Animal Welfare Observatory

See AWO’s theory of change table for a detailed account of their activities, intended outcomes, and impact. Below, we highlight the key paths to impact that we believe are the most influential drivers of their theory of change.

AWO’s key paths to impact

Figure 1: Simplified diagrammatic representation of how AWO creates change for animals. Note: The key paths discussed below correspond to the numbered paths in the diagram above.

Key paths 1 and 2—European Chicken Commitment (public pressure and direct corporate engagement)

Using a combination of direct engagement and public pressure, AWO persuades major Spanish and European retailers to adopt and implement the European Chicken Commitment (ECC), also known more broadly as the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC), which is the leading set of welfare standards for chickens used for meat. They use investigations and media outreach to build public pressure for stronger chicken welfare standards, while also working directly with companies to secure commitments, and AWO supports implementation. By ensuring that commitments are credible and holding companies accountable, AWO seeks to prevent backsliding and drive the transition toward ECC standards across supply chains, leading to higher welfare for millions of chickens per year.

Overall assessment

There is strong evidence that successfully implemented ECC standards significantly improve chickens’ welfare, with the benefits outweighing the negatives, such as slower-growing breeds needing to endure longer lifespans.⁸ AWO has played a major role in securing ECC commitments from six of Spain’s 10 largest retailers and engaged with all of them in 2024 with persistent and productive outreach. Notably, AWO also played a key role in Lidl Germany’s ECC commitment, estimated to affect over 50 million chickens annually once implemented. AWO’s investigations as part of this campaign have brought legal threats from Lidl, which AWO is preparing for, in consultation with legal experts.

Compliance rates with ECC asks are generally low: As of September 2025, companies had made 653 ECC welfare commitments and of these, companies were not reporting on progress for 413 (63%) of them, reporting on progress for 225 (34%) of them, and reporting only 15 (2%) of them as fulfilled.⁹ Public awareness and understanding of chicken welfare concerns also appear lower than for more salient welfare asks, such as cage-free commitments for egg-laying hens. Overall, however, while campaigns targeting chickens used for meat face serious challenges, AWO appears to be making significant progress and adapting their strategy in thoughtful and practical ways (e.g., by engaging with the ECC Advisory Committee and pushing for manufacturer-branded chicken to be included in the welfare commitments).

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are strongly convinced that public pressure campaigns and direct corporate engagement, as part of AWO’s ECC program, will increase the likelihood of companies following through on their ECC commitments, leading to chickens experiencing higher welfare. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate, given our uncertainties around the broader feasibility of welfare campaigns targeting chickens killed for their meat. Furthermore, much—probably most—of the benefit of ECC campaigns will probably come from their long-term impact rather than the direct impact on the chickens in the targeted supply chains, with campaigns gradually contributing to making the ECC a social and corporate norm that then becomes enshrined in legislation. This introduces an additional element of uncertainty when assessing AWO’s ECC program.

Key path 3—Farmed Fish Welfare (direct corporate engagement)

Through direct engagement with producers and retailers, AWO works to secure the adoption of effective stunning practices and other welfare improvements for farmed fishes. While collaborating with companies to co-develop welfare guidelines and commitments, they build understanding of the rationale and benefits of stunning. By ensuring these commitments are implemented at scale, AWO seeks to reduce the suffering during slaughter and establish higher welfare standards for millions of farmed fishes.

