Dansk Vegetarisk Forening

See our theory of change table for a detailed account of DVF’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: Educating and training stakeholders on implementing plant-based foods

Activity description: As part of their corporate outreach program, DVF offers training and education to retailers, startups, food service providers, and health practitioners to help them provide and promote more plant-based foods. This initiative includes increasing the availability of plant-based options and employing nudging techniques, such as setting plant-based items as defaults and using menu engineering strategies, to encourage more plant-based choices.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• This activity mostly targets animals farmed for food, as well as wild-caught fishes, in Denmark. Based on Our World in Data⁷ and data from an anonymous source, we estimate that there are over 47 million farmed animals alive at any one point in time in Denmark, of which 11 million are farmed fishes. Additionally, it is estimated that 32 billion fishes are caught in the wild per year in Denmark.⁸
• Overall, compared to most other interventions, there is a substantial amount of peer-reviewed research supporting plant-based campaigns in institutional settings, with generally positive effects on plant-based choices, particularly for plant-based defaults.⁹
• Some researchers argue that targeting institutions is more efficient and has lower potential to backfire than targeting individual consumers,¹⁰ and there may be higher support for a reduction in animal product consumption when framed as a collective rather than individual responsibility.¹¹
• Some evidence also indicates that proper implementation of plant-based nudges is essential for effectiveness,¹² so training stakeholders could be crucial, although we are not aware of direct evidence for the effectiveness of training food service stakeholders.
• Although we are not aware of evidence from Denmark specifically on approval of plant-based institutional changes, a recent U.K. survey found that the public is largely supportive of increasing the proportion of plant-based foods in public buildings.¹³ The Danish public is generally supportive of improved farmed animal welfare,¹⁴ indicating that they may be receptive to institutional approaches.

Risks, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Limitation: Much of the evidence on providing and promoting plant-based foods is mixed, has important limitations and quality issues, and is highly context- and implementation-dependent.
  • There are several caveats to the evidence base on institutional approaches, such as limited data on how much meat and other animal products are actually replaced and difficulties in accounting for spillover effects (i.e., unintended and indirect consequences that changes in one area of food offerings have on other areas).¹⁵
  • True reductions in meat sales are therefore often likely much lower than plant-based sales suggest (e.g., in a 2022 field experiment,¹⁶ 26% of students chose the impossible burrito after it was introduced in college cafeterias, but across all dining halls, there was only a reduction in beef entree sales of 0.3 percentage points).
  • In terms of increasing the proportion of plant-based options, some research suggests that a substantial proportion (75%, in existing studies) of the menu needs to be plant-based in order to promote plant-based choices,¹⁷ so increases in provision falling short of that ratio may be much less effective.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • Wherever possible, DVF aims for plant-based default solutions (which seem to have some of the strongest evidence in their favor).¹⁸
    • DVF creates context-sensitive interventions, which they test before scaling them up.
    • DVF aims to normalize plant-based food in society and make it appealing through attractive names and improved taste.
• Limitation: There may be spillover effects, such as consumers compensating for a meat-free meal by consuming more meat outside of the institutional setting.¹⁹
  • Mitigating factors:
    • DVF focuses on promoting and supporting the creation of high-quality and attractive plant-based foods so that people don’t feel like they need to compensate.

Key activity assessment

• Overall, taking into account the limitations and mitigating factors, we assess the logic and evidence of this key activity as moderate-to-strong. We positively note:
  • We generally think educating stakeholders in institutional settings about nudging plant-based choices has a high potential for impact, given the amount of supportive evidence for several nudging techniques and the importance of proper implementation to ensure the effectiveness of interventions.²⁰
  • DVF trials their approaches before scaling them and tracks outcomes, e.g., through personal feedback from business partners, responses to LinkedIn posts, follow-up meetings, etc.

Potential challenges are the uncertainty around effect sizes and the context-dependent efficacy of institutional plant-based approaches, given the limitations of existing evidence. We also think a strong system for impact assessment should be in place to track the effects of interventions in different settings and decide which ones to scale. We think more specific data, e.g., sales data across plant-based and animal-based foods or behavioral follow-ups, would be necessary to measure the reduction of meat and other animal product purchases, and therefore, have some uncertainty around the impact tracking and scaling for this work. However, we also acknowledge that such data can be challenging to obtain.

