Anima International

How Anima International Performs on our Criteria

Interpreting our “Overall Assessments”

We provide an overall assessment of each charity’s performance on each criterion. These assessments are expressed as two series of circles. The number of teal circles represents our assessment of a charity’s performance on a given criterion relative to the other charities we’ve evaluated.

The number of gray circles indicates the strength of the evidence supporting each performance assessment and, correspondingly, our confidence in each assessment:

Criterion 1: Does the charity engage in programs that seem likely to be highly impactful?

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 categories described in our Menu of Outcomes for Animal Advocacy. These categories are: influencing public opinion, capacity building, influencing industry, building alliances, and influencing policy and the law.

Cause Area

Anima International focuses primarily on reducing the suffering of farmed animals, which we believe is a high-impact cause area.

Theory of Change

To 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.

A note about long-term impact

We do represent some of each charity’s long-term impact in our theory of change diagrams, though we are generally much less certain about the long-term impact of a charity or intervention than we are about more short-term impact. Because of this uncertainty, our reasoning about each charity’s impact (along with our diagrams) may skew towards overemphasizing short-term impact. Nevertheless, each charity’s long-term impact is plausibly what matters most. The potential number of individuals affected increases over time due to both human and animal population growth as well as an accumulation of generations of animals. The power of animal charities to effect change could be greater in the future if we consider their potential growth as well as potential long-term value shifts—for example, present actions leading to growth in the movement’s resources, to a more receptive public, or to different economic conditions could all potentially lead to a greater magnitude of impact over time than anything that could be accomplished at present.

Interventions and Projected Outcomes

Anima International pursues five different avenues for creating change for animals: They work to influence public opinion, build the capacity of the movement, influence industry, build alliances, and influence policy and the law. Below, we describe the work that they do in each area, listed roughly in order of the financial resources they devote to each area (from highest to lowest).

Influencing industry

Anima International works with corporations to adopt better animal welfare policies, ban particularly cruel practices in the animal agriculture industry, and distribute and market plant-based products. In the short to medium term, corporate outreach can create change for a larger number of animals than individual outreach can with the same amount of resources. Though the long-term effects of corporate outreach are yet to be seen, we believe that these interventions have a high potential to be impactful when implemented thoughtfully. In particular, successfully increasing the quality and availability of cell-cultured and plant-based foods may help to create a climate in which it’s easier for individuals to reduce their use of animal products. Plant-based milk, for example, is already showing a tendency to displace the sales of conventional milk in the U.S.²

Anima International is currently involved in cage-free egg campaigns in Denmark, Finland, Poland, Norway, Estonia, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. Cage-free egg systems are believed to reduce hen 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 it may remain elevated.³ Anima International is currently campaigning for broiler chicken welfare commitments in Denmark, Norway, Poland, and the U.K. Through these campaigns, they urge companies to switch to higher welfare (but likely slower growing) breeds of broiler chickens, 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. Anima International has also engaged in campaigns against fur, foie gras, and selling live fishes. While these campaigns affect fewer animals, they may result in easier wins which build momentum.

Anima International also works with companies to encourage them to sell plant-based food products. Anima International consults with companies about product development, consumer research, marketing, and branding for plant-based foods. They also offer awards for the best new plant-based food products and for coffee chains and gas stations which offer excellent plant-based options. Anima International has also begun legal, marketing research, and corporate relationship-building work which is intended to promote cell-cultured meat. We believe that offering affordable, healthy, and appealing plant-based and cell-cultured options is likely to make it easier for individuals to reduce their consumption of animal products.

Influencing public opinion

Anima International works to influence individuals to adopt more animal-friendly attitudes and behaviors through media outreach, online outreach, undercover investigations, offline ad campaigns, VegFests,⁴ and protests. The effects of public outreach are particularly difficult to measure for at least two important reasons. First, most studies of the effects of public outreach rely on self-reported data, which is generally unreliable.⁵ Second, even if we understood the effects of public outreach on individual behavior, we still know very little about how animals are impacted by behaviors such as individuals changing their diets, deciding to vote for animal-friendly laws, or becoming activists. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of most public outreach interventions, we do think it’s important for the animal advocacy movement to target at least some outreach toward individuals. A shift in public attitudes and consumer preferences could help drive industry changes and lead to greater support for more animal-friendly policies; in fact, it might be a necessary precursor to more systemic change. On the whole, however, we believe that efforts to influence public opinion are much less neglected than other types of interventions, as we describe in our Allocation of Movement Resources report.

Anima International engages in online outreach and offline ad campaigns. We are uncertain of the effectiveness of online outreach and offline ad campaigns, as people may not engage with these as deeply as they engage with other forms of outreach. Anima International also works to expose the suffering of animals in factory farms through undercover investigations. They make the footage publicly available and share it with other animal welfare organizations, encouraging them to use it to raise awareness. Anima International makes an effort to expose their footage as much as possible, sometimes succeeding in drawing widespread media attention.⁶

Anima International organizes protests. Our protests intervention report finds that the animal advocacy movement should, on the margin, spend more resources on disruptive but nonviolent protests. We believe that protests may sway public opinion, help set the political agenda, influence political elites and corporations, and recruit and empower activists. However, there is a risk that protests may lead to harm to individual activists and a negative backlash from targets, witnesses, and the media.

Much of Anima International’s work to influence public opinion is intended to advance their corporate outreach, legal, and policy work. For example, Anima International uses protests and media outreach to encourage corporations to take a pledge to use cage-free eggs. They also use investigations and media outreach to pressure governments to ban fur farming, and they run ad campaigns to promote plant-based food products. We believe this is likely to make their corporate outreach and policy work more effective.

Capacity building

Working to build the capacity of the animal advocacy movement can have far-reaching impact. While capacity-building projects may not always help animals directly, they can help animals indirectly by increasing the effectiveness of other projects and organizations. Our recent research on the way that resources are allocated between different animal advocacy interventions suggests that capacity building is currently neglected relative to other outcomes such as influencing public opinion and industry. Anima International engages in activist trainings, supports other animal advocacy organizations, and supports the field of animal law, all of which are forms of capacity building.

