Compassion In World Farming International (Compassion International)

How Compassion in World Farming 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 Areas

Compassion 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

Compassion International pursues four different avenues for creating change for animals: They work to influence public opinion, build the capacity of the animal advocacy 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 policy and the law

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

Compassion International engages in political campaigning for a variety of animal welfare issues in Europe: long-distance live animal transport, the use of cages, the overuse of antibiotics, and neglect of fish welfare. Their strategies include creating petitions, engaging in media and online outreach, building alliances with other social movements, educating politicians, and organizing protests.

We are particularly excited about Compassion International’s Rethink Fish program, which is intended to lead to legislation that improves fish welfare. We consider farmed fish welfare to be neglected relative to other priorities, large in scale, and potentially tractable to improve. While the program is still in its early stages, we believe it has the potential to substantially improve the welfare of farmed fishes.

Compassion International has also educated international policymakers about farmed animal issues. For example, they spoke at the United Nations headquarters and at the United Nations Environment Assembly.

Influencing industry

Compassion International works with corporations to adopt better animal welfare policies and ban particularly cruel practices in animal agriculture. 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. In most contexts, it also seems more tractable to secure systemic change one corporation at a time, rather than lobbying for larger-scale legislative change. 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.

Compassion International works with corporations to adopt a variety of animal-friendly policies. In the U.K. and Europe, Compassion International seeks corporate commitments 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.

Compassion International also seeks cage-free egg commitments in Europe, China, and the USA.² 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

Compassion International also works to ensure that companies follow through with their welfare pledges. Their EggTrack report monitors which companies are on track to comply with their cage-free egg commitments. They plan to expand the program by creating a ChickenTrack report which will monitor compliance with broiler welfare commitments. Many researchers are concerned that companies will fail to comply with welfare pledges;⁴ tracking companies’ compliance allows Compassion International and other advocacy organizations to exert pressure on companies that seem likely to fail to meet their commitments.

Compassion International provides positive incentives for corporations that prioritize animal welfare. They recently launched a Sustainable Food and Farming Award, which they give to farmers, producers, and businesses that produce animal products in environmentally- and animal-friendly ways. They also publish an annual report which ranks food companies based on their commitment to farmed animal welfare.

Influencing public opinion

Compassion International works to influence individuals to adopt more animal-friendly attitudes and behaviors through online outreach, media outreach, and grassroots outreach. 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.

Compassion International’s online outreach, media outreach, and grassroots outreach are primarily intended as components of their legislative and policy work. They seek to exert pressure on policymakers by informing the public and demonstrating high levels of public support for animal welfare legislation. However, we expect that these programs also raise awareness of animal issues, recruit and build the capacity of activists, and promote animal-friendly behaviors.

Capacity building

Working to build the capacity of the animal advocacy movement can have a 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.

Compassion International conducts capacity-building research, particularly on animal welfare and sustainability. Compassion International’s reports target policymakers and other key influencers who make decisions that can potentially affect many animals.

Building alliances

Compassion International’s outreach to other social movements 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.

Compassion International prioritizes building alliances with other groups working on similar issues. For example, Compassion International allied with health, medical, and environmental groups to work toward a ban on the routine prophylactic use of antibiotics in animal farming. Compassion International has also formed strategic alliances with the Jane Goodall Institute and the World Wide Fund for Nature (known in the U.S. and Canada as the World Wildlife Fund or the WWF).

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 Compassion International’s recent revenue, assets,⁶ and expenses.^{7, 8} In this chart, the 2019 revenue and expenses are estimated based on the financials of the first three months of 2019.⁹ Compassion International’s five-year growth goal is to achieve a sustainable 15M GBP ($19.3M) global annual income by 2022. They set this goal based on what they consider to be achievable, as opposed to what they consider to be ideal in order to fully fund their programs.¹⁰

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,¹¹ our assessment of the effectiveness¹² of each future expense, and the feasibility of meeting each expense if more funding were provided.¹³