Key Activity 2: Running the Danish Network for Plant Proteins and the Danish Center for a Plant-Based & Organic Future

Activity description: The Danish Network for Plant Proteins is a professional network of 250+ plant-based foods stakeholders (business stakeholders involved in the primary production, processing, retail, and wholesale of plant-based foods; food service stakeholders; politicians, councils, and think tanks), while the Danish Center for a Plant-Based & Organic Future is a collaborative effort between DVF and Organic Denmark.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• As with Key Activity 1, this activity targets farmed animals and wild-caught fishes in Denmark.
• While we are not aware of any empirical research testing whether networks of organizations have a higher impact than the sum of their members, we think there is a strong model of logic for building alliances between organizations. Furthermore, a review of evidence on network building to improve capacity in nonprofits (outside of animal advocacy) suggests that collaborative efforts enable nonprofits to solve complex problems more efficiently, spread innovative approaches, and leverage shared resources to enhance organizational development, infrastructure, and impact.²¹ In line with that, survey and interview data from more than 400 non-governmental organizations suggests that building transnational networks can increase the likelihood of lobbying success for nonprofits.²²
• When it comes to collaboration between movements (such as plant-based and organic advocates), research is even more sparse, but such collaboration could bring the significant benefit of access to diverse stakeholders. In line with that, DVF says the Center allows them to give their plant-based mission a more neutral and scientific platform, helps them reach stakeholders they wouldn’t otherwise reach, and enables DVF to sometimes use more adversarial tactics while the Center, as a third entity, can adopt a strongly collaborative approach.
• Additionally, in Denmark, there seems to be some ground for collaboration between plant-based and organic advocates:
  • Danish consumers buy more organic food than any other Europeans,²³ and they seem to already associate the concept “organic” with higher animal welfare.²⁴
  • Relatedly, Danes who buy organic food also tend to have more positive attitudes toward plant-based products and are more likely to have tried them.²⁵
  • The evidence thus suggests that the organic consumer base is likely to be open to transitioning to more plant-based foods, and there is likely a market for organic plant-based products.
• DVF cites as evidence for the effectiveness of the collaboration that the Center and Network are key influencers of government plant-based initiatives.

Risks, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Risk/limitation (of the Center): Despite significant overlap and potential for collaboration, there can also be potential disagreements between different movements, such as organic and plant-based advocates. For example, organic certification itself does not inherently address the welfare of animals most prone to suffering, such as chickens or fishes, and animal welfare standards across different organic certifications can vary significantly. Other stakeholders may also hold more conservative views than DVF, e.g., regarding plant-based nutrition.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • Projects where there is no alignment of organic and plant-based interests are instead placed under DVF (rather than under the joint Center).
    • DVF also notes that organic chicken meat is much more expensive than conventional chicken meat, and organic fish meat is rare.²⁶ Therefore, they say that organic targets move the food system more toward plant foods than toward fishes or chickens. This is substantiated by the 2023 “From Feed to Food 2” report, which was co-authored by DVF and Organic Denmark, among other organizations. The report suggests that a 75% reduction in poultry production is necessary to achieve their target of a 78% reduction in emissions from food production overall.
• Limitation (of the Center and Network): DVF notes that the Center and Network, while useful for identifying collaboration opportunities, would lack value without the implementation of concrete transformative projects.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • DVF prioritizes projects where other stakeholders are deeply involved. They are currently involved in several concrete joint projects with other network members.²⁷
    • DVF takes on a large share of the bureaucratic work to free up stakeholders for concrete work.

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:
  • We value DVF’s focus on actionable projects to ensure the Network’s potential does not remain theoretical.
  • With regard to the Danish Center for a Plant-Based & Organic Future, we think there are grounds for fruitful collaboration between organic and plant-based advocates in Denmark, though there may also be some risks where goals and values don’t align. However, in the specific case of collaborating with Organic Denmark, we think this risk is low given Organic Denmark’s focus on moving toward more plant-based consumption and the high overlap of Danish consumers interested in organic and plant-based products.
• A potential challenge is that the empirical evidence base for the effectiveness of networks and cross-movement collaborations is sparse.

