Good Food Fund

See our theory of change table for a detailed account of GFF’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: Train and certify organizations through Mama’s Kitchen

Activity description: GFF certifies organizations, such as eco farms and educational institutions, that are at least 60% plant-based and focus on plant-based education and promotion. GFF provides them with training for their community organizers, chefs, etc., and the organizations educate their members and visitors through workshops.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• This activity mostly targets animals farmed for food and wild-caught fishes: Every year, there are almost 16 billion farmed animals slaughtered in China⁶ and 13 million metric tons of wild-caught fish. This is twice as much as Indonesia, the next biggest producer.⁷
• GFF describes the attendees of partner organizations’ workshops as people who care about food, who might have young children, and who want to know that, for example, the involved eco farms can provide healthy and safe food. People going to such farms tend to be more health-conscious, educated, financially well-off, social media users, and “semi-influencers.” They also tend to be members of the organizations. This means the attendees are more likely to be receptive to the message and willing to make changes to their diet. Attendees have the opportunity to buy produce from the farms. Normally, there is also a WeChat group that attendees can join to get information about products, health, and sustainability.
• This program mostly focuses on institutional outreach while also reaching individuals. While the available evidence is mostly based on E.U. and U.S. case studies (and may not be directly applicable to China), several studies focused on institutional outreach show a successful reduction in short-term meat consumption or increase in the consumption of plant-based dishes. Examples include significant increases in the sale of plant-based meals following the expansion of plant-based university canteen options,⁸ and the restaurant chain Wagamama increasing their vegan sales from 5% to 20% following the expansion of their vegan menu.⁹ Two activities that can increase the likelihood of success with institutional outreach are educating the participants about the benefits of meat reduction¹⁰ before implementation and expanding the range of available foods instead of limiting choices.¹¹ GFF does provide this education and training, including making participants aware of a wide range of plant-based options.
• A review of cooking courses suggests modest effectiveness in increasing confidence to cook meals and eat fruits and vegetables in participants from various Western countries.¹² The duration of cooking courses in this review has varied from a week to two years, with all of them being group-based. Out of the six studies reviewed, three of them had an increase in fruits and vegetables consumed (other studies did not explicitly measure this), and all studies showed self-reported increased cooking knowledge/confidence. The study did not look at changes in meat consumption.
• Some researchers argue that targeting institutions is more efficient and has lower potential to backfire than targeting individual consumers,¹³ and there may be higher support for a reduction in animal product consumption when framed as a collective rather than individual responsibility.¹⁴
• Evidence suggests that Chinese consumers respond more strongly to the health benefits of a plant-based diet compared to, for example, a focus on animal welfare.¹⁵ Mama’s Kitchen uses the Chinese Dietary Guidelines and their “healthy eating tools.”

Risk, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Risk: Consumption of certain animal products (such as red meat) is reduced when motivated by sustainability and health arguments but partially replaced by smaller animals, leading to the small animal replacement problem.¹⁶
  • Mitigating factors: GFF prioritizes animal welfare and aligns sustainable consumption with a plant-based diet and animal welfare. Other players would come onto the scene at some point, and GFF being there first means they get to steer sustainability toward animal welfare and away from small animals.
• Limitation: Many of the studies on the effectiveness of institutional vegan outreach are limited, as they do not account for unwanted spillover effects.¹⁷ For example, after eating a virtuous plant-based meal, someone might feel justified in eating more meat later on. Additionally, if a plant-based meal is not satisfying, it could lead to cravings for meat.
• Limitation: While evidence suggests that Chinese consumers respond more strongly to the health benefits of a plant-based diet, the health messaging approach brings an additional concern that with new evidence, the consumers might increase their meat consumption again.¹⁸
  • Mitigating action: GFF not only focuses on the health aspects of a plant-based diet but also promotes animal welfare whenever possible.
• Limitation: Because GFF works with organizations that run their own events, there is limited monitoring of this program’s impact. This limits the possibility of understanding what parts of this program are more or less effective and improving the program to become more impactful.
  • Mitigating action: GFF does not aim to direct all partner organizations; they aim to develop the strategy and approaches that work for different organizations.