Estimated Room for More Funding

The cost of Compassion International’s plans for expansion over the three priority levels is estimated via Guesstimate and visualized in the chart above. The cost of expansion is expected to be between $1.2M to $6.1M. 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. Comparing Compassion International’s estimated revenue for 2019¹⁶ and 2020,¹⁷ our model predicts that it will change by -$2.3M to $6.3M. We believe this number does not accurately reflect the revenue projections of Compassion International but we include it to consistently apply the same revenue projection model to all organizations we evaluate in order to compare each organization’s room for more funding. One reason the model projects Compassion International’s revenue higher than we believe is accurate may be that our linear model works better for charities with a smaller budget. Compassion International is the charity with the highest budget of the charities we reviewed this year. 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.¹⁸ 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.

Compassion International was founded in 1967, and one year later they started their European Legislation program. In 2007, they launched their Corporate Engagement program, and in 2014 they started their Averting “Farmageddon” (capacity building/building alliances) program. Below is our assessment of each of these 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.³⁷

Analyzing cost-effectiveness carries some risks by incentivizing behaviors that, on the whole, we do not think are valuable for the movement.³⁸ 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 Compassion International’s total expenditure in 2018–2019 and 2019–2020, divided by program.³⁹

We asked Compassion International to provide us with their expenditures for their top 3–5 programs,⁴⁰ 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.

Legal Advocacy

Summary of outcomes: secured an E.U.-wide ban on prophylactic antibiotics; achieved a 1 million-signature target to require the European Commission to respond to a campaign that will ban battery cages for hens; established a group of European Members of Parliament who are committed to ending battery cages; organized 150 protests to end live transport in the E.U.; and ran a public awareness campaign regarding fish welfare. For more information, see our spreadsheet comparing 2019 reviewed charities engaged in legal advocacy.

Use of resources

Table 1: Estimated resource usage in Compassion International’s legal advocacy, Jan ‘18–Jun ‘19

Compassion International’s expenditures and staff time were both larger than the average of other charities we reviewed and were roughly proportional in size to that average.

Evaluation of outcome cost-effectiveness

Compassion International conducts legal advocacy in a variety of areas. As such, the cost-effectiveness in this program likely has a large degree of variation. Their large size allows them to target the European Parliament and associated institutions; when successful, their outcomes can affect large numbers of animals. The most substantial example of this is the ban they helped secure on the use of prophylactic antibiotics on E.U. farms, which will affect most farmed animals in the E.U. However, the degree to which farmed animal lives will improve as a result of the commitment is not clear. It seems that in the short term, lives may worsen as antibiotics cannot be used to prevent health conditions arising from poor living conditions. However, in the longer term, this should create pressure towards changing the farming system in a way that helps prevent those health problems from arising. This outcome was achieved in conjunction with an alliance of 62 other organizations (The Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics) that was co-founded by Compassion International along with the Soil Association and Sustain in 2009. Thus, it would appear that Compassion International has been instrumental in achieving the ban. As the Alliance has existed for ten years, it is worth noting that the additional cost of work in those ten years should be considered when thinking about the cost-effectiveness of securing the ban.

Most of Compassion International’s other outcomes do not have clear direct impacts on animals in the present—instead, they represent progress towards future goals. Compassion International appears to target the most numerous species—such as chickens and fishes—and aims to create systemic change through their work with the European Commission, the European Council, and Members of the European Parliament, both of which are likely to be highly impactful. Overall, though, Compassion International’s legal advocacy campaign seems to have achieved outcomes that are below the average of other charities we have reviewed, when factoring in costs.

Capacity Building/Building Alliances

Summary of outcomes: released several reports and briefings; spoke at international conferences and events; formed strategic partnerships with the Jane Goodall Institute and the WWF; launched a Sustainable Food and Farming Award; and co-hosted a plant-based banquet for an audience of 400 business leaders. For more information, see our spreadsheet comparing 2019 reviewed charities engaged in capacity building/building alliances.