Key Activity 3: Lobbying the government to take policy action and allocate funding

Activity description: This activity focuses on influencing the Danish Government to adopt policies that promote the plant-based sector, such as initiatives for public sector kitchens and educational reforms. Additionally, it focuses on encouraging the government to allocate funding toward developing the plant-based food sector in Denmark. DVF is also beginning to expand this work to the E.U. level.²⁸

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• In addition to targeting farmed animals and wild-caught fishes in Denmark (see Key Activity 1), this activity also has the potential to help farmed animals in the E.U. more widely through the expansion of lobbying to the E.U. level and the potential to influence similar policies and funding schemes in other European countries. According to Our World in Data, 6.8 billion farmed land animals are slaughtered in the E.U. each year. Additionally, it is estimated that over 85 billion fishes are caught in the wild each year in the E.U.
• Policy work plays a promising role in the animal advocacy movement. In ACE’s report on the effects of legal work, we outline the potential role of such work in ensuring long-term change, influencing public attitudes, and fostering cultural shifts toward dietary change that benefit animals, as well as granting advocacy groups greater legitimacy in the eyes of policymakers.
• Policy work is likely to be tractable in Denmark:
  • Lobbying the Danish government seems tractable due to favorable economic conditions for expanding the plant-based sector.²⁹
  • Additionally, The National Danish Council on Climate Change, which advises the Danish Government, views the shift toward a more plant-based food production system as essential for meeting the national climate targets and creating a sustainable Danish food system,³⁰ indicating an alignment of DVF’s and the government’s priorities.
• The impact of influencing policies strongly depends on the types of policies the government implements.
  • Examples of policies DVF has successfully influenced include the Government’s commitment to work towards mandatory calcium fortification of plant-based drinks and the National Action Plan for Plant-Based Foods, the Danish government’s plan for initiatives to strengthen the plant-based production value chain. While working toward mandatory fortification was opportunistic because it was concrete and achievable, DVF says it can also make plant-based products more competitive because they can more easily replace animal products without criticism from health professionals.
  • DVF says they generally prioritize funding over other policy initiatives because a) it is a key bottleneck of the movement, b) it can broaden the range of stakeholders working toward a plant-based transition, and c) it is more tractable and neglected than working to achieve legislative change, particularly internationally.
• Research specifically on the impact of influencing funding is generally sparse.
  • Increasing funding for the plant-based sector could be an important step toward leveling the playing field, given that it is currently severely underfunded compared to the animal production sector. For example, 82% of E.U. agricultural subsidies go toward animal-based food production.³¹
  • Government funding could be a much more reliable source of finance for companies working in novel areas than private investment, as it is less susceptible to sudden fluctuations,³² thereby providing the stability and runway needed to gain momentum and develop innovations.
  • Projects are selected for government funding based on criteria such as quality, cost-effectiveness, clear targets and expected effects, and relevance for the sector. Decision committee members (including DVF’s General Secretary) review, discuss, and vote on applications.
• Supportive policies and funding in Denmark may also be influential outside of Denmark due to the high level of export of agricultural products and knowhow³³ and the country’s substantial share in the international ingredients industry, driven by research and innovation particularly in alternative proteins.³⁴ DVF’s work to increase government funding for plant-based foods has also influenced other organizations in Europe and is likely to have facilitated similar work in other countries, as we confirmed with one other European organization using government lobbying tactics.