Key activity assessment

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

• GFF seems to make strategic use of health messaging that will appeal to their target audiences, who are already health conscious.
• Their work is unique in China, and they could pave the way for greater awareness about the benefits of plant-based diets and animal welfare in a neglected region.
• GFF has the required local cultural knowledge, and they have considered which approaches are suitable for Chinese cultural and political contexts.

A potential challenge is that the monitoring of this program is very limited. GFF has the estimates for the number of attendees at different organizations that have received education on plant-based diets, but more information about the quality of engagement and any dietary changes made by the attendees would improve GFF’s understanding of this program’s impact. Additionally, the existing research on institutional outreach, education, and individual dietary change is mostly concentrated on the Global North. Its applicability to China might be limited due to cultural differences and a lesser familiarity with the concept of animal welfare.

Key Activity 2: The Good Food Summit

Activity description: GFF organizes the annual Good Food Summit and runs the Food Systems Action Hub (FSAH). The Summit is an annual gathering, and the FSAH is a year-round engagement. Talks, panel discussions, workshops, and award ceremonies take place during the Summit, while the FSAH connects food systems stakeholders through workshops, webinars, symposia, cooking demos, etc. The topics of the Summit include the benefits of plant-based diets, sustainability, animal welfare, and other topics depending on its annual focus.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• As with all five key activities, this activity targets farmed animals and wild-caught fishes in China.
• GFF is focused on translating existing policies into action rather than introducing new policies. This is expected to be the more feasible path, as the policies already exist and are supported by authorities. For example, the Chinese Dietary Guidelines are not being communicated well to the public. If they were followed, meat consumption would reduce by 30%.¹⁹
• Notable outcomes from the Good Food Summit include a university teacher who was invited in 2023 and subsequently asked GFF to come to their university and promote Meatless Mondays to the students. They have co-hosted workshops with GFF at their university and plan to organize an institutional dining sub-forum and invite other universities to attend. The founder of Youku (Chinese equivalent to YouTube) was exposed to the topic of animal welfare at the Good Food Summit and supported research into animal welfare and alternative proteins through various investments. A celebrity and influencer (the daughter of a former leader of the Chinese Party Conference) attended the Summit in 2019 and went on to become a board member of GFF. All Mama’s Kitchen partner organizations were originally Summit attendees.
• GFF is finding and highlighting businesses that do good work in food systems transformation. In 2023, the China Food Systems Action Hub (CFSAH) helped facilitate:
  • The case submission of eight organizations to the United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) +2 Stocktaking Moment.²⁰ Different organizations submit their case studies to document the progress of the global food system toward the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals 2030, which are are published on the U.N. website.
  • The case submission of 36 organizations to GFF’s own annual case collection activity, with 22 cases selected as best practice cases or model practice cases.²¹
  • 35 guests (including scholars, practitioners, key opinion leaders, and youths) participated in the New Year Relay activity, two organizations sponsored gifts, and 25 organizations promoted the event.
• The Good Food Summit 2023 had guest speakers from influential organizations such as the U.N. Food Systems Summit, China Agricultural University, Yale University, Harvard University, the National People’s Congress of China, and more. It brought together participants from all sectors of the food system to recognize the importance of animal welfare as a key solution to transforming the food system. The participants include people working on the Chinese Dietary Guidelines, the CEO of Compassion in World Farming, nonprofit leaders, industry representatives, entrepreneurs, journalists, people from catering associations, and more. Having influential speakers and focusing on how every part of the food system should consider animal welfare seems like a reasonable strategy, despite this strategy not having been explored in existing literature.
• The Food Systems Action Hub seems to focus on network-building and continuous participant engagement. While this might be different in China, the U.S. National Council of Nonprofits suggests that inter-organizational network-building in other cause areas can help organizations improve capacity because collaborative efforts enable nonprofits to solve complex problems more efficiently, spread innovative approaches, and leverage shared resources to enhance organizational development, infrastructure, and impact.²²
• The Good Food Summit focuses on topics that align with the Chinese government’s priorities, such as the sustainability of the food system, health and nutrition, and low carbon emissions.²³ This allows GFF to invite and collaborate with public representatives of Chinese institutions and even have their support. This is in line with recommendations for animal welfare-focused organizations working in China.²⁴