Use of resources

Table 2: Estimated resource usage in Compassion International’s capacity building/building alliances Jan ‘18–Jun ‘19

Compassion International’s expenditures and staff time were both higher than the average of other charities we reviewed and were roughly proportional in size to that average.

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. As a large and well-established organization, Compassion International seems well positioned to take on opportunities that are not available to smaller organizations. For example, their speaking engagements included talks at the U.N. headquarters and the U.N. Environment Assembly, and they co-hosted what was reportedly the largest ever plant-based dinner for various business leaders. While it is difficult to assess the impact that these events might have, we think that Compassion International’s strategy of targeting influential groups in this way is likely to be cost effective.

Corporate Outreach

Summary of outcomes: secured six cage-free commitments in Italy and France; launched European EggTrack report; created a labeling scheme with the French retailer Casino; secured commitments from Nestle and Waitrose; published the report: “Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare”; and secured widespread agreement that carbon dioxide pig slaughter should end. For more information, see our spreadsheet comparing 2019 reviewed charities engaged in corporate outreach.

Use of resources

Table 3: Estimated resource usage in Compassion International’s corporate outreach, Jan ‘18–Jun ‘19

Compassion International’s expenditures and staff time were both higher than the average of other charities we reviewed and were roughly proportional in size to that average.

Evaluation of outcome cost-effectiveness

Table 4: 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 Compassion International had for each commitment, we can estimate how many animals will be affected when the commitments are implemented.⁵⁶ Overall, after accounting for expenditures, their work appears to be less 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.

Aside from the outcomes included in the above estimate, they have also released their annual European EggTrack report and their annual Business Benchmark on Farmed Animal Welfare Report. While we are unsure of the cost-effectiveness of these outcomes, work to support businesses seems otherwise neglected in the movement and we think their general approach to corporate outreach complements the approach of other charities that tend to have more adversarial relationships with companies.

Compassion International has also created a labeling scheme with French retailer Casino which assigns a welfare rating to meat sold by the supermarket. This will create a positive change for animals to the extent that it shifts demand towards higher-welfare products. We are uncertain of the potential magnitude of this impact, and have some concerns about whether the labeling scheme may further normalize the worst intensive farming practices, as the lowest rating a product can receive is “standard.” As such, we are particularly uncertain about the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

After accounting for all of their outcomes and expenditures, Compassion International’s corporate outreach seems less cost effective than the average 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?

Compassion International reports that they review their organization at every level on a regular basis, including their governance document.⁵⁷ They conduct annual audits, annual staff appraisals, and have quarterly board meetings. They measure the outcomes of their programs in terms of impact for animals and in terms of audience and media reach. To track the progress of their programs, they use key performance indicators (KPIs) which are reviewed by the global leadership every month along with the financial situation of the organization. After every major project, they have a debrief where they discuss what went well and what could be improved.

In the past three years, Compassion International has sought external advice to develop tools for (i) corporate engagement around reducing animal products, (ii) lobbying at the United Nations, (iii) fundraising and financial practices, and (iv) in-depth research and analysis.⁵⁸

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

We believe that Compassion International responded appropriately to their self-determined areas of success and failure in at least two ways, listed below.

1. Compassion International reports they have been working on fish welfare for decades, with their first report on the welfare implications of intensively farmed fish being published in 1992.⁵⁹ Recently, they reorganized their programs, making fish welfare one of their three priority areas.⁶⁰ Currently, they have a team and program exclusively dedicated to this area. Last year, they launched their Rethink Fish campaign to raise public awareness on the social and mental capacities of fish, but also to pressure corporations to improve the standards of fish welfare in the aquaculture industry. We think that interventions targeting the welfare of farmed fishes may be particularly effective given the large number of animals being used and the neglectedness of advocacy on their behalf. Given the years of experience they have working in this area, we think that Compassion International is well-positioned to prioritize this work and increase their impact on animals.