Anima International founds advocacy groups and provides training for advocates in the countries in which they work. Many of the countries in which they work have relatively young animal advocacy movements. We believe that building the movement in relatively neglected countries may be a particularly impactful form of capacity building. Anima International also organizes conferences and provides guidance and training to other animal advocacy organizations. They are currently creating a sharing platform that allows advocates to share videos, photos, articles, webinars, and campaign tools.

Anima International seeks to influence the development of the field of animal law. They organize academic conferences on the legal protection of animals, assist in the publishing of papers and books about animal law, build relationships with law professors who work on animal rights, and involve practicing lawyers in their work as volunteers.

Building alliances

Anima International’s outreach to key influencers provides an avenue for high-impact work since it can involve convincing a few powerful people to make decisions that could influence the lives of millions of animals. We believe that the impact of building alliances varies considerably depending on who the key influencers are and the kinds of decisions they can make.

Anima International works with restaurants and foodservice companies to introduce more plant-based meals through training chefs and helping with menu development. Their “Chefs for Change” program, which began in Poland, builds relationships with prominent chefs and encourages them to promote plant-based cuisine.

Additionally, as part of their alliance-building strategy, Anima International works with professional athletes who choose not to eat meat in order to promote this behavior in the media and amongst athletes.

Anima International also works with rural communities, civil authorities, and politicians in several countries to oppose the construction of new farms in the countryside and to build opposition against factory farming in historically neglected areas.

Influencing policy and the law

Anima International works to encode animal welfare protections into law and engages in grassroots political campaigning. While legal and policy change may take longer to achieve than some other forms of change, we suspect its effects to be relatively long-lasting. We believe that encoding protections for animals into the law and policy is a key component of creating a society that is just and caring towards animals.

Anima International pushes for policy changes throughout Europe. In Denmark, they successfully campaigned for a dedicated police unit working on crimes against farmed and companion animals. In Ukraine, they work against live transport and foie gras production. In Estonia, they work against tail docking of pigs. In Poland, they campaign to establish the office of animal rights ombudsman and work with local communities to prevent farms from opening in their neighborhoods. In Denmark and Norway, they have sought to ban eggs from caged hens.

Anima International is working on ending the practice of fur farming throughout Europe. In addition, in Poland and Denmark, they seek to ban the use of wild animals in circuses, while in Ukraine they aim to ban the training of hunting dogs on live animals. In general, campaigns on behalf of animals used for entertainment or fur affect fewer animals than campaigns on behalf of animals used for food. However, we recognize that they may be more tractable in the regions where Anima International works, and they may build momentum for future victories in other areas.

In Poland and Ukraine, Anima International prosecutes cases of animal cruelty, typically against owners of fur farms or people who are cruel to companion animals. These prosecutions may draw media attention and shape norms, though we generally do not consider them to be a high-priority intervention.

Criterion 2: Does the charity have room for more funding and concrete plans for growth?

We look to recommend charities that are not just high impact, but also have room to grow. 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. We consider whether there are any non-monetary barriers to the charity’s growth, such as time or talent shortages. To do this, we look at the charity’s recent financial history to see how they have dealt with growth over time and how effectively they have been able to utilize past increases in funding. We also consider the charity’s existing programs that need additional funding in order to fulfill their purpose, as well as potential areas for growth and expansion.

Since we can’t predict exactly how any organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, our estimate is speculative, not definitive. It’s possible that a charity could run out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we expect. We check in with each of our Top Charities mid-year 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 effectively absorb additional funding at that point.

Recent Financial History

The following chart shows Anima International’s recent revenue, assets,⁷ and expenses.^{8, 9} In this chart, the 2019 revenue and expenses are estimated based on the financials of the first six months of 2019.¹⁰ Anima International does not expect significant changes in their funding situation in the next year.¹¹

Estimated Future Expenses

A charity may have room for more funding in many areas, and each area likely varies in its cost-effectiveness. In order to evaluate room for more funding over three priority levels, we consider each charity’s estimated future expenses,¹² our assessment of the effectiveness¹³ of each future expense, and the feasibility of meeting each expense if more funding were provided.¹⁴

Estimated Room for More Funding

The cost of Anima International’s plans for expansion over the three priority levels is estimated via Guesstimate and visualized in the chart above. We estimate that Anima International’s plans for expansion would cost between $0.37M and $2.5M. Our room for more funding estimates include a linear projection of the charity’s revenue from previous years to predict the amount by which we expect the revenue to increase or decrease in the next year. Anima International has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of Open Cages’ prior Standout Charity status, so in order to more accurately estimate their room for more funding, we have subtracted the estimated ACE-influenced funding from our estimates of future revenue.¹⁸ Comparing Anima International’s estimated revenue for 2019¹⁹ and 2020,²⁰ our projection predicts that in the next year, it will change between -$0.27M and $2.5M. This figure is especially uncertain because to estimate the change in revenue, we have only used data from 2018 to mid-2019. As mentioned above, in order to account for our own impact, we have not included ACE-influenced revenue in this estimate. The estimates for change in revenue are more uncertain than the estimated costs of expansion, so we put limited weight on them in our analysis.

Criterion 3: Does the charity possess a strong track record of success?

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 consider whether each charity’s programs have been well executed in the past by evaluating some of the key results that they have accomplished. Often, these outcomes are reported to us by the charities and we are not able to corroborate their reports.²¹ 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 identified independently. The following outcomes were reported to us unless indicated otherwise.

Anima International was founded in 2018 through a merger of two organizations; 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. Although as a newly formed organization, Anima International’s track record is relatively short, the two merging organizations have been working in similar programs for years. Below is our assessment of Anima International’s programs, ordered according to the expenses invested in each one (from highest to lowest) in 2018–2019:

Criterion 4: Does the charity operate cost-effectively, according to our best estimates?

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 to 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 and compare that to the outcomes they have achieved in each of their main programs.

