Çiftlik Hayvanlarını Koruma Derneği

See our theory of change table for a detailed account of ÇHKD’s activities, outputs, and intended outcomes and impact. Below, we highlight the key activities that we believe are the most impactful drivers of their theory of change and give details on the reasoning and evidence base, as well as an account of risks, limitations, and mitigating actions.

Key Activity 1: Cage-free corporate outreach and targeted pressure campaigns (Kafessiz Türkiye)

Activity description: ÇHKD aims to improve the welfare standards of egg-laying hens in Türkiye by securing cage-free commitments through corporate outreach, targeted pressure campaigns, social media, traditional media, and petitions.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• This activity targets egg-laying hens in Türkiye. Based on data from the FAO,⁴ we estimate that there are over 109 million egg-laying hens alive in Türkiye at any given point. Globally, Türkiye ranks 13th in terms of their egg-laying hen population.
• ÇHKD reports having secured more than 30 cage-free commitments for egg-laying hens in Türkiye, totaling over 850,000 hens impacted since 2020, with seven of these commitments in 2023. All achieved commitments have been implemented as planned, with only one appearing at risk of potentially missing the commitment deadline.
• Corporate outreach for welfare improvements appears to have a solid track record of success, playing a crucial role in welfare improvements for hundreds of millions of animals. For example, the Open Wing Alliance reports that, as of May 2024, 89% of cage-free egg commitments with deadlines of 2023 or earlier have been fulfilled.⁵ Furthermore, Open Philanthropy reports that 220 million egg-laying hens are out of battery cages thanks to corporate welfare campaigns.⁶ A 2019 report by Rethink Priorities estimates that historic corporate campaigns affected nine to 120 years of chicken life per dollar spent. Still, it also notes that such work is likely subject to diminishing returns as the number of large, tractable corporations without welfare commitments decreases.⁷
• It appears highly likely that transitioning to cage-free systems translates to net improvements in well-being for laying hens. Negative impacts on well-being (such as the higher rate of mortality in cage-free systems, at least while farmers grow accustomed to the transition) appear to be significantly outweighed by the positive impacts (such as greater freedom to move and express natural behaviors).⁸
• ÇHKD has successfully mobilized public support for various pressure campaigns. In one ongoing campaign, they have collected 184,400 signatures, and supporters have sent 24,200 complaint emails. This approach has proven effective in Türkiye in the past. For example, one company stopped selling caged eggs following an email campaign by ÇHKD, while another responded to public pressure by publicizing their use of cage-free products and labeling them accordingly in stores.
• While the evidence regarding corporate welfare reforms is mixed,⁹ it appears likely that these reforms could increase the costs of producing animal products in the long term. Ultimately, these costs will be passed onto consumers or other stages of the supply chain. While the demand for animal products is considered relatively price inelastic, increasing the price of animal products does seem to decrease consumption, although the evidence supporting this is weak and inconsistent.¹⁰ As such, in theory, raising costs for the animal agriculture industry may make it less profitable and sustainable, especially since this industry tends to operate on very thin profit margins.
• Empirical evidence on the effects of welfare reforms on public attitudes toward animal welfare is limited. However, existing evidence suggests that such effects might be either negligible or slightly positive, i.e., tending to promote favorable attitudes toward farmed animal advocacy rather than promoting complacency.¹¹ We note that none of this research was conducted in the Turkish context.

Risk, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Limitation: Companies may not implement their commitments, and pressure campaigns could cause some to disengage.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • ÇHKD publishes companies’ progress in their annual Egg Track Report and independently verifies compliance by contacting producers to check if a company has increased or decreased its ratio of cage-free egg purchases. If a company shows signs of retracting or not implementing a commitment, ÇHKD escalates the issue to relevant managers and, if necessary, to the public via digital media. The organization’s approach is to offer positive incentives for desired behavior and negative incentives for undesired behavior.