2. Compassion International has a long track record of success in supporting legislation that favorably impacts animals in the E.U. For about 50 years, they have been working on legislative initiatives to reduce cruel practices in animal agriculture, achieving a ban on veal crates and gestation crates for sows among other animal-friendly legislation across Europe. They have since continued this program by launching an ambitious campaign to ban all extreme forms of confinement for farmed animals in the E.U. (the End the Cage Age campaign). Supported by 170 organizations that have collected the necessary signatures for a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), this campaign could potentially influence lawmakers in the E.U. and have a significant impact on animals.

We believe that Compassion International failed to respond appropriately to areas of success and failure in at least two ways, listed below.

1. According to the culture survey^{61, 62} we distributed to Compassion International’s staff, most employees seem to be satisfied with the internal communication and internal transparency of the organization. However, some respondents suggested that their communication was disconnected and lengthy.⁶³ We also noted some variation in responses about the organization’s internal transparency.⁶⁴ Our overall impression from our culture survey results is that Compassion International may not have been completely successful at implementing a clear and transparent system of communication among all employees. We are concerned that leadership may have failed to notice that their internal communication has room for improvement.

2. Compassion International has achieved important corporate cage-free and broiler welfare commitments in Europe. However, as part of their corporate work, they have also worked on projects that we consider to be less impactful, and even detrimental, such as their work on an animal welfare labeling scheme implemented by Casino in France. We agree that labeling schemes can be used to inform consumers about how some products compare to others in terms of animal welfare, but we have concerns about the negative impacts of the language used in this specific scheme. Our impression is that by naming the animal welfare level of products that come from industrial agriculture as “standard,” this scheme may contribute to normalizing the worst animal welfare conditions of current industrial animal agriculture systems. Although Compassion International reports that they are continuing to pressure Casino to change the word “standard” to something more explicit such as “intensively produced,”⁶⁵ we think that Compassion International may have failed to appropriately address this issue in time.

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

Compassion International is led by Philip Lymbery, who has been CEO for 14 years. Lymbery also serves as Vice President of Eurogroup for Animals, Brussels and Visiting Professor at the University of Winchester. Other key leaders of Compassion International include COO Kathryn Flanagan, Global Director of Campaigns & Communications Emma Slawinski, and Global Director of Food Business Tracey Jones.

We sent a culture survey^{66, 67} to Compassion International’s team and found general agreement among responses that Compassion International’s leadership is attentive to the organization’s strategy. Respondents tended to agree—with some variation—that the organization promotes internal transparency. There was stronger agreement, however, that the organization promotes external transparency.

Board of Directors

Compassion International’s board consists of seven members, none of whom are current staff members of the organization. Board members’ occupations vary and include a solicitor, a minister, a mediator, an accountant, and the CEO of Albert Schweitzer Foundation, an ACE recommended charity.

We feel that Compassion International’s board is stronger than most, given its size and relative diversity. 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.) We also 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,⁶⁸ better internal and external governance practices,⁶⁹ as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision making.⁷⁰

Strategic Vision and Planning

Strategic vision

Compassion International’s mission is to end factory farming.⁷¹ In their 2018–2022 strategic plan, they emphasize a “focus on impact” and a grounding in “facts and science” as two of their core values. Given their mission and their history of conducting evidence-supported interventions, we expect Compassion International to remain committed to effectively helping animals in the foreseeable future. We find their mission a bit ambiguous, however, concerning whether or not the organization would support other systems of animal agriculture if and when factory farming is eliminated.

Strategic planning process

Compassion International operates under a five-year strategic plan. The organization’s senior leaders and board review the plan every three or four years, with involvement from other team members and external stakeholders. Each year, Compassion International sets programmatic goals and individual team member goals based on the plan and determines an annual budget. Compassion International’s global leadership team and board tend to operate based on consensus, though all strategic plans are subject to approval from the board.⁷²

Goal setting and monitoring

Goals are set and monitored on an annual basis beginning with the organization’s leadership. Each year, Compassion’s board evaluates the CEO and agrees upon their annual goals in line with the organization’s strategic plan. The CEO then evaluates their direct reports, they evaluate theirs, and so on.⁷³

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 Compassion 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 Compassion International’s leadership, their organization is values-led and supportive of a healthy work-life balance. They want Compassion International employees to enjoy their work and to feel like a valued part of the team.⁷⁴

According to our culture survey, Compassion International has a high level of employee engagement, though not quite as high as many of the other charities we evaluated this year. Compassion International may consider working on their internal communication style, which roughly 10% of culture survey respondents described as “haphazard,” “disjointed,” or similar. An equal portion described it as “lengthy” or “long-winded.” Other common descriptions included “balanced,” “friendly,” and “informative.”