This year, we have used an approach in which we more qualitatively analyze a charity’s costs and outcomes. In particular, we have focused on the cost-effectiveness of the charity’s specific implementation of each of its programs in comparison to similar programs conducted by other charities we are reviewing this year. We have categorized the charity’s programs into different intervention types and compared the charity’s outcomes and expenditures from January 2018 to June 2019 to other charities we have reviewed in our 2019 evaluations. To facilitate comparisons, we have also compiled spreadsheets of all reviewed charities’ expenditures and outcomes by intervention type.²⁷

Analyzing cost-effectiveness carries some risks by incentivizing behaviors that, on the whole, we do not think are valuable for the movement.²⁸ Particular to the following analysis, we are somewhat concerned about our inclusion of staff time and volunteer time. Focusing on staff time as an indicator of cost-effectiveness can reward charities that underpay their staff, and discourage organizations from working towards increasing salaries to be more in line with the for-profit sector. As for volunteer time, we think that volunteer programs can increase the cost-effectiveness of a charity’s work, however, overreliance on volunteers can make a charity’s work less sustainable. While we think that these factors are relevant and worth including in our analysis of cost-effectiveness, we encourage readers to bear these concerns in mind while reading this criterion.

Overview of Expenditures

The following chart shows Anima International’s total expenditures in 2018 and 2019, divided by program.²⁹

We asked Anima International to provide us with their expenditures for their top 3–5 programs, as well as their total expenditures. The estimates provided in the graph were calculated by dividing up their total expenditures proportionately to the size of their programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost-effectiveness.

Corporate outreach

Summary of outcomes: secured 220 cage-free commitments; secured commitments to the European Chicken Commitment from 50% of producers by market share in Denmark; released one investigation of a carp farm in Poland; secured 48 fur-free commitments and 20 foie gras commitments; received “Product of the Year” awards in Poland; organized a plant-based/cell-cultured meat conference in Estonia and a plant-based meat conference in Poland; participated in 11 industry events; published industry rankings for coffee shops and gas stations in Poland; conducted an outdoor media campaign in Poland; ran vegan charity dinners for chefs; and held ~12 vegan festivals in Poland. For more information, see our spreadsheet comparing 2019 reviewed charities engaged in corporate outreach.

Note: Anima International engages in two programs that we have categorized as corporate outreach for this analysis—Plant-Based Promotion and Obtaining Corporate Commitments to Higher Welfare.

Use of resources

Table 1: Estimated resource usage in Anima International’s corporate outreach, Jan ‘18–Jun ‘19

Anima International’s expenditures are slightly higher than the average of other charities we reviewed and their staff time is much higher than average when accounting for the size of their expenditures.³⁴ All else equal, this will likely positively contribute to their cost-effectiveness as they have more staff time available per dollar spent.

Evaluation of outcome cost-effectiveness

Table 2: Estimated number of animals affected by corporate commitments, Jan ‘18–Jun ‘19

Corporate outreach that is focused on securing commitments to improve welfare has a direct impact on animals. After factoring in the proportional responsibility that Anima International had for each commitment, we can estimate how many animals will be affected when the commitments are implemented.³⁸ Overall, after accounting for expenditure, their work appears to be more cost effective than the average of the charities we have reviewed this year. This estimate has limitations in that the ranges are often very uncertain, and it does not account for other activities that charities engage in as part of their corporate outreach programs.

In addition to their work on corporate welfare reforms for broiler chickens and layer hens, they have also secured commitments from retailers to stop using fur and selling foie gras. They report that while these campaigns affect smaller numbers of animals, they require less effort than cage-free and broiler campaigns.³⁹ We think it is unlikely that these campaigns are as cost effective as their primary work on broiler chickens and layer hens. One uncertainty we have in particular is the extent to which these industries will relocate to other regions, such as China, if the demand for the products is not also addressed.

As part of their plant-based promotion campaign, Anima International has achieved several different outcomes, primarily in Poland. All of their outcomes were indirect in terms of their impact on animals: They primarily serve to influence industry through conferences and rankings and to influence the public through outdoor media campaigns and vegan festivals. We are uncertain about the extent to which these activities have influenced behavior change. Compared to similar programs conducted by other reviewed charities that have resulted in committed outcomes from industry, we are particularly uncertain about this program’s cost-effectiveness.

After accounting for all of their outcomes and expenditures, Anima International’s corporate outreach seems more cost effective than the average of other reviewed charities in 2019.

Media Campaigns

Summary of outcomes: received 1.6 billion media impressions, 3,720 animal welfare media mentions, and 1,179 plant-based media mentions; and released ~40 investigations. For more information, see our spreadsheet comparing 2019 reviewed charities engaged in media campaigns.

Use of resources

Table 3: Estimated resource usage in Anima International’s media campaigns, Jan ‘18–Jun ‘19

Anima International’s expenditures are higher than the average of other charities we reviewed and their staff time is much higher than average when accounting for the size of their expenditures.⁴⁴ All else equal, this will likely positively contribute to their cost-effectiveness as they have more staff time available per dollar spent.

Evaluation of outcome cost-effectiveness

Similar to their capacity-building work, Anima International’s media campaign work tends to directly support their other programs.⁴⁵ They provided us with several examples in their corporate outreach, legislative outreach, and plant-based promotion campaigns in which they have used media to influence outcomes.⁴⁶ In most cases, it is not clear how much impact these campaigns had on the overall outcomes of their other programs, but they often had smaller outcomes that seemed to increase the chance of a larger success. Relative to their expenditures, they seem to have had a large amount of media reach compared to other 2019 reviewed charities. We think that the instances where they’ve directly influenced their other programs with their media campaigns are likely to make those media outcomes more cost effective, all else equal.

Anima international also includes their investigation work as part of their media campaign program. They reportedly released ~40 investigations between January 2018 and June 2019. As the investigations program spending is incorporated in the overall media campaigns budget, we cannot compare their cost-effectiveness as accurately as we have for other charities engaging in investigations work. That said, if we assumed that all of their $862,000 expenditures were spent on investigations, giving an average cost of ~$22,000 per investigation, that would still be the lowest cost per investigation of all 2019 reviewed charities. Their investigations have targeted minks, foxes, raccoon dogs, chickens, fishes, pigs, rabbits, lambs, geese, turkeys, and ducks. In general, we expect a focus on chickens and fishes to be the most cost effective, and this accounts for at least 10 of the ~40 investigations Anima International has released.

