for healthy workplace conditions, governance, and staff engagement. We also positively noted their commitment to ensuring open dialogue and honest feedback, and to creating a culture where staff can openly discuss their mental health.

How much additional funding could they use?

We estimate that ACTAsia has room for $345,787 of additional funding in 2024 and $300,000 in 2025, beyond their current projected revenues for those years. Therefore, we assess that they could effectively use a total revenue of up to $1,145,787 in 2024 and $1,300,000 in 2025. For more information, see their Room for More Funding spreadsheet.

  1. ACTAsia disagrees with our cost-effectiveness assessment of their China fur trade report. They maintain that research such as the fur trade report plays a crucial role in increasing awareness, facilitating advocacy, and fostering informed public discourse. According to ACTAsia, well-researched reports are essential for influencing stakeholders, particularly in regions where awareness of animal rights is limited. Furthermore, ACTAsia maintains that research serves multiple purposes, including evaluating economic impacts, providing guidance on sustainability, and reducing duplicative research efforts. They assert that the long-term benefits of this type of research outweigh its initial costs, ultimately leading to cost-effective advocacy.