Some culture survey respondents expressed dissatisfaction with Compassion International’s performance review system, though we found little consensus regarding the nature of the problem or potential solutions. Several employees expressed a concern that the system might not be applied consistently throughout the organization. We understand that Compassion International’s human resources department is currently working on improvements in this area.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion⁷⁵

One important part of acting responsibly towards stakeholders is providing a diverse,⁷⁶ 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.⁷⁷ 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.

Lymbery tells us that Compassion International prioritizes anti-bullying, anti-harassment, and gender equity. Compassion International’s human resources team recently toured each office to train them on the organization’s policies and how to implement them. Some respondents to our culture survey noted that Compassion International’s human resources department is supportive and the staff generally agreed that they would be comfortable approaching someone on the team with a problem at work.

Many Compassion International staff members noted on our culture survey that a large majority of the organization’s employees are white women. However, they were largely unaware of any problems with harassment or discrimination in the workplace. Roughly two-thirds of respondents agreed with a statement that their team had been sufficiently trained on these issues.

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.

Compassion International has existed in the U.K. since 1967, and we have little reason to doubt its financial sustainability in the foreseeable future. We have less information about the organization’s ability to survive a potential leadership transition; Chief Executive Philip Lymbery has been CEO for 14 years. However, given the organization’s long history and large team, we suspect that there would be many qualified candidates who could take on more responsibility if needed.

---

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. For more information on their work in the USA, see our separate review of Compassion In World Farming USA. 

3. Cotra, 2017 

4. Šimčikas, 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. 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.  

7. Sources:
   2014–2017 expenses and revenue: The Charity Commission, n.d.
   2018 revenue, assets, and expenses: Compassion in World Farming International, 2019
   2019 first six months of revenue and expenses: Compassion in World Farming International, 2019 

8. We have included all financial information available from 2014 until mid-2019.  

9. For most other charities, we assume that they receive 40% of their revenue in the last two months of the calendar year. Compassion International noted this was not the case for them (Compassion International, personal communication, November 15, 2019). This may be due to the fact our estimate is based on U.S. organizations and Compassion International works primarily in the U.K. Because of the structure of Compassion’s financial year, they provided us with their revenue and assets for three months instead of six months like other charities. As such, to estimate the total finances of 2019, we multiplied the revenue and expenses for the first three months of 2019 by 4. 

10. Compassion in World Farming International, 2019 

11. The estimates are partly based on charities’ own estimates of planned expansion as expressed in Compassion in World Farming International (2019). 

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

13. 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 the capacity for expanding staff based on the current number of staff employed, as reported in Compassion in World Farming International (2019). Compassion International currently employ 110 full-time staff and 31 part-time staff. (Full-time staff include 71 in the U.K., 7 in Italy, 8 in France, 1 in the Netherlands, 2 in Belgium, 1 in Spain, 3 in Poland, 3 in China, and 14 in the U.S.. Part-time staff include 22 in the U.K., 2 in Italy, 1 in France, 5 in the Netherlands, and 1 in the U.S.). Based on this, our subjective assessment is that we are highly confident that Compassion International can hire 44% of the new staff they would like to hire before running into non-funding related bottlenecks. For 32% of the hires, we believe the non-funding related bottlenecks play a more significant role, and we are only moderately confident that Compassion International can overcome these bottlenecks within the next year. For 24%, we have low confidence that they can overcome these bottlenecks. Therefore, we estimate that 44% of new hires are high priority, 32% are moderate priority, and 24% are low priority. 