After accounting for all of their outcomes and expenditures, Anima International’s media campaigns seem close to the average cost-effectiveness of other reviewed charities in 2019.

Legal Advocacy

Summary of outcomes: made progress towards securing a fur production ban in Poland, Lithuania, Denmark, and Estonia and an importation ban in the U.K.; won two animal cruelty cases in Poland; established three animal crime units in Denmark; advocated for pig tail docking restrictions in Estonia; engaged with the academic legal community; and blocked the construction of farms in ~15 locations. For more information, see our spreadsheet comparing 2019 reviewed charities engaged in legal advocacy.

Use of resources

Table 4: Estimated resource usage in Anima International’s legal advocacy, Jan ‘18–Jun ‘19

Anima International’s expenditures are less than the average of other charities we reviewed, but their staff time is higher than average when accounting for the size of their expenditures.⁵¹ All else equal, this will likely positively contribute to their cost-effectiveness as they have more staff time available per dollar spent.

Evaluation of outcome cost-effectiveness

Anima International conducts legal advocacy across Europe in a variety of applications, and as such the cost-effectiveness in this program likely has a large degree of variation. Their legal advocacy has outcomes for animals that are both direct and indirect—we are more uncertain in our assessment of indirect outcomes. Additionally, some of their outcomes have required several years of work, so only considering their expenditures over an 18-month period may lead us to overestimate the cost-effectiveness of those outcomes.

Their work to ban fur farming will have a direct impact on a substantial number of animals; of the countries they are working in, they estimate a total of  ~25 million animals were killed for their fur in 2018. It is not clear how close they are to securing any bans, but there are some promising indicators of their progress, such as a poll indicating 59% public support for a ban in Poland as well as the introduction of a bill into the Lithuanian parliament.

Their work to block or disrupt the construction of specific farms by organizing protests with local communities appears to have been successful, with many of the planned farms reportedly intended to house chickens in the low millions. It seems possible that in at least some cases, the production will just relocate to new areas, so the blocks may only have a temporary impact. However, we think their approach may be scalable and could cause larger disruptions to the meat industry if widely adopted.

Anima International has an assortment of other legal outcomes that we are more unsure of in their cost-effectiveness, such as the establishment of animal crime units and their engagement in the legal academic community. After accounting for all of their outcomes and expenditures, Anima International’s legal advocacy seems close to the average cost-effectiveness of other reviewed charities in 2019.

Capacity Building/Building Alliances

Summary of outcomes: completed training for new volunteers in Poland, Ukraine, the U.K., Estonia, Belarus, and Russia; completed training for existing activists; formed a plant-based campaign coalition with other groups; hosted three round-table meetings with movement leaders in Denmark; led Open Wing Alliance campaigns; organized the first animal rights conference in Ukraine; and provided advice to ten other charities on various activities. For more information, see our spreadsheet comparing 2019 reviewed charities engaged in capacity building/building alliances.

Use of resources

Table 5: Estimated resource usage in Anima International’s capacity building/building alliances, Jan ‘18–Jun ‘19

Anima International’s expenditures are less than the average of other charities we reviewed, but their staff time is higher than average when accounting for the size of their expenditures.⁵⁶ All else equal, this will likely positively contribute to their cost-effectiveness as they have more staff time available per dollar spent.

Evaluation of outcome cost-effectiveness

Capacity building/building alliances 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 focus of their capacity-building campaign is the recruitment and training of new and existing volunteers. Their volunteer program is particularly large compared to other organizations and is a central component to all of their main programs. It seems likely that their work in training and recruiting volunteers has increased the cost-effectiveness of all their programs and they report it has allowed them to expand into new countries.⁵⁷

Some of their other capacity-building work—such as running the first animal rights conferences in Ukraine and supporting other organizations—seems to build capacity in the movement in areas that are currently neglected. While we are generally uncertain about the cost-effectiveness of these kinds of activities, they report some direct outcomes that seem promising, such as the formation of an effective altruism-oriented animal rights group in Ukraine following the conference. 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.

After accounting for all of their outcomes and expenditures, Anima International’s capacity building/building alliances seems close to the average cost-effectiveness of other reviewed charities in 2019.

Criterion 5: Does the charity identify areas of success and failure and respond appropriately?

By conducting reliable self-assessments, a charity can retain and strengthen successful programs and modify or discontinue less successful programs. 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.

In this section, we consider how the charity has assessed its programs in the past. We then examine the extent to which the charity has updated their programs in light of past assessments.

How does the charity identify areas of success and failure?

Anima International uses an Objectives and Key Results (OKR) system to set their goals and track their progress towards those goals.⁵⁸ Each quarter, they review individual and organizational objectives so that all staff can see how successful their self-determined projects have been. They also track data of their media and corporate outreach as well as their team diversity and morale. These metrics add useful context to their organizational performance assessment.⁵⁹

After major projects, Anima International gathers data and results and then conducts a debrief whereby staff and volunteers discuss what went well, what obstacles they encountered, and how they could improve in the future.⁶⁰

In the past three years, Anima International has consulted with external individuals and organizations in multiple countries to get advice on different topics, including legal and political matters, accounting, social media strategy, graphic design, digital marketing, video production, and nutrition. They have also consulted with experts in other specialized disciplines relevant to the development of their campaigns.⁶¹

Does the charity respond appropriately to identified areas of success and failure?