Overall assessment

In 2024, AWO secured humane stunning commitments from Aqualande, Profand, Caviar Pirinea, and Carrefour (two of these formalized existing practices, while the others implemented new commitments). In practice, most companies have interpreted ‘humane stunning’ as ‘electrical stunning’. Evidence published earlier this year suggests that electrical stunning for species such as sea bass, sea bream, and trout may only provide marginal benefits, and in some cases could actively cause harm.¹⁰ This evidence highlights a risk that current commitments could lock in subpar—or even harmful—practices if more effective alternatives become available. AWO has been highly receptive to this new evidence, adjusting their strategy by deepening scientific engagement, working with research groups like Rethink Priorities, and beginning to explore additional welfare asks, such as stocking density reductions and enrichment opportunities. Their relationship building with the industry positions them well to continue shaping industry practices as the scientific consensus evolves: For example, they recently co-hosted the event “Fish Welfare and Sustainable Aquaculture in the Mediterranean (EMD in my Country 2025)” with APROMAR  (the Spanish Aquaculture Business Association) to bring together producers, scientists, and policymakers to discuss farmed aquatic animal welfare.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are moderately convinced that direct corporate engagement within AWO’s Farmed Fish Welfare program can reliably lead to companies implementing effective stunning at scale and cause fish to experience reduced suffering at the time of slaughter, over the longer term. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high due to current uncertainties around the most humane stunning practices and AWO’s approach, which depends on forging relationships with aquaculture producers that will primarily yield welfare benefits over the medium term, rather than the short term.

Key path 4—Farmed Fish Welfare (engaging MEPs)

AWO engages Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and key allies to build support for stronger welfare protections for farmed fishes. They highlight the need for robust standards at the E.U. level and work to position fish welfare as a legislative priority. By helping to secure binding E.U.-wide requirements and ensuring their implementation and enforcement, AWO seeks to reduce suffering at the time of slaughter and to establish lasting protections for millions of farmed fishes.

Overall assessment

In 2024, AWO engaged with policymakers across Spain and the E.U. through various different channels, supported by close collaboration with groups such as Eurogroup for Animals. Expert feedback suggests that achieving E.U. fish welfare reforms will be highly challenging during the current Parliament, which is currently giving low priority to animal welfare. Experts highlighted two main potential routes: pursuing asks based on existing organic standards—which AWO has not prioritized—and integrating stunning requirements into upcoming fish slaughter provisions, which aligns with AWO’s plans and will likely benefit from stronger evidence by the time legislation is implemented. At the national level, AWO’s work appears more tractable and is likely to be cost effective, given Spain’s large aquaculture sector. AWO has also made some promising progress in Spain, by co-developing voluntary fish welfare guidelines with policymakers and the industry.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are moderately convinced that engaging MEPs as part of AWO’s Farmed Fish Welfare program can reliably lead to the introduction, implementation, and enforcement of fish welfare legislation at the E.U. level. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high, due to the likelihood of these impacts materializing under a future E.U. Parliament, rather than the current one, making their scale harder to predict.

Key paths 5 and 6—Cage-Free Eggs (public pressure and direct corporate engagement)

Using a combination of public pressure and direct corporate engagement, AWO persuades Spanish retailers to commit to end the use of cages in egg production. They build pressure through media, investigations, and consumer actions, while also engaging companies directly to encourage their adoption and support their implementation of the cage-free systems for egg-laying hens. By ensuring that commitments are secured and followed through across supply chains, AWO seeks to accelerate the transition to cage-free systems, leading to higher welfare for millions of egg-laying hens per year.

Overall assessment

Many millions of egg-laying hens are already living cage free because of global companies’ welfare commitments, and there is strong evidence that cage-free systems significantly improve hens’ wellbeing.¹¹ Globally, over 2,700 companies have committed to going cage free, and most of these commitments have already been implemented.¹² With the majority of remaining commitments due to be implemented in 2025 and 2026, and with early signs of corporate backtracking, accountability work now appears particularly critical to protect both the animals in the supply chains and the credibility of future welfare campaigns.¹³ In 2024, AWO engaged 25 companies, with nine entering active dialogue, as well as broadening Grupo Día’s commitment to include a wider range of products. Our spot checks confirmed AWO’s engagement efforts to be persistent and productive, underlining their capacity to hold companies accountable to this important implementation window.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are fully convinced that public pressure campaigns and direct corporate engagement, as part of AWO’s Cage-Free Eggs program, can reliably accelerate the adoption and implementation of corporate cage-free commitments, leading to egg-laying hens experiencing higher welfare. Our uncertainty in this verdict is low-to-moderate, as there are some challenges with accurately assessing the counterfactual impact of conducting accountability work.