14. Compassion International would like to hire 51 specific new staff members. Salaries are based on currently open job positions:
    – China Food Business Manager: 310,000–353,000 RMB (Compassion in World Farming, n.d.)
    – Food Business Manager (Fish): £30,000–£38,000 (Compassion in World Farming, n.d.)
    – Research Manager (Fish Welfare Food Business): £30,000–£36,000 (Compassion in World Farming, n.d.)
    – European Corporate Account Manager: £30,000–£35,000 (Compassion in World Farming, n.d.)
    – China Research Manager Food Business (China Programme): £33,000–£38,000 (Compassion in World Farming, n.d.)
    We estimate salaries are between 20% under the lowest salary mentioned, and 20% above the highest salary mentioned, between $30,913 and $59,953. 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. 

15. This is an additional estimate to account for expenditure 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 expected expenses in 2020. 

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

17. The calculations on which this estimate is based have an uncertainty of ± 20%. The calculations are made via a linear projection of the total revenue of previous years. 

18. 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.  

19. 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. 

20. Compassion in World Farming, n.d. 

21. Compassion in World Farming, n.d.  

22. Compassion in World Farming, n.d. 

23. Compassion in World Farming, n.d. 

24. Compassion in World Farming International, 2019 

25. Compassion in World Farming, n.d. 

26. For example, Compassion International reports that the E.U. ban on battery cages affects at least 250 million hens per year (Compassion in World Farming, n.d.).  

27. 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. 

28. Compassion in World Farming International, personal communication, 2019 

29. Compassion International reports delivering their message at the headquarters of the U.N. in New York, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) in Nairobi, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, the Financial Times conference on Global Food Systems in London, and the World Conference on Farm Animal Welfare in Beijing (Compassion in World Farming International, personal communication, 2019). 

30. Compassion International reports that this award aims to encourage farmers, producers, and businesses to produce meat, dairy, and eggs in ways that protect animal welfare as well as restore wildlife, soil, and the environment (Compassion in World Farming International, personal communication, 2019). 

31. 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. 

32. Compassion International reports that this initiative aims to encourage labelling schemes with information on how the animal was farmed and has inspired two national brands of Label Rouge to commit to label all their chicken products by the end of 2019 (Compassion in World Farming International, personal communication, 2019). 

33. Compassion International International reports securing the following commitments: Nestle and Waitrose in Europe and the U.K. (Compassion in World Farming International, personal communication, 2019). 

34. See Criterion 5 for more information about ACE’s concerns with Compassion International’s labeling scheme.  

35. According to one rough estimate, 10–280 chickens may be affected per every dollar spent on cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns (Šimčikas, 2019). 

36. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

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

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

39. To estimate their 2019–2020 expenditures, we quadrupled the financial data provided from April–June 2019.  

40. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

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

42. 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. 

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. 

44. 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. 

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

46. 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. 

47. 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. 

48. They provided this num are working full-time weeks, however we are using this unit in order to maintain a comparison with the amount of staff time used. 

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

50. 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. 

51. 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. 

52. 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. 

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

54. This only includes charities engaged in securing commitment for the animal type in question. 

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

56. 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. 

57. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

58. Compassion in World Farming International, 2019 

59. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019  

60. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

61. We sent a culture survey to Compassion International’s 93 team members and 55 responded, for a response rate of 59%. 

62. 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. 

63. For more details about Compassion International’s work culture, see Criterion 7.  

64. For more details about Compassion International’s internal and external transparency, see Criterion 6.  

65. P. Lymbery, personal communication, November 16, 2019 

66. We sent a culture survey to Compassion International’s 93 team members and 55 responded, for a response rate of 59%. 

67. 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. 

68. Siciliano, 1996 

69. Buse, Bernstein, & Bilimoria, 2014 

70. Brown, 2003 

71. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2017 

72. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

73. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

74. Animal Charity Evaluators, 2019 

75. 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.  

76. 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. 

77. 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).