We believe that Anima International has responded appropriately to their self-determined areas of success and failure in at least the following way:

In Denmark, Anima has been traditionally known for releasing their investigations and arranging demonstrations. After realizing this was not the best way to approach their broiler campaign in this country, they changed their tactics by engaging companies in a more collaborative way. With this change, they report influencing broiler chicken suppliers to agree to shift their production systems, opening the path for food companies to meet the European Chicken Commitment in Denmark.⁶² This decision seems to be aligned with Anima International’s efforts to be adaptable to different contexts and to seek ways to increase their impact.⁶³

We believe that Anima International failed to respond appropriately to their self-determined areas of success and failure in at least the following way:

Anima International reports working on a wide range of interventions, including corporate outreach to achieve cage-free, fur-free, broiler welfare, and foie gras commitments, as well as commitments to expand the availability of plant-based products. They also engage in legislative advocacy against fur farming, wild animals in circuses, tail-docking of pigs, and the training of hunting dogs. Additionally, they prosecute individual cases of animal cruelty, promote law enforcement of animal cruelty laws, develop media campaigns, and organize events to promote plant-based diets and grow the movement. This large variety of interventions may be the result of merging different organizations that have worked somewhat independently in different countries. Given the current organizational structure, it is our impression that they will likely continue to maintain a high degree of autonomy in each country. Although we recognize the multiple benefits of this approach and the progress that has been made through their programs, we also think that some of Anima International’s projects are likely to be more impactful than others. For example, we think that prosecutions of animal cruelty cases and legal advocacy against wild animals in circuses are likely to be less impactful than working to ban fur farming. Thus, we are concerned that Anima International may have failed to focus on their most impactful work. We expect that as the organization matures, leadership will put more effort into assessing the impact of their projects and be more decisive in directing resources towards those that are most likely to be highly impactful.

Criterion 6: Does the charity have strong leadership and a well-developed strategic vision?

Strongly-led charities are likely to be more successful at responding to internal and external challenges and at reaching their goals. In this section, we describe each charity’s key leadership and assess some of their strengths and weaknesses.

Part of a leader’s job is to develop and guide the strategic vision of the organization. Given our commitment to finding the most effective ways to help nonhuman animals, we look for charities whose strategy is aligned with that goal. We also believe that a well-developed strategic vision should include feasible goals. Since a well-developed strategic vision is likely the result of well-run strategic planning, we consider each charity’s planning process in this section.

Key Leadership

Leadership staff

Anima International is run by CEO Dobrosława Gogłoza (co-founder, formerly of Open Cages). Gogłoza has years of experience in the animal advocacy movement as well as the women’s rights movement. Their Director of Campaigns is Jan Sorgenfrei (co-founder, formerly of Anima). Sorgenfrei has worked in the animal advocacy movement for 20 years and has a degree in animal ethics. Jakub Stencel (co-founder, formerly of Open Cages) serves as the organization’s Fundraising and Development Specialist and has nine years of experience in the animal rights movement. Other key leadership members include Marta Cendrowicz, International Corporate Campaign Manager and Kirsty Henderson, Director of Communications.

We distributed a culture survey^{64, 65} to Anima International’s team and found strong agreement with the statement that the organization’s leadership is attentive to their overall strategy. In fact, many respondents emphasized this opinion in comments, with some reporting that it’s their favorite thing about working for Anima International. Respondents also praised the organization’s commitment to both internal and external transparency, noting that the culture is not dominated by any big egos.

Board of Directors

Anima International’s Board of Directors consists of six members, three of whom were affiliated with Open Cages and three of whom were affiliated with Anima in Denmark prior to the merger. In the U.S., it’s considered a best practice for nonprofit boards to be comprised of at least five people who have little overlap with an organization’s staff or other related parties. However, there is only weak evidence that following this best practice is correlated with success.

Anima International’s board is gender diverse and represents a range of areas of expertise, however, we think that the organization might benefit from including more board members of different occupational backgrounds. 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 performance,⁶⁶ better internal and external governance practices,⁶⁷ as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision making.⁶⁸

Strategic Vision and Planning

Strategic vision

Anima International’s vision is “a future free from animal suffering,” and their stated intention is to “make change happen for animals as quickly and effectively as possible.” This vision is quite well-aligned with our own, and we appreciate that they are pursuing it in Eastern Europe (among other places), where such work is relatively neglected. Given their mission and the history of their leadership, we expect Anima International to remain committed to effectively helping animals.

Strategic planning process

As a quickly growing and evolving organization, Anima International operates with one-year strategic plans. Gogłoza and Sorgenfrei take the lead in setting the organization’s strategy and presenting it at their employee summit. The plans are subject to feedback from the rest of the organization, and each team within the organization has a role in determining how to implement the plan. Gogłoza and Sorgenfrei expressed a desire for everyone on the team to have a sense of ownership over the organization’s strategy, but also an appreciation that not all employees want or need to be involved in every decision.⁶⁹

Goal setting and monitoring

Anima International measures their impact on industry by considering how much of the sector they have influenced, both in terms of obtaining corporate commitments and ensuring the implementation of those commitments. They measure their impact by running surveys⁷⁰ to measure public attitudes in the countries in which they operate and by monitoring media coverage.⁷¹ In general, we have the impression that they have a clear sense of how to measure their progress and that they set specific and measurable goals. Some respondents to our culture survey mentioned that Anima International has a relatively new “OKR” (objectives and key results) framework and that it seems to be working well, though several noted that it is still being improved.

Criterion 7: Does the charity have a healthy culture and a sustainable structure?

The most effective charities have healthy cultures and sustainable structures to enable their core work. We collect information about each charity’s internal operations in several ways. We ask leadership about the culture they try to foster and their perceptions of staff morale. We review each charity’s policies related to human resources and check for essential items. We also send each charity a culture survey and request that they distribute it among their team on our behalf.

Human Resources Policies

Here we present a list of policies that we find to be beneficial for fostering healthy cultures. 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 towards all stakeholders: staff, volunteers, donors, beneficiaries, and others in the community. According to Gogłoza, Anima’s focus is on empowering its employees to set their own goals and trajectories. She also emphasizes Anima’s high level of internal transparency.⁷²

When we asked Anima International employees to describe the organization’s internal communication style in three adjectives, the most common theme was “transparency” and “honesty.” About one third of respondents to our survey used one or both of those words. The second most common theme also supported Gogłoza’s description of the organization. Fifteen out of 60 respondents described Anima International’s communication as “motivating,” “encouraging,” “inspiring,” or “empowering.” We do not see these terms used very often on our culture survey, so we found it particularly interesting. Seemingly consistent with these descriptions, our survey suggests that Anima International has a very high level of employee engagement.

In general, we found that responses to our culture survey of Anima International’s staff were very high. Nearly unanimously, respondents noted very high levels of satisfaction with their work environment and their colleagues. Many people wrote on our survey that Anima International has the best work environment they have ever experienced.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion⁷³

One important part of acting responsibly towards stakeholders is providing a diverse,⁷⁴ equitable, and inclusive work environment. Charities with a healthy attitude towards diversity, equity, and inclusion seek and retain staff and volunteers from different backgrounds, which improves their ability to respond to new situations and challenges.⁷⁵ Among other things, inclusive work environments should also provide necessary resources for employees with disabilities, require regular trainings on topics such as diversity, and protect all employees from harassment and discrimination.