• Limitation: Corporate campaigns may be subject to diminishing returns as the number of large corporations with resources to implement changes without making a welfare commitment decreases.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • After the ongoing Migros campaign, ÇHKD will aim for partial commitments from the four other large retailers in the country.¹² They don’t expect there to be significant diminishing returns in the next two years, as 88% of Turkish egg producers still use battery cages.¹³

• Limitation: There is less of a record of successful corporate campaigns outside of the U.S. and Western Europe.¹⁴ Different national contexts may make corporate campaigns less effective. For example, ÇHKD says animal welfare is not a salient issue for the public and many companies in Türkiye, and competition law and freedom-of-speech laws in the country can be restrictive, leading companies to consider legal action against campaigns.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • ÇHKD aims to increase issue salience by producing public-facing content and raising awareness, as well as receiving legal consultation for all campaign materials and avoiding legal gray areas that could result in lawsuits.

• Risk: Promoting companies for achieving incremental welfare gains could disproportionately improve their reputation among consumers and help maintain social acceptance of the consumption of animal products.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • As mentioned above, the available empirical evidence suggests that welfare reforms tend to promote negligible or slightly positive attitudes toward farmed animal advocacy rather than promote complacency toward animal welfare.
    • ÇHKD reports that they hope that their campaigns will raise public awareness about animal welfare issues and pave the way for legislative reform in addition to the direct short-term benefits to animals.
    • They also note that they expect welfare reforms to increase animal product prices, ultimately lowering consumption, although, as discussed above, empirical evidence on this effect is mixed.

Key activity assessment

Overall, taking into account the limitations and mitigating factors, we assess the logic and evidence of this key activity as strong. We positively note:

• ÇHKD’s track record of achieving commitments (which are then implemented) is strong.
• We think ÇHKD’s mitigating actions appropriately address risks and limitations.
• Türkiye is a high-priority country for this type of work due to the very high number of egg-laying hens farmed here.

A potential challenge is that ÇHKD is shifting to target larger corporations for partial commitments, a strategy for which we have less of a precedent of effectiveness.

Key Activity 2: Fish producer and retailer outreach (Future for Fish)

Activity description: ÇHKD aims to improve the welfare standards of farmed fishes in Türkiye by securing commitments from producers and retailers to maintain certain standards, notably pre-slaughter electrical stunning.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• This activity targets farmed fishes in Türkiye. Based on private data from an anonymous source, we estimate that there are over 680 million farmed fishes alive in Türkiye at any given point. Globally, Türkiye ranks 12th in terms of farmed fish population and 10th in offshore aquaculture. ÇHKD’s research also indicates that Türkiye exports 75% of its fish production,¹⁵ much of which is likely to countries with a greater interest in high-welfare fish.¹⁶ The most common harvesting method in the European Union and Türkiye is live chilling in ice slurry, a less humane slaughter technique where fishes are immersed in ice until death, without loss of consciousness.¹⁷
• Despite some robust evidence for the likely impact of corporate/retailer outreach for welfare improvements, there is significantly less evidence on the specific impact of producer outreach. However, ÇHKD notes that retailers have mentioned the lack of higher welfare farmed fish as a barrier to commitments, so it seems that conducting outreach efforts to actors across the supply chain is somewhat likely to increase the likelihood of securing welfare commitments and ensuring their implementation.
• Much of the reasoning and evidence that applies to cage-free corporate outreach work may apply to fish producer and retailer outreach as well, such as the potential for welfare reforms to drive up the costs of producing animal products and that the effects on public attitudes are either negligible or slightly positive (although we have less direct evidence on these effects where they pertain to fish welfare campaigns).
• In 2023, ÇHKD reported engaging with 10 producers for potential fish welfare commitments, securing one commitment and reporting that the remaining are still positively inclined.
• ÇHKD maintains a clear separation between their Kafessiz Türkiye (Türkiye Without Cages) and Future For Fish brands, ensuring that fish producers see Future for Fish as a supportive partner rather than as an adversarial entity. They report that this strategy has been effective to date, such as when a large retailer engaged with Future for Fish during an ongoing Kafessiz Türkiye campaign against them. Reports provide some evidence for taking an encouraging approach to positively shape social norms among farmers¹⁸ and exploring partnerships between farmers, researchers, and other actors.¹⁹ ÇHKD’s own research also indicates that in order to improve fish welfare, all stakeholders need to work together,²⁰ which we independently verified with an aquaculture expert familiar with the region.
• ÇHKD’s own research in Türkiye also found that while nine out of ten companies interviewed possessed at least one electrical stunning system (the most promising method to prevent suffering during slaughter), they did not use this method for 100% of their harvest, indicating a straightforward opportunity to improve fish welfare.²¹ Additionally, the third-party aquaculture expert we consulted agreed that a focus on pre-slaughter electrical stunning in Türkiye is sensible as a welfare ask, given what is known about fish welfare and the relative ease of implementation compared to other possible changes.