Risks, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Limitation (of influencing funding): Some research suggests that promoting subsidies for plant-based foods does not currently appear to decrease consumption of animal products in practice, in part because many consumers do not see or use plant-based products as legitimate substitutes for animal products. However, this may change in the future as public perceptions of alternative proteins, and their suitability to replace animal products, improve.³⁵ It is important to note, too, that this evidence is not specific to Denmark, and it is unclear to what extent it applies there.
  • Mitigating factors: DVF works toward improving the quality and variety of plant-based options in the food system. Government funding and subsidies could therefore contribute to plant-based foods becoming competitive with animal products in terms of price and taste, which are arguably among the most important factors in driving consumers to replace animal products with them.³⁶ Accordingly, Danish consumers mention these factors as key barriers toward purchasing more plant-based alternatives.³⁷ However, it seems unlikely that these factors are sufficient, and shifts in public values and attitudes are almost certainly also needed.
• Risk/Limitation (of influencing funding): DVF may have limited control over which specific projects receive government funding, which could result in resources being allocated to less impactful or even counterproductive initiatives.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • DVF has the right to appoint one board member to the decisions committee, which gives the opportunity to ensure that impact (per dollar granted) is given substantial consideration.
    • DVF can also influence the overall strategy of the grant program, e.g., through strategic discussions at committee meetings.
    • DVF thinks that there is an overall strong consideration of impact per dollar granted for projects that are funded.
• Limitation: Political power may shift, leading to reduced support in government.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • DVF develops connections with parties across the political spectrum. They cultivate relationships with politicians from multiple parties and engage in dialogue with large groups of parliament members to reduce dependency on any single politician or party.

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:
  • We think that while offering more and better plant-based foods alone is unlikely to be sufficient to change the food system, it is likely an important, perhaps even necessary, component of the broader movement strategy.³⁸
  • Based on their previous policy successes, DVF seems uniquely well-placed to contribute to a more level playing field for plant-based production in Denmark and likely also the E.U.
  • The impact of government outreach is highly dependent on the specific policies promoted and projects funded. DVF prioritizes funding and policies that have the potential to level the playing field between plant-based and animal-based production. Given the huge disparity in funding between these two spaces, we think this could be highly impactful.

A potential challenge is that the evidence base for influencing policy and funding, and for changing long-term animal product consumption through offering more plant-based alternatives, is sparse. We also note that measuring the effectiveness of lobbying is challenging due to the difficulty in identifying the counterfactual impact of lobbying efforts.³⁹

Key Activity 4: Sharing best practices for plant-based policy work

Activity description: This activity involves sharing best practices for plant-based policy work with international colleagues through one-to-one sessions, physical and online appearances, and global media work.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• While we are not aware of any existing research specifically investigating the effectiveness of resource and best practice sharing, the logic model for this approach seems strong. It has the potential to protect the capacity of organizations and enhance their efficiency.
• Additionally, this initiative can build valuable knowledge on what strategies work best in different contexts, although a robust system for tracking learnings is needed to make sure that this knowledge is documented and used effectively. DVF says that while currently their resources for tracking this work are too limited, they would implement such a system more formally with enough funding.
• DVF prioritizes supporting direct interactions with governments, politicians, and influential stakeholders, and supports organizations capable of reaching large audiences and demonstrating professional capacity. Their focus is on countries where change is likely or where the potential impact is high, even if success is uncertain.

Risks, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Limitation: Contextual and cultural differences between countries mean not all learnings can be directly translated from one country to another.
  • Mitigating factors: DVF generally only provides guidance if invited to do so, to make sure their assistance is desired and contextually appropriate. However, on the E.U. level, they will work more proactively and collaborate with local colleagues with the relevant contextual knowledge.⁴⁰ DVF also tailors their strategies to the specific needs of inviting parties.
• Risk: There may be misalignment in terms of values, strategies, and priorities with organizations, especially if improving the lives of animals is not a direct concern of theirs.
  • Mitigating factors:
    • DVF requires organizations they work with to share their goal of reducing factory farming.
    • DVF focuses on sharing best practices for strengthening plant-based development and increasing plant-based funding. Generally, they focus on a “pro-plants” message, making negative spillover effects on animals less likely.
    • If mentioning specific benefits, DVF shares the multiple benefits of plant-based foods, thereby decreasing the risk that one benefit (e.g., a narrow climate change focus, which could result in more animal suffering) will be prioritized.

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:
  • Although there is no strong evidence base for the effectiveness of international resource and best practice sharing, we think this work could reduce duplication of effort, protect organizational capacity, and enhance the overall efficiency of the movement.
  • The initiative could also be crucial for building knowledge of effective tactics across different contexts.
• A potential challenge is that a robust system for tracking and implementing learnings is essential to ensure that effective strategies and best practices are documented and effectively used. We don’t think such a system is currently in place but note positively that DVF says they would implement it with sufficient funding. There might also be challenges in translating policy successes from one context to another.