Anima International’s leadership professes a strong belief that diversity improves their organization’s decision-making and makes them more effective. They are working to improve their political diversity, believing that their organization should reflect the society it is trying to influence.⁷⁶ Anima International also works to improve the gender diversity of leadership within the animal advocacy movement; their women in leadership positions mentor women in more junior roles within the organization.⁷⁷ Anima International tells us that they are open to more actively promoting racial diversity within their organization, but they feel limited by the lack of racial diversity in the regions in which they work.⁷⁸

According to our culture survey, Anima International’s staff is in agreement that their organization is diverse in many ways, but lacks racial diversity. Responses varied when we asked whether their team had received sufficient training in “discrimination, inclusivity, sexual misconduct, and/or diversity.” Many respondents commented that they had not received formal training but that the organization has clear policies in place and that everyone is adequately aware of them. While Anima International is lacking some types of diversity, their staff had near-unanimous agreement that they have a highly inclusive culture. Many respondents to our survey (including those with self-identified LGBTQ+ status and/or disabilities) used superlatives, describing Anima International as the most inclusive organization they have ever worked for.

Sustainability

An effective charity should be stable under ordinary conditions and should seem likely to survive any transitions in leadership. The charity should not seem likely to split into factions and should seem able to continue raising the funds needed for its basic operations. Ideally, it should receive significant funding from multiple distinct sources, including both individual donations and other types of support.

Anima International is a relatively new organization, and in some ways, it is still developing as a joint project of Anima and Open Cages. As Anima International acknowledges, it is currently facing a major existential threat; many mergers fail, at least in the for-profit world.⁷⁹ It is too early to make long-term predictions about the sustainability of Anima International, but if it survives the next year or so as a newly merged nonprofit, we have no reason to doubt that it will be sustainable in the long-term. Anima International has strong leadership and has successfully raised funds, so far.

A large portion of Anima International’s funding comes from foundations, and much of it is restricted to particular programs. Both of Anima International’s parent organizations experienced rapid growth in the years preceding their merger, in part because of Animal Charity Evaluators’ 2017 recommendation of Open Cages and grants from the Open Philanthropy Project.⁸⁰ Anima International is aware of the risks of relying too heavily on one or two sources of funding,⁸¹ and we hope that they will succeed in expanding their base of individual donors.

Questions for Further Consideration

Anima International has expanded to multiple countries with different cultural and social circumstances. How are they addressing challenges arising from their international expansion?

Anima International’s response:

“Anima International is currently made up of nine different organizations across nine different countries spanning the whole of Europe, and we work closely with other organisations around the world. The organization itself is built on the fact that we all come from different backgrounds and different cultures. In each of our national organizations, native people are running their own groups. We believe that it is an asset that we are made up of so many different threads and are not one set of people expanding into other countries.

When starting work in new countries (as we did in the last few years in countries like Ukraine, Russia and Belarus) we made sure to first research the countries and actually hire people from the area. Anima International’s CEO Dobroslawa Gogloza decided to learn Russian so that she could better understand the situation, culture and people in Russian-speaking areas at the same time as starting work there. This is just one example, but we feel it accurately describes the way we approach working in new countries.

Nonetheless, we are aware of some of the challenges that can potentially arise with expansion, having lived through some of them during our growth. How best to communicate our ideas? What barriers will there be in running campaigns? How ready is the public to hear about animal protection? What political factors may slow down our progress? We believe the key is working with natives on the ground who know their country and their culture. This therefore comes back to our mission of movement building. We aren’t here to expand as quickly as possible wherever we can, but rather to build a movement with the right people at the right time.”

Some people would argue that strongly relying on volunteer work can bring challenges to ensure a fair pay system within the organization. How does Anima International ensure their volunteer scheme is fair and sustainable?

Anima International’s response:

“We think this question can be interpreted in a number of ways, and would be happy to provide further thoughts if the following answer is not what was requested. Currently we read the question as being “how can we ensure that we are treating volunteers fairly when they are such a large part of our organization and by definition are not paid for their time?”

It is currently not possible (nor would it be efficient) to hire or pay everyone who is interested in using their time and skills to help animals. Nonetheless, with our organisational model we are still able to give these people the opportunity to do so and use their work to better help animals.

We also work with lots of volunteers who have careers in fields other than animal rights. Not only is this beneficial for the movement – as it brings many more important skills to the table – but it allows those who don’t necessarily want to dedicate their full-time career to animal rights to still be involved. E.g. we work often with I.T, legal and graphic design professionals who intend to stay in their respective fields.

It should also be mentioned that when it comes to hiring, we always prefer to hire from the volunteer ranks. Not only has this proved more successful in predicting excellent employees and who will stay with us the longest, but it gives both the employer and new employee the chance to ‘test out’ a working relationship before going all in. In general, this approach works very effectively for us.

Finally, we also believe that volunteers who donate their time are not that different from donors who donate their money. Both do so to help advance our campaigns and both have to donate their time (either in person working with us or in their own careers in order to donate their funds.) We feel that many people may enjoy the volunteering experience more than they do their paid work and it certainly allows us to become closer to our supporters.”

There are many more farmed fishes than other species of farmed animals. Has Anima International considered allocating more of their resources towards farmed fish advocacy?

Anima International’s response:

“Anima International does work on farmed fish and is focusing on this area in three different ways:

Building precedence for welfare related policies around fish

We believe that corporate campaigns for farmed fish are likely to be part of Anima International’s future priorities. In order to build momentum for more comprehensive policies, we are identifying strategic campaigns that have a high chance of being winnable right now, cost-effective and having a strong awareness element. An example of this could be our work on banning the sale of live fish from supermarkets, which has a strong tradition in several of the countries where we work. Several supermarkets in Poland have already ended the practice of selling live fish as a result of such campaigns and created widespread media stories.