Risks, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Limitation: Aquatic animal welfare science is a relatively young field compared to other commonly farmed animals, so there is less certainty about how changes in farming practices translate to experienced welfare improvements for the animals.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • ÇHKD worked with an academic aquaculture expert (Professor Deniz Çoban) to design their commitment, which requires that producers have at least one approved welfare certification, keep a maximum of 15kg per cubic meter stocking density, and use electrical stunning on all fishes. As noted in ÇHKD’s report,²² these standards are based on guidelines/recommendations from the World Organisation for Animal Health, the European Food Safety Authority, and Aquatic Life Institute.
    • ÇHKD staff also attend academic conferences on aquaculture and animal welfare to stay up-to-date as new research emerges.

• Limitation: Producers do not have a strong incentive to commit to welfare improvements because of limited consumer demand combined with logistical difficulties, such as producers finding it difficult to install and use stunners.²³
  • Mitigating factor: Aside from fish welfare, the electrical stunning system can improve product quality and marketability. For example, it reduces soft tissue appearance, disintegration, bruising, and scale loss, increases retention of fish shape during storage, increases shelf life, and increases freshness.²⁴

• Limitation: The welfare improvements achieved may be limited. ÇHKD’s own research found that Turkish sea bream producers generally already comply with some international standards regarding fish welfare, such as keeping stocking density below 15kg per cubic meter and ensuring optimum water quality, and that 40% of participating producers already use electrical stunning on more than 95% of their harvest.²⁵
  • Mitigating factors:
    • ÇHKD reports that they are actively communicating with the top twelve producers, who collectively account for 75–80% of the total sea bass and sea bream production in the country. Out of these, seven use the less humane ice slurry method to varying degrees, while the remaining five use electrical stunning systems to render fishes unconscious.
    • Researchers have noted that producers often assess welfare improvements based on their feasibility. Additionally, when producers see their competitors making changes, it can create a ripple effect, encouraging even those who already use electrical stunning to make commitments, which in turn pressures others to adopt similar practices.
    • Additionally, ÇHKD’s commitment increases the incentive for producers to keep their systems up-to-date as certifiers raise standards, fix stunning machines when they malfunction, and use stunning machines for their full production.

• Risk: Promoting producers for achieving incremental welfare gains could disproportionately improve their reputation among consumers and help maintain social acceptance of the consumption of animal products.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • ÇHKD believes incremental reforms to be more tractable than the abolition of the industry until there is major social awareness and interest in fish welfare.
    • In the meantime, they say their work could create more competition between individual farmers to adopt higher animal welfare standards so that major retailers and foreign trading partners choose them over lower-welfare competitors.

• Limitation: Producers may not implement their commitments or renew their certifications over time.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • ÇHKD requires that the commitment be announced to the public on their website, as well as reporting to the public annually on progress in meeting the commitment.
    • They also provide ongoing monitoring and support, working closely with producers to ensure that certifier welfare standards are not only met but maintained when they are updated.

Key activity assessment

Overall, taking into account the limitations and mitigating factors, we assess the logic and evidence of this key activity as moderate. We positively note:

• Given Türkiye’s role in global aquaculture, this activity has the potential to affect a very high number of animals.

Potential challenges include uncertainty about the tractability of achieving commitments in the future, especially those with large counterfactual impact (producers that don’t currently meet certification standards). This is largely because of limited consumer demand and logistical difficulties. While there is potentially high tractability because of the discovery that most Turkish fish producers already own stunners and just need to be taught or convinced to use them, ÇHKD does not yet have a track record of doing so. Another challenge is the uncertainty regarding which interventions are most effective in improving fish welfare, as fish welfare science is a relatively overlooked field.