Additional considerations

Key overarching assumptions and risks

• A central question for corporate welfare outreach is whether its long-term effects are positive. In the short term, these campaigns can secure meaningful reforms, but the deeper issue is whether they ultimately help dismantle factory farming or risk entrenching it.
  • On the positive side, corporate commitments can shift industry norms by making higher-welfare standards expected of major retailers and producers. Over time, this “ratchet effect” helps close the gap between what the industry is already doing and what policymakers are willing to legislate, making stronger laws more likely. Cage-free state legislation in the United States and the E.U.’s previously proposed legislation banning cages have been cited as specific examples of this, both in the evidence we reviewed and in discussions with external experts.^{14, 15, 16}
  • Evidence (albeit limited) and companies’ own resistance to welfare reforms suggest that these reforms tend to impose costs on producers (e.g., through housing conversions or the purchase of slower-growing breeds of chickens), which may reduce the appeal of intensive farming and limit its future growth.¹⁷
  • Campaigns also sustain public and media attention on animal welfare, equipping the movement with skills, relationships, and momentum that carry over into the next wave of reforms.¹⁸
  • One main counterargument to corporate welfare outreach is the risk of complacency: If consumers believe “humane” labels mean problems of welfare are solved, this could reduce pressure for more ambitious change. Similarly, companies sometimes exploit reforms for positive PR while only partially improving conditions. However, concerns about complacency seem likely to be overstated, especially given how high current levels of consumer complacency already are—we consider it more plausible that reforms slightly reduce complacency by drawing attention to welfare problems rather than reinforcing them. This is also supported by the limited empirical evidence on this topic.¹⁹
  • In addition, there are real risks of backsliding even after reforms are implemented: Economic downturns or supply shocks could push companies to cut corners; worsening environmental pressures could fuel arguments for cheaper, lower-welfare systems; bankruptcies, acquisitions, or leadership changes could weaken commitments; farmers may resist higher costs and reduce supply; and industry lobbying could trigger political rollbacks. Without sustained advocacy, monitoring, and pressure, both companies and governments are more likely to let animal welfare standards slip. However, to us, these risks reinforce the importance of accountability work and ongoing movement pressure, rather than undermining the case for corporate reforms.
  • Overall, we think that the evidence and reasoning indicate that corporate welfare outreach efforts are more likely to help end the worst factory farming practices, rather than maintain them, in the long term.²⁰ However, this seems likely to vary depending on the context and the organizations, and we think that it would be useful and informative for AWO to foreground these risks and assumptions more explicitly in their theory of change.

Risk assessment strategy

• AWO described a range of risks to their work, including: reputational backlash to investigations and campaigns; national work displacing supply chains to countries with lower welfare standards; companies undermining the credibility of welfare commitments through tokenistic or partial compliance; staff or collaborators being exposed to legal risks as a result of their work; lack of coordination with others in the movement, leading to contradictory and ineffective messaging; and legislative changes reducing the impact of campaigns.
  • AWO currently uses an informal risk management process. AWO reports that senior leadership and operations staff regularly assess emerging risks (especially those related to legal exposure, financial stability, and reputational impact) and respond with mitigation plans as needed.
  • We think it is best practice for organizations to have a more formal risk management process, so it is promising that AWO is in the process of introducing a more formal system. They are developing a formal risk compliance system to identify, monitor, and respond to organizational risks, including an internal risk matrix, documentation protocols, and regular assessments of legal, operational, and reputational risks.
  • Overall, we have no concerns about AWO’s risk management strategy.

Use of empirical evidence in decision making

• AWO’s decision making appears to be well grounded in empirical evidence. For example, their decision to launch a fish welfare program was informed by scientific literature, reports by the European Food Safety Authority, meetings with experts, and a report they commissioned from external researchers. Likewise, after becoming aware of evidence suggesting that the electrical stunning of sea bass, sea bream, and some other major fish species may not be as effective as previously thought, AWO amended their approach accordingly. They also refer to frameworks such as the Welfare Footprint Institute’s welfare impact quantifications²¹.
• For campaigns, they regularly conduct A/B testing and other trials to inform their messaging, and they have worked with Campaigns Lab to improve and pilot new approaches.
• We think it is highly positive that AWO appeared to rapidly incorporate significant new evidence into their campaigns. For example, we spoke to a researcher involved with the electrical stunning findings who reported that AWO appeared impressively engaged with the research and open to adjusting their approaches based on the findings.