Investigation and awareness building around farmed fish

Anima International has released several investigations into factory farmed fish. This is an ongoing focus as we continue to identify new ways to create media stories around farmed fish. We are gradually intensifying our communication on farmed fish through our media channels and are building on an awareness foundation for our followers to prepare them to get engaged in future campaigns.

Research and preparation of reports for political work

Anima International has already allocated a good deal of resources into research and the creation of reports with a political scope for improvements on regulations and legislation around farmed fish.

With more resources in the future we are keen to invest more in farmed fish advocacy and certainly recognise the importance of this neglected area.

Nonetheless, there are still many questions to be answered when it comes to identifying the most effective interventions for farmed fish. In regard to the interventions that will rely on corporate campaigns, these answers will partly depend on the lessons learned and experiences gained through the corporate campaigns around hens and broiler chickens.”

---

1. Note that we are never 100% confident in the effectiveness of a particular charity or intervention, so three gray circles do not necessarily imply that we are as confident as we could possibly be. 

2. Between 2010 and 2015, plant-based milk sales (particularly almond milk sales) increased, while the total milk market shrunk by over $1 billion in the U.S., according to Nielsen (2016). 

3. Cotra, 2017 

4. Anima noted that this is primarily a revenue-generating program (J. Sorgenfrei, personal communication, November 13, 2019). 

5. For more information on the reliability of self-reported data, see van de Mortel (2008). Also see Peacock (2018) for information on the use of self-reported dietary data. 

6. Anima International, 2019 

7. We found that charities interpreted the question of how many assets they had very differently. Some interpreted assets as financial reserves, some as net assets, and some as material assets. We have interpreted assets as financial reserves, which we calculated by taking the assets from the previous year, adding the (estimated) revenue for the current year, and subtracting the (estimated) expenses for the current year.  

8. Sources:
   2018 revenue, assets, and expenses: Anima International, 2019
   2019 first six months of revenue and expenses: Anima International, 2019 

9. We have included all financial information available from 2018 until mid-2019. This timeframe is shorter than most charities because Anima International recently merged. The model is therefore more uncertain than for most charities.  

10. We assume that charities receive 40% of their revenue in the last two months of the calendar year. To calculate estimates of total revenue, we multiply the revenue from the first six months by 2.778. We assume that expenses stay constant over the year, so to calculate estimates of total expenses in 2019, we multiply expenses from the first six months by 2.  

11. Anima International, 2019 

12. The estimates are partly based on charities’ own estimates of planned expansion as expressed in our follow-up questions for them (Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019). 

13. See ACE’s 2019 cost-effectiveness estimates spreadsheet. 

14. Potential bottlenecks besides lack of funding include lack of operational capacity to support new staff members and difficulty to find and hire value-aligned individuals with the right skill sets. We base our estimates for capacity for expanding staff based on the current number of staff employed, as reported in Anima International (2019). Anima International currently employs 65 full-time staff and 9 part-time staff. Based on this, our subjective assessment is that we are highly confident that Anima International can hire 48% of the new staff they would like to hire before running into non-funding related bottlenecks. For 43% of the hires, we believe the non-funding related bottlenecks play a more significant role and we are only moderately confident that Anima International can overcome these bottlenecks within the next year. For 9%, we have low confidence that they can overcome these bottlenecks.  Therefore, we estimate that 48% of new hires are high priority, 43% are moderate priority, and 9% are low priority. 

15. Anima International would like to hire approximately 30 new staff members. They note: “This is a lot of new staff, but divided amongst the nine different principal countries in which we operate we are confident we would have the required structure and staff-power to successfully integrate them without putting strain on our systems or current employees” (Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019). 

16. Because Anima International is active in many different countries with very different median incomes, it is hard to estimate salaries of the employees. We estimate that salaries are in between $15,000 and $60,000 per year. To estimate the total expenses related to hiring a new staff member we multiply the salary with a distribution of 1.5 to 2.5 to account for recruiting expenses, employment taxes, benefits, training, equipment, etc. To account for the fact that people will be hired throughout the year and not only at the beginning, we multiply the expenses by a distribution of 0.25 to 1.25. 

17. This is an additional estimate to account for additional expenditures beyond what has been specifically outlined in this model. This parameter reflects our uncertainty as to whether the model is comprehensive, and it constitutes a range from 1%–20% of the charities’ total projected budget. Because 2020 expenses were hard to estimate and therefore uncertain, we used estimates for 2019 expenses: $2,676,376. 

18. To estimate the revenue not influenced by ACE, we consider the total revenue per year and subtract the amount we estimate is influenced by ACE in the same year. We use these numbers to estimate the average growth not influenced by ACE. To calculate the estimated 2020 revenue, we add the average growth not influenced by ACE to the 2019 revenue not influenced by ACE. In the case of Anima International, the amount of revenue influenced by ACE was $21k between the beginning of 2018 and mid-2019. For details, see our giving metrics report from 2018. At the time of writing, our 2019 Giving Metrics Report is not yet published. 

19. The total revenue is based on the first six months of 2019 with an uncertainty of ± 10%. 

20. The calculations on which this estimate is based exclude revenue influenced by ACE, and have an uncertainty of ± 20%. The calculations are made via a linear projection of the total revenue of previous years. 

21. While we are able to corroborate some types of claims (e.g., those about public events that appear in the news), others are harder to corroborate. For instance, it is often difficult for us to verify whether a charity worked behind the scenes to obtain a corporate commitment, or the extent to which that charity was responsible for obtaining the commitment.  

22. Since we did not ask charities to provide details about accomplishments prior to 2018, key results before this year were sourced from publicly available information and may be incomplete. 

23. Since we did not ask charities to provide details about accomplishments prior to 2018, key results before this year were sourced from publicly available information and may be incomplete. 

24. Since we did not ask charities to provide details about accomplishments prior to 2018, key results before this year were sourced from publicly available information and may be incomplete. 

25. Since we did not ask charities to provide details about accomplishments prior to 2018, key results before this year were sourced from publicly available information and may be incomplete. 

26. Since we did not ask charities to provide details about accomplishments prior to 2018, key results before this year were sourced from publicly available information and may be incomplete. 