Risk, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Risk: Participants engage in the conference but make no changes to their organizations or their own behavior.
  • Mitigating action: GFF aims to keep participants engaged after the Summit to increase the likelihood of behavioral change. The participants can engage and network through the Food Systems Action Hub (FSAH). GFF also sets up WeChat groups before the Summit, and participants can continue to interact there.
• Limitation: GFF’s strategy of bringing the industry together and centering animal welfare into more widely accepted topics makes sense and seems logical. However, there is very limited literature that shows how this type of work helps benefit animals in the long term.
  • Mitigating action: GFF follows up on the activities that FSAH supports, such as the previously mentioned case study submissions. This helps center the focus of both platforms on better animal welfare practices. In the future, GFF would like to invest more people, time, and financial resources to develop a monitoring system that can track their programs’ impact.
• Risk: Organizations that do not have the interests of animals at heart get a voice to promote practices that harm the progress of animal welfare acceptance and help their own interests.
  • Mitigating action: GFF reports that all their speakers, not just vegans, are well-aligned with GFF’s values (plant-forwardness and animal welfare). They work with participating organizations to ensure that their practices align with their core values, and if there are potential issues, they provide the necessary assistance needed.

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 think this type of event and collaborative work can build capacity, support the nascent community, and promote the topics of animal welfare and meat reduction in adjacent spaces, such as environmentalist groups.
• The nonprofit sector in China is limited by the infeasibility of protesting and running negative campaigns. For that reason, collaboration with the industry, the government, and educational institutions seems particularly important in China.
• The fact that several prominent universities, governmental organizations, and celebrities take part in the Summit and Hub indicates that they are interested in participating in the discussions around plant-based diets and animal welfare. This also gives GFF credibility as a collaborator.
• GFF seems to be filling a gap by bringing together the industry, institutions, and nonprofits to discuss and collaborate.

A potential challenge arises because the wider topics of the Summit and Hub go beyond the focus of reducing animal suffering, so there might be differences between participants’ priorities. Additionally, the empirical evidence base for the effectiveness of networks and cross-cause collaborations is sparse.

Key Activity 3: The Youth Leadership Program

Activity description: The Youth Leadership Program educates high school and university students who are poised to become future leaders in different fields of the food system. The program aims to empower these students with the means to influence other individuals and institutions toward more plant-based lifestyles. This activity involves educating, skill-building, and network-building among the participants.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• As with GFF’s other key activities, this activity targets farmed animals and wild-caught fishes in China.
• The evidence for this type of skill-building and education program is limited to several case studies outside of China. These studies showed that training workshops in animal welfare science can be successful at increasing participants’ skills and knowledge, e.g., implementing techniques learned in participants’ own institutions, and achieving acceptable group-level agreement for animal welfare measures.²⁵ ,²⁶
• Another case study, unrelated to animal welfare, suggests that internships aimed at developing the skills and knowledge can be important to inspire sustained engagement in social causes.²⁷ A meta-analysis suggests that coaching is an effective intervention for individuals in organizations; coaching had significant positive effects on performance/skills, wellbeing, coping, work attitudes, and goal-directed self-regulation.²⁸
• Talent has been cited as a key bottleneck in the pro-animal space in Asia. A survey by Animal Advocacy Careers²⁹ indicates that among its Asia-based respondents, the most substantial limitations on organizations’ efficiency or impact were “lack of (qualified and capable) activists and volunteers” and “lack of (qualified and capable) applicants for paid roles,” although this should be interpreted with caution given the small survey sample size. Similarly, the Animal Advocacy Asia Forum Report,³⁰ which compiled findings from across Asia (not including China), and Animal Advocacy Africa’s Asia Landscape Study³¹ indicates a need for capacity-building efforts across the region, including skill-relevant training, incubation programs to establish new organizations or groups, and networking facilitation. A 2024 report by the Asia for Animals Farm Animal Coalition³² also recommends the development of individuals via fellowships and incubators.
• GFF provided examples of the work that the participants have done since the program started:
  • Example 1: Participants worked with a student group, which included exploring ways for their universities to increase plant-based food on campus, organizing a farm visit, and showing a video from the farm visit on campus.
  • Example 2: Alumni have hosted online webinars on youth careers in food systems transformation, conducted in-person health and nutrition seminars for the elderly, and organized various community educational events. Additionally, they have engaged in online blog writing and story sharing, working on continuous public education and awareness-raising efforts.
  • Example 3: After the program, an alum who works as a social media influencer refocused their content toward food sustainability and farmed animal welfare.
  • In many cases, fellows continue to support GFF’s work directly. For example, they have developed training materials and guidelines for participating institutions, joined the Good Food Summit, and developed the Meatless Mondays programs for their universities.
• Educating individuals with the potential to bring these topics to a wider audience and build a career that is focused on helping animals could come with a multiplier effect, where educating one person through this program leads to many more individuals engaging with these topics.