Additional Considerations

• DVF makes a commendable effort to use evidence-based strategies, demonstrating a strong commitment to informed decision-making. They stay up to date with new research by subscribing to newsletters from various organizations, searching databases like Google Scholar and PubMed, and engaging directly with researchers. They also maintain close contact with key Danish researchers and engage in collaborative projects with universities.
  • However, we believe some of the evidence they use to inform their programs has weaknesses limiting how much it should be relied on. For instance, the World Resources Institute Food Service Playbook primarily focuses on the ratio between successful versus unsuccessful trials, without fully considering contextual factors and moderators, the total number of trials, or effect sizes.
• DVF is dedicated to following up on the successes and failures of their programs and collaborates closely with stakeholders to learn from each implementation. All of their programs have SMART⁴¹ targets, and DVF runs regular surveys with stakeholders and the public. DVF also plans to engage in more formalized MEL work across projects and programs as their organization grows.
  • However, the data collected for their largest program, the corporate and institutional outreach program, seems to mostly focus on whether trained stakeholders correctly implement nudging or other techniques, assuming that correct implementation will lead to the desired impact. Since many approaches lack extensive empirical evidence in the literature and effects are highly context-dependent, we think data on changes in sales across products (animal-based and plant-based) or behavioral consumption data would be especially valuable to assess the impact of institutional interventions and make informed decisions on scaling. We acknowledge, however, that this data can be challenging to obtain.
• Limitation: An overarching uncertainty in DVF’s Theory of Change is the heavy reliance on the idea that providing more and better alternatives will lead to the replacement of meat and animal products in the food system. This hypothesis is challenging to test, and existing evidence is somewhat inconsistent, suggesting that this premise likely not always holds.⁴²
  • Mitigating factors:
    • Some research suggests that improving the quality, availability, and price of plant-based products in Denmark could improve uptake, although this should be interpreted with caution as it is based on consumer self-report data.⁴³
    • DVF also prioritizes interventions that normalize plant-based options and implement them as the default, and evidence suggests that these might be particularly powerful interventions.⁴⁴ However, the same considerations around spillover effects and effect sizes as mentioned in Key Activity 1 apply.
• Throughout our evaluation, we made attempts to independently verify the information we received from DVF, especially when assessing cruxes and assumptions in the logic of their theory of change. For example, we confirmed with staff at another organization engaging in government lobbying in Europe that DVF’s policy influenced their programs.
• Most of the information we selected for verification was fully verified, with one claim being partially verified.

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

We focused our cost-effectiveness analysis on two programs: corporate and institutional veg*n outreach, and policy work – influencing funding. The CEA includes the corporate and institutional outreach program because it is DVF’s highest expenditures program (it accounts for about 42% of their programmatic expenditures) and includes the influencing funding program because our first impression was that it could account for a large portion of DVF’s total impact despite the low expenditures (4%). We chose not to assess cost-effectiveness for their other nine programs because DVF spends a relatively small proportion of resources in each of them (2–9% of DVF’s programmatic expenditures), the potential impact didn’t appear to be as large, or the impact was highly indirect and difficult to measure.

• Program 1: Corporate and institutional veg*n outreach
  • Because DVF’s corporate and institutional outreach program consists of multiple and varied intervention types, most of them with a focus on capacity building, we decided to focus the analysis for this program on one case study: the new plant-based chef two-year degree. We estimate that the cost-effectiveness of this case study is 7.0 (lower bound: 4.6, upper bound: 9.3) meals replaced per dollar, or 0.8 (lower bound: 0.5, upper bound: 1.2) animals spared per dollar, or 18 (lower bound: 38.2, upper bound: 4.9) Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs)⁴⁵ averted per dollar.
  • Because we only assessed one case study (which constitutes 6.3% of the expenditures of this program, and about 3.2% of the annual expenditures of DVF), it’s likely that our estimates don’t represent the cost-effectiveness of the whole program, and that some interventions that are not included (e.g., outreach to retail professionals, outreach to the banking sector, Green January campaign, teaching materials for colleges) differ in cost-effectiveness. Additionally, our estimates should be interpreted with caution because they rely on the rough estimate by DVF according to which 60% (40–80%) of meals prepared by the chefs with the new degree will be replaced by plant-based meals, our rough estimates of animals spared per meal replaced, and SADs averted per meal replaced. These rough and simplified estimates are based on ACE’s global estimate of animals spared per vegan year, which is somewhat out of date and not tailored to Denmark’s food consumption. See all data and sources of these data in DVF’s CEA spreadsheet.