27. Note that some charities’ programs do not fit in well with the rest of the reviewed charities according to our categorization of intervention type.  

28. For a longer discussion of the limitations of modeling cost-effectiveness, see Šimčikas (2019). 

29. To estimate their 2019 expenditures, we doubled the financial data provided from January–June 2019. 

30. This includes all charities reviewed in 2019 that are engaged in a program related to corporate outreach. 

31. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allows us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost-effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

32. They provided this number in hours, and we converted it into weeks for readability. We assume that one week consists of 40 hours of work. 

33. They provided this number in hours, and we converted it into weeks for readability. We assume that one week consists of 40 hours of work. We think it is unlikely that, in practice, volunteers are working full-time weeks, however we are using this unit in order to maintain a comparison with the amount of staff time used. 

34. This may be a result of a combination of factors, such as lower average wages in some of the countries they operate in, lower overhead than other organizations, etc. We do not have enough information to know conclusively. 

35. We provide these estimates as 90% subjective confidence intervals. For more information, see this explainer page. 

36. This only includes charities engaged in securing commitments for the animal type in question. 

37. We provide these estimates as 90% subjective confidence intervals. For more information, see this explainer page. 

38. These estimates are informed by a variety of sources—charities’ self-reported estimates, information about the size and production output of the companies, data from the Open Philanthropy Project etc. For more details, see our spreadsheet comparing 2019 reviewed charities engaged in corporate outreach, and the accompanying Guesstimate sheet. 

39. Anima International, 2019 

40. This includes all charities reviewed in 2019 that are engaged in a program related to media campaigns. 

41. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allows us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost-effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

42. They provided this number in hours, and we converted it into weeks for readability. We assume that one week consists of 40 hours of work. 

43. They provided this number in hours, and we converted it into weeks for readability. We assume that one week consists of 40 hours of work. We think it is unlikely that, in practice, volunteers are working full-time weeks, however we are using this unit in order to maintain a comparison with the amount of staff time used. 

44. This may be a result of a combination of factors, such as lower average wages in some of the countries they operate in, lower overhead than other organizations, etc. We do not have enough information to know conclusively. 

45. Anima International, 2019 

46. For more information, see Anima International (2019). 

47. This includes all charities reviewed in 2019 that are engaged in a program related to legal advocacy. 

48. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allows us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost-effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

49. They provided this number in hours, and we converted it into weeks for readability. We assume that one week consists of 40 hours of work. 

50. They provided this number in hours, and we converted it into weeks for readability. We assume that one week consists of 40 hours of work. We think it is unlikely that, in practice, volunteers are working full-time weeks, however we are using this unit in order to maintain a comparison with the amount of staff time used. 

51. This may be a result of a combination of factors, such as lower average wages in some of the countries they operate in, lower overhead than other organizations, etc. We do not have enough information to know conclusively. 

52. This includes all charities reviewed in 2019 that are engaged in a program related to capacity building/building alliances. 

53. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allows us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost-effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

54. They provided this number in hours, and we converted it into weeks for readability. We assume that one week consists of 40 hours of work. 

55. They provided this number in hours, and we converted it into weeks for readability. We assume that one week consists of 40 hours of work. We think it is unlikely that, in practice, volunteers are working full-time weeks, however we are using this unit in order to maintain a comparison with the amount of staff time used. 

56. This may be a result of a combination of factors, such as lower average wages in some of the countries they operate in, lower overhead than other organizations, etc. We do not have enough information to know conclusively. 

57. Anima International reports that “[s]ome of the member organizations until very recently have been run exclusively by volunteers” (Anima International, 2019). 

58. Anima International, 2019 

59. Anima International, 2019 

60. Anima International, personal communication, September 25, 2019 

61. For the full list of Anima International’s external advisors, see Anima International (2019).  

62. Anima International, personal communication, September 25, 2019 

63. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

64. We sent our culture survey to Anima International’s 67 team members and 60 responded, for a response rate of 90%. 

65. We recognize at least two major limitations of our culture survey. First, because participation was not mandatory, the results could be skewed by selection bias. Second, because respondents knew that their answers could influence ACE’s evaluation of their employer, they may have felt an incentive to emphasize their employers’ strengths and minimize their weaknesses. 

66. Siciliano, 1996 

67. Buse, Bernstein, & Bilimoria, 2014 

68. Brown, 2003 

69. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

70. Anima International added that “surveys are used either in media, political or corporate campaigns. Not all are published, though” (personal communication, November 15, 2019). 

71. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

72. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

73. Our goal in this section is to evaluate whether each charity has a healthy attitude towards diversity, equity, and inclusion. We do not directly evaluate the demographic characteristics of their employees. There are at least two reasons supporting our approach: First, we are not well-positioned to evaluate the demographic characteristics of each charity’s employees. Second, we believe that each charity is fully responsible for their own attitudes towards diversity, equity, and inclusion, but the demographic characteristics of a charity’s staff may be influenced by factors outside of the charity’s control.  

74. We use the term “diversity” broadly in this section to refer to the diversity of any of the following characteristics: racial identification, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, ability levels, educational levels, parental status, immigrant status, age, and/or religious, political, or ideological affiliation. 

75. There is a significant body of evidence suggesting that teams composed of individuals with different roles, tasks, or occupations are likely to be more successful than those which are more homogeneous (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). Increased diversity by demographic factors—such as race and gender—has more mixed effects in the literature (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003), but gains through having a diverse team seem to be possible for organizations which view diversity as a resource (using different personal backgrounds and experiences to improve decision making) rather than solely a neutral or justice-oriented practice (Ely & Thomas, 2001).  

76. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

77. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

78. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

79. Anima International, 2019 

80. Anima International, 2019 

81. Anima International, 2019 

Research Documents

• Anima International Questionnaire, 2019
• Follow-Up Questions for Anima International, 2019
• Anima International Programs and Accomplishments, 2018–2019
• Anima International Strategic Plan, 2019
• Anima International Top 3–5 Programs, 2019

• Conversation with Dobrosława Gogłoza and Jan Sorgenfrei of Anima International, 2019
• Guesstimate Model of RFMF for Anima International, 2019
• Reference List for ACE’s Review of Anima International, 2019