Use of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) data to inform decisions

• AWO keeps a record of the companies they have engaged, including the estimated number of animals impacted (which they calculate using a tool created by Rethink Priorities for fish, and a combination of industry reports, self-reported corporate data, and methodology in line with that of The Humane League and the Open Wing Alliance for chickens). They have a set of criteria that they use for strategic decision making about how to scale up, scale down, or otherwise change their programs, but they do not currently have a standardized method for applying this. They are working with The Mission Motor to enhance their MEL, including developing shared quantitative and qualitative indicators and scoring tools to support more consistent, transparent, and evidence‐based decision making.
• We think that AWO’s record keeping of company engagement, including estimated animal numbers impacted, is impressive. We agree that it would be best practice for them to introduce a more formal process for strategic decision making, so it is promising that they are taking concrete steps to do so. Staff at The Mission Motor reported that AWO has recently made considerable improvements to their MEL processes and appears open to making strategic changes based on new evidence.

Strategic selection of programs to complement and support each other

• AWO’s three main programs (chicken welfare, egg-laying hen welfare, and fish welfare) all target relatively neglected species using similar strategies (corporate outreach, public pressure, and political advocacy). AWO reports that their campaigns targeting chickens raised for meat and egg-laying hens give them visibility that strengthens their credibility with corporations and legislators when engaging with them on fish welfare.
• AWO has a strong focus on ensuring that their corporate work translates into longer-term legislative progress, reducing the risk of future corporate backsliding. The risk of backsliding is likely to be higher for welfare improvements that do not entail major infrastructure changes; for example, it is likely to be higher for broiler chickens’ welfare improvements than for cage-free transitions for egg-laying hens.
• Recently, this has been a particular focus for their fish welfare campaign, as detailed above. In 2024, they also had 10 meetings with Spanish and E.U. policymakers to discuss the need to end the use of cages for farmed animals, and submitted two parliamentary questions to this end. For chickens used for meat, policy work was deemed less of a priority in 2024 in favor of other programs.
• While AWO does appear to carefully consider their choice of programs, we have minor concerns that they are trying to cover too broad a range of programs, which might reduce their capacity to maintain long-term continued pressure on target companies and policy makers.

Contribution of programs to the wider animal advocacy movement

• AWO reports collaborating with other organizations directly and through various alliances (such as Eurogroup for Animals, the Open Wing Alliance, the Aquatic Animal Alliance, and the End the Cage Age coalition) by sharing plans and updates, contributing to shared messaging, and seeking alignment before launching public campaigns.
• We spoke with staff at Eurogroup for Animals and several other organizations that AWO had worked with, who reported them to be highly proactive and collaborative.

See AWO’s cost-effectiveness spreadsheet for a detailed account of the data and calculations that went into our cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

• We focused our analysis on two programs: (i) AWO’s European Chicken Commitment program and (ii) their Cage-Free Eggs program. We chose these programs because they collectively make up a large proportion of AWO’s expenditures and because AWO had a large amount of information on these programs that we thought would help yield informative results. However, attempts to quantify the counterfactual impact of corporate accountability campaigns are subject to various significant assumptions and shortcomings that limit their reliability.
• Program 1: European Chicken Commitment
  • Our CEA indicates that this work is likely to help 48 chickens per dollar through driving a transition to improved welfare standards for chickens used for meat, equating to 30 Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs) averted per dollar (range: 4–126).
  • Attempts to quantify the counterfactual impact of corporate accountability campaigns were subject to various significant assumptions and shortcomings that limit their reliability. For example, the figures indicating when companies will implement their commitments, compared to when they would have done so if not for AWO’s accountability campaigning, were very rough estimates based on the limited evidence available.
• Program 2: Cage-Free Eggs
  • Our CEA indicates that this work is likely to help eight laying hens per dollar through driving a transition to cage-free systems, equating to 26 SADs averted per dollar (range: 8–67).
  • Attempts to quantify the counterfactual impact of corporate accountability campaigns were subject to various significant assumptions and shortcomings that limit their reliability. For example, as with the European Chicken Commitment program, the figures indicating when companies will implement their commitments, compared to when they would have done so if not for AWO’s accountability campaigning, were very rough estimates based on the limited evidence available.