Key Activity 3: Field research on fish farms and dissemination of findings

Activity description: ÇHKD aims to understand the current state of farmed fish welfare in Türkiye by conducting field research at fish farms and publishing their findings in research reports.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• Despite being the world’s 12th largest farmed fish producer and exporting most of its fish products, there is relatively little understanding of the current state of fish welfare in Turkish aquaculture. Without this background knowledge, it would be difficult for ÇHKD and international advocates to tailor their advocacy strategies to the specific species, production methods, and beliefs in the country.²⁶
• ÇHKD reports having contacted more than 20 stakeholders, including academics, animal welfare researchers, and colleagues from other animal welfare organizations, to understand the research needs in the field and prioritize research questions that will lead to the most progress for fish welfare.
• Their field research²⁷ covered 76% of Türkiye’s farmed sea bass and sea bream production, and the findings have informed ÇHKD’s fish producer and retailer outreach work. For example, their research led them to prioritize the adoption of pre-slaughter electrical stunning and international certifications.
• Several animal advocates outside of Türkiye that we spoke to have noted that ÇHKD’s research was useful for their corporate engagement work, even using it directly in conversations with retailers importing from Türkiye, and to help secure a meeting with the Turkish government. Additionally, they mentioned that they found it useful to share ÇHKD’s research with international industry stakeholders, that it shows international producers that more humane slaughter is feasible, and that it has deepened their technical expertise in electrical stunning.

Risks, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Limitation: Conducting research may not improve fish welfare if the findings do not reach the relevant stakeholders or lead to any changes in tactics or production.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • ÇHKD held a launch event for their research report and invited stakeholders. They also shared their report via an animal advocate mailing list, on their website, and via email with other NGOs working on sea bass and sea bream welfare.
    • ÇHKD engages in outreach and support to encourage the adoption of recommended welfare practices, and research helps them identify key barriers. Their field research has also served as an entry point for engaging with producers.

• Limitation: Producers may be reluctant to participate due to concerns about negative exposure or interference with their operations.
  • Mitigating factor:
    • ÇHKD reports relying on their academic advisor’s industry connections and maintaining positive relationships with producers. They ensure that their research is presented as a collaborative effort aimed at improving industry standards rather than a critical inspection.

Key activity assessment

Overall, taking into account the limitations and mitigating factors, we assess the logic and evidence of this key activity as moderate. We positively note:

• The report ÇHKD wrote based on the field research was high quality and insightful to their and other charities’ work.

A potential challenge is that we are uncertain about the effectiveness of future research, given that some fundamental questions about Turkish aquaculture have already been answered and that ÇHKD is not currently planning to write additional reports.

Additional Considerations

• Overall, ÇHKD makes a commendable effort to use evidence-based tactics, including conducting their own field research to inform their work.
• Throughout our evaluation, we made attempts to independently verify the information we received from ÇHKD, especially when assessing cruxes and assumptions in the logic of their theory of change. For example, we spoke with external experts to verify the conclusions of ÇHKD’s fish welfare report. All of the information we selected for verification was fully verified.

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

We focused our analysis on one program: cage-free corporate outreach (Kafessiz Türkiye), which accounts for 79% of ÇHKD’s charitable expenditure. We attempted to quantify the impact of their fish producer outreach (Future For Fish) work as well, but due to the highly speculative nature of key inputs, we were unable to produce reliable estimates of Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs) averted per dollar. Additionally, we did not attempt to quantify the benefits of their fish research because of the complexity of estimating the impact of research disseminated to other organizations.