Risk, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Risk: The program selects participants who are not well suited or motivated to pursue a career focused on helping animals.
  • Mitigating action: GFF selects participants based on criteria that show their fit, including understanding food system issues, relevant professional background, interview performance, communication skills, and learning engagement during the screening process.
• Risk: Participants engage during the program but do not continue engaging or working toward food system innovation for animals after the program has ended.
  • Mitigating action: GFF collects feedback on participants’ progress and the impact of their initiatives. This includes tracking their involvement in the cause, professional achievements, community projects, and educational outreach post-program.
• Limitation: Because this program has only been running for a few years, it is not yet clear what long-term impact it will have.
  • Mitigating action: GFF is monitoring what the participants do after the program and has shared some of their success stories. The alumni might keep a long-term relationship with GFF by applying for GFF and GFF-recommended internships, volunteer opportunities, jobs, as well as speaking opportunities, such as at the World Food Forum in October 2024.

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:

• This intervention is likely to be “low probability, high impact,” where a few of the participants have the potential to do highly impactful work and have a multiplier effect by promoting plant-based diets and animal welfare throughout their careers.
• GFF has a strategic selection process, stays in touch with the participants, and connects them to opportunities.

A potential challenge is that the existing literature for this type of intervention is sparse. In addition, the data from this program is limited, as the program is new and has only 40 participants every year. This means that the average impact of a participant in this program is highly speculative. We expect to get a better understanding if more participants join and if GFF monitors the impact of their subsequent work for longer.

Key Activity 4: Meatless Mondays

Activity description: The Meatless Mondays campaign is included in every Mama’s Kitchen training and builds a network of restaurants and institutions that practice Meatless Mondays.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• As with all five key activities, this activity targets farmed animals and wild-caught fishes in China.
• Outside of China, Meatless Mondays have had some success, such as being widely adopted in the city of Ghent, Belgium,³³ where now around 50% of the population observes the day.³⁴ In comparison to the campaign in Ghent, GFF is promoting Meatless Mondays in various locations, so it may be unlikely that there would be a space with a high rate of people observing Meatless Mondays and that it would become normalized. On the other hand, this approach might be less risky because a top-down institutional implementation of Meatless Mondays has backfired in the past; for example, in Brighton, U.K., where it was shut down immediately due to council employees’ protests.³⁵
• A study³⁶ analyzing further meat reduction in Meatless Mondays participants showed that Meatless Monday participants were ten times more likely to eliminate meat more than one day/week, twice as likely to eliminate meat entirely, and also more likely to incorporate more meatless recipes at home and order more meatless meals when eating out than non-participants. Receiving the Meatless Mondays newsletter for more than one year led to double the likelihood of eliminating meat from their diet compared to receiving the newsletter for less than one year. However, this is based on self-reported data, which might be subject to social desirability bias, as well as selection bias, where those who are willing to participate in the survey are more likely to have reduced their meat intake. The study does not specify where the participants were from; however, the authors are from various U.S. universities, and it appears likely that the newsletter was written in English, with the participants from the U.S. or other English-speaking countries. Its applicability to the Chinese audience is, therefore, another limitation.
• GFF’s approach includes training on preparing plant-based meals and education on their health and animal welfare benefits. GFF includes Meatless Mondays in the training and support for their partner organizations in their Mama’s Kitchen program. This means that around 100,000 people should have been introduced to Meatless Mondays in 2023. This could also mean that they are given the tools for it and may stick to it or further reduce their meat consumption.