Rapid back-of-the-envelope calculations

In addition to our cost-effectiveness analyses, we also quickly modeled some of AWO’s other programs to estimate the order of magnitude of their impact under simplified, rough assumptions compared to the more detailed modeling of our CEAs:

• E.U. Farmed Fish Welfare Policy: approximately 309 fishes helped and 15 SADs averted per dollar
• Spanish Farmed Fish Welfare Policy: approximately 70 fishes helped and 3 SADs averted per dollar
• Shrimp Advocacy: approximately 159 shrimps helped and 1 SAD averted per dollar
• Laying Hen Cage-Free Ban Advocacy: approximately 71 hens helped and 215 SADs averted per dollar

These were quick assessments based on uncertain assumptions, so we put very little credence in the specific SADs averted per dollar figures, but they gave us a degree of additional confidence in the likely impact of these programs.

A more detailed summary of their future plans, strategic prioritization, and funding capacity, as well as the reasoning behind our assessments for each, can be found in the “Future Plans” tab of their Financials and Future Plans spreadsheet.

Future plans

If AWO were to receive additional revenue to expand their organization, they would prioritize strengthening accountability work on aquatic animals, chickens used for meat, and cage-free hens through investigations and public progress tracking. They also plan to launch a shrimp welfare campaign, combining corporate outreach, investigations, and public awareness. Beyond program growth, AWO aims to improve internal systems, expand E.U. advocacy, and invest in communications and fundraising to build public trust. We rated 100% of their projected spending plans as highly effective.

Funding capacity

Based on our assessment of AWO’s future plans, we are confident that they could effectively spend up to a total annual revenue of $2.9 million, which we refer to as their funding capacity. 

The chart below shows AWO’s revenues from 2022–2025 and their funding capacity for 2026 and 2027. The low revenue in 2024 arises from the fact that AWO’s 2024 donations came primarily from multi-year grants, which do not always align with the calendar year. In this case, some major grants were received at the end of the 2023 calendar year to fund activities in the following year. Therefore, the total amount allocated for the 2024 financial year was much higher than for the calendar year.

AWO Revenue (2022–2025) and Funding Capacity (2026/2027)

Strategic prioritization

Based on how AWO decides which programs to start, stop, scale up, or scale down, we have no concerns about their strategic decision making and believe that they will continue to make cost-effective decisions.

To decide whether to scale up, maintain, or scale down their programs, AWO uses a strategic framework that evaluates interventions based on mission alignment, impact, feasibility, and evidence. While AWO does not yet have a fully standardized method for quantifying or weighting these criteria, they are collaborating with The Mission Motor to develop quantitative and qualitative indicators, scoring tools, and a strengthened monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) system to support evidence-based decision making. In 2025, AWO aims to build a robust scoring matrix to compare both new and existing initiatives, ensuring resources are allocated to programs with the strongest potential for impact while maintaining a balance between ambition and pragmatism.

AWO used this decision-making framework to launch their fish welfare campaign in 2024 after identifying a lack of awareness and competition, and decided to launch a shrimp welfare campaign based on the likelihood of high cost effectiveness and robust support from other organizations.

People, policies, and processes

The policies that AWO reported having in place are listed in the table below—policies in bold are those that Scarlet Spark²³ recommend as highest priority.