Program 1: Cage-free corporate outreach

• We estimate that the cost-effectiveness of this program is 3.1 (lower bound: 0.4, upper bound: 6.6) hens affected per dollar or 54 (lower bound: 6.4, lower bound: 115.9) Suffering Adjusted Days (SADs)²⁸ averted per dollar. These estimates are based on the cage-free commitments made by seven companies in 2023.
  • According to Ambitious Impact’s benchmark, a program with less than 10 SADs averted per dollar has low cost-effectiveness, 10–30 SADs averted per dollar has moderate cost-effectiveness, 30–100 SADs averted per dollar has moderate-high cost-effectiveness, and greater than 100 SADs averted per dollar has very high cost-effectiveness.
  • The SADs estimate only quantifies the direct effects of the cage-free commitments on egg-laying hens, excluding indirect effects such as increased public awareness or decreased consumption of animal products because of campaign actions.
  • This is potentially an underestimate for several reasons. First, although we took the average of the upper and lower bounds, the “# years commitments brought forward” value may be closer to the upper bound in Türkiye, where a full cage ban is expected to be further in the future relative to many European countries. Second, ÇHKD has started targeting larger companies now that they have more expertise and confidence in campaigning, so future commitments they win have the potential to be much larger. For example, winning their ongoing Migros campaign would affect five million hens per year, which is an order of magnitude larger than their past wins.

If ÇHKD were to find additional revenue to expand their organization, they would prioritize using the money to support their cage-free campaigns, a salary adjustment for existing staff, and establishing reserves. We found their focus on their cage-free campaigns to be sensible since they don’t believe that their fish welfare program has additional room for funding. We have confidence that these uses of funding will be as effective as their past work up to a total annual revenue level of $725,000, which we refer to as their funding capacity.

The chart below shows ÇHKD’s revenues from 2021–2023, their projected revenue for 2024, and their funding capacity for 2025 and 2026.

Figure 2: Revenue (2021–2024) and Funding Capacity (2025/2026)

A more detailed summary of their future plans and the reasoning behind our assessments can be found in the “Future Plans” tab of their Financials and Future Plans spreadsheet.

People, Policies, and Processes

The policies that the charity reported having in place are listed below.³⁰

Has policy

Partial / informal policy

No policy

COMPENSATION
Paid time off
Paid sick days
Paid medical leave
Paid family and caregiver leave
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

ÇHKD was transparent with ACE throughout the evaluation process. All of the information we required for our evaluation of organizational health is made available on ÇHKD’s website. This includes: a list of board members; a list of key staff members; information about the organization’s key accomplishments; the organization’s mission, vision, and theory of change; and financial statements.

ÇHKD is also transparent with both the public and their own staff. For example, all policies are shared with staff and publicly on their website.

Leadership and Board Governance

• Executive Director (ED): Emre Kaplan, who has been involved in the organization for six years.
• Number of board members: five members, including Executive Director, Emre Kaplan, who is a voting board member.

We found that the charity’s board fully aligns with our understanding of best practices. Board meetings occur at least four times per year, and ÇHKD has a policy that non-independent board members cannot vote on performance evaluation or level of responsibilities.

Ninety-two percent of staff respondents to our engagement survey agree they have confidence in ÇHKD’s leadership team.

Financial Health

Reserves

With 0% of their current annual expenditures held in reserves (as reported by ÇHKD for 2024), we believe that they could benefit from prioritizing having a larger amount of reserves. This would provide them with financial stability during periods of unexpected income shortfalls or sudden increases in expenses, allowing them to continue their operations and programs without interruption.

Recurring Revenue

Two percent of ÇHKD’s revenue is recurring (e.g., from recurring donors or ongoing long-term grant commitments).³¹

Liabilities to Assets Ratio

ÇHKD’s liabilities-to-assets ratio did not exceed 50% or pose a risk to operations at the time of assessment.

Staff engagement and satisfaction

ÇHKD has 16 staff members (full-time, part-time, and contractors), including the Executive Director. Thirteen staff members responded to our staff engagement survey, yielding a response rate of 87%—the Executive Director was asked not to take the survey.

ÇHKD has an informal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, 69% reported that they were satisfied with their wage. ÇHKD offers paid vacation and sick days. All staff report that they are satisfied with the benefits provided. This suggests that, on average, staff exhibit high satisfaction with wages and benefits.

The average score among our staff engagement survey questions was 4.6 (on a 1–5 scale), suggesting that, on average, staff exhibit very high engagement.

Harassment and Discrimination

ACE has a process separate from the engagement survey for receiving serious claims about harassment and discrimination, and all ÇHKD 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 ÇHKD.