• Program 2: Policy work – Influencing funding
  • We estimated that this program influenced about 68.4 dollars in government funding per dollar spent by DVF.
  • Our intention was to estimate Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs) averted per dollar for as many programs as possible; however, when making this attempt for this program, we found that the assessments would be reliant on highly uncertain inputs with insufficient empirical evidence, limiting the usefulness of any estimate we make. To estimate SADs averted per dollar, we needed to know the number of meals replaced by the funding influenced by DVF but reliable estimates were not available.⁴⁶ Since one of ACE’s guiding principles is to follow a rigorous process and use logical reasoning and evidence to make decisions, we were unwilling to base our assessment of charities on estimates that were so speculative.
  • Because of the lack of data on the exact costs that led to the specific achievement—95 million DKK influenced (about $14 million USD)—we assumed that the costs of the achievement included costs in 2022 and 2023, and that costs in 2022 were the same as in 2023, which might not be the case. Additionally, it’s likely that there are costs spent in previous years (2020–2021) that led to the achievement and that costs spent in 2023 would lead to further achievements. See all data and sources of these data in DVF’s CEA spreadsheet.

If DVF were to find additional revenue to expand their organization, they would prioritize using the money to further expand their policy work at the E.U. level, strengthen their work targeting health and nutrition professionals and the foodservice sector, hire an individual donor fundraiser, and establish an international training program on policy work best practices. We found their plans for policy work to establish an E.U. funding scheme for plant-based foods particularly promising. We have confidence that these uses of funding will be as effective as their past work up to a total annual revenue level of roughly $2.4M, which we refer to as their funding capacity.

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

Figure 2: DVF’s 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.⁴⁸

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

DVF was transparent with ACE throughout the evaluation process.

All of the information we required for our organizational health evaluation is made available on DVF’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/or theory of change; and financial statements.

DVF is also transparent with both the public and their own staff. For example, all policies are shared with staff.

Leadership and Board Governance

• Secretary-General: Rune-Christoffer Dragsdahl, who has been involved in the organization for eight years.
• Number of board members: seven members.

We found that the charity’s board fully aligned with our understanding of best practice. All seven board members are independent from the organization and board meetings take place at least six times per year, and if the board is discussing topics with conflicts of interest, the Secretary-General and other employees in attendance will leave the room.

100% of staff respondents to our engagement survey agree they have confidence in DVF’s leadership team.

Financial Health

Reserves

With only about 60% of their current annual expenditures held in net assets (as reported by DVF 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

Twenty-two percent of DVF’s revenue is recurring (e.g., from recurring donors or ongoing long-term grant commitments).⁴⁹

Liabilities to Assets Ratio

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

Staff engagement and satisfaction

DVF has 20 staff members (full-time, part-time, and contractors, with one staff member on leave during our evaluation), including the Secretary-General. Eighteen staff members responded to our staff engagement survey, yielding a response rate of 100%—the Secretary-General was asked not to take the survey.

DVF has a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, about 94% report that they are satisfied with their wage. DVF offers paid vacation and sick days, and some healthcare coverage on top of the public universal healthcare system of Denmark. All staff report that they are satisfied with the benefits provided. This suggests that, on average, staff exhibit very high satisfaction with wages and benefits.

The average score among our staff engagement survey questions was 4.8 (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 DVF staff were made aware of this option. If staff or any party external to the organization have claims of this nature they are encouraged to read ACE’s Third-Party Whistleblower Policy and fill out our claimant form. We have received no such claims regarding DVF.