Has policy

Partial / informal policy

No policy

COMPENSATION
Paid time off	N/A24
Paid sick days	N/A
Paid medical leave	N/A
Paid family and caregiver leave	N/A
Compensation strategy (i.e., a policy detailing how an organization determines staff’s pay and benefits in a standardized manner)
WORKPLACE SAFETY
A simple and transparent written procedure for filing complaints
An anti-retaliation policy protecting whistleblowers and those who report grievances
A clearly written workplace code of ethics or conduct
A written statement that the organization does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other irrelevant characteristics
Mandatory reporting of harassment and discrimination through all levels, up to and including the board of directors
Explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment or discrimination
Documentation of all reported instances of harassment or discrimination, along with the outcomes of each case
Conflict of interest policy
Training on topics of harassment and discrimination in the workplace
CLARITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND BIAS MITIGATION
Clearly defined responsibilities for all positions, preferably with written job descriptions
Clear organizational goals and/or priorities communicated to all employees
New hire onboarding or orientation process
Structured hiring, assessing all candidates using the same process
Standardized process for employment termination decisions
Process to evaluate leadership performance
Performance evaluation process based on predefined objectives and expectations
Two or more decision makers for all hiring, promotion, and termination decisions
Process to attract a diverse candidate pool
ORGANIZATIONAL STABILITY AND PROGRESS
Documentation of all key knowledge and information necessary to fulfill the needs of the organization
Board meeting minutes
Records retention and destruction policy
Systems in place for continuously learning from the past (e.g., feedback norms, retrospectives)
Recurring (e.g., weekly or every two weeks) 1-on-1s focused on alignment and development
ASSESSMENTS
Annual (or more frequent) performance evaluations for all paid roles
Annual (or more frequent) process to measure employee engagement or satisfaction
A process in place to support performance improvement in instances of underperformance

Transparency

All of the information we required for our evaluation—list of board members; list of key staff members; information about the organization’s key accomplishments; the organization’s mission, vision, and/or theory of change; a privacy policy disclosing how the organization collects, uses, and shares third-party information; an IRS Form 990 or equivalent tax form; and financial statements—is made available on AWO’s website. However, AWO does not make board meeting minutes available to the public.

AWO is transparent with their own staff and shares all policies with them.

Leadership and board governance

• AWO’s former Executive Director stepped down in March 2025 following an internal review. During his absence and departure, the organization transitioned to a four-person shared leadership model. AWO was transparent with us about this leadership transition and appeared to work productively under their shared leadership model despite the circumstances. AWO recruited a new General Director in September 2025.
• Number of board members: three. AWO does not have a conflict of interest policy that aims to avoid any potential conflict of interest between the General Director and the board; however, it is part of their organizational philosophy that all board members remain fully independent and do not hold any position within the leadership team or operational structure.

We found that the charity’s board mostly aligns with our understanding of best practice. Ideally, a formal conflict of interest policy will be adopted in the future.

About 95% of staff respondents to our engagement survey indicated that they have confidence in AWO’s leadership.

Financial health

Reserves

With 45% of their current annual expenditures held in reserves (as reported by AWO for 2024), we believe that they have sufficient reserves. (This meets their own target of having 5–7 months’ of expenditures in reserves.)

Recurring revenue

2.8% of AWO’s revenue is recurring (e.g. from recurring donors or ongoing long-term grant commitments). Based on an external consultation with Scarlet Spark, we find this to be a low proportion of recurring revenue (the ideal being 25% or higher); however, the 25% target is dependent on the context for each charity, so while we have noted this information here, it did not influence our recommendation decision.

Liabilities-to-assets ratio

AWO’s liabilities-to-assets ratio does not exceed 50%.

Staff engagement and satisfaction

AWO has 23 staff members (full time, part time, and contractors). Twenty-one staff members responded to our staff engagement survey, yielding a response rate of 91%.

AWO has a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, 81% reported that they are satisfied with their wage. In Spain, various compensation policies and sick leave allowances are already established by labor law. Nearly 100% of AWO staff who responded to our staff engagement survey report that they are satisfied with the benefits provided.

The average score among our staff engagement survey questions was 4.78 ​​(on a 1–5 scale), suggesting that, on average, staff exhibit very high engagement.

Harassment and discrimination

ACE has a separate process for receiving serious claims about harassment and discrimination, and all AWO staff were made aware of this option. If staff or any party external to the organization have claims of this nature, we encourage them to read ACE’s Third-Party Whistleblower Policy and fill out our claimant form. We have received no such claims regarding AWO.