Risk, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Limitation: The participants of Meatless Mondays could already be reducing their meat and would have reduced it without participating in the program.
• Limitation: The program may have limited reach and face an uninterested audience.
  • Mitigating action: The campaign is included in every Mama’s Kitchen training, so it targets an interested audience and uses existing channels and networks to promote it.
• Limitations: Translating the concept of Meatless Mondays into the Chinese context can be difficult, and a direct translation might not make the same impression.
  • Mitigating action: GFF acknowledges that “Meatless Mondays” is difficult to translate into Chinese. They developed branding (蔬适周), which they say avoids negativity in the literal translation of “meatLESS” but captures the essence of the spirit of going vegan on Mondays. GFF says the new branding sounds authentic in Chinese, so it also helps avoid the risk of Meatless Mondays being seen as a Western campaign.

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:

• GFF is adding their Meatless Mondays campaign at a very low cost to an already existing network, reaching a high number of people. They let their partner organizations run it and support the participants, which increases their capacity while restricting their ability to monitor their impact and ensure the implementation is working.
• In general, because this work uses their existing network and does not require much strategizing on their part, it seems to be a good addition to GFF’s other Mama’s Kitchen efforts.
• GFF seems to make strategic use of Meatless Monday messaging, translating it into Chinese and highlighting its health benefits to their health-conscious audience.

A potential challenge is that the existing research on Meatless Mondays is based on case studies and is generally limited to short-term meat consumption reduction, with little strong evidence for long-term behavioral change. Existing studies come from the E.U. or the U.S., and their applicability to China is unclear.

Key Activity 5: ESG Certification Standards for Food Systems

Activity description: GFF is developing a program to implement China’s first Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards for food systems. This includes benchmarking key areas and drafting the standards, which include certification for climate-friendly restaurants. GFF aims to launch the program in 2025.

Supportive reasoning and evidence base

• As with all five key activities, this activity targets farmed animals and wild-caught fishes in China.
• A study³⁷ in China found that labels indicating environmental, health, and animal welfare benefits successfully decreased the demand for traditional pork products while increasing the relative demand for plant-based and cultured pork (not yet available on the market).
• GFF seems to have found a gap they can fill before someone with no interest in animal welfare does. The Chinese government committed to carbon neutrality by 2060.³⁸ GFF wants to help the government see the opportunities to reduce carbon, specifically through ESG. Businesses and governments are buying into ESG.³⁹ GFF aims to define ESG in the food space first, allowing them to point toward plant-based options and to raise concerns for animal welfare.
• To work on the ESG standards and other policy work, GFF is launching the Global Food Systems Accelerator program, which mostly uses the resources of existing institutions. They have three areas of focus: policy research, conferences, and training. The policy research would focus on innovating the food system and be conducted by Peking University and Harvard, not by GFF. These universities have experienced researchers, more resources, and the capacity to organize conferences. For training, Peking and Harvard University are likely to attract key stakeholders, such as mayors, policy makers, and entrepreneurs. Outsourcing most of this work to prestigious universities could increase the cost-effectiveness of this program and increase its visibility.
• GFF says that ESG is growing fast in policy and business spaces and the energy sector, and it has become an important lever to impose compliance in business practices. As the first mover, GFF wants to ensure that their core values, i.e., plant-based transition and animal welfare, do not get left out.

Risk, limitations, and mitigating factors

• Limitation: GFF could fail to secure partnerships from strong players in order to ensure “buy-in” from the industry and the government.
  • Mitigating action: GFF hopes to achieve interest through their upcoming Global Food Systems Accelerator at Peking University (PKU). With PKU as a core partner and key issuing agency, the standards and certification system will be much more likely to become popular. GFF also believes that they are the only organization working on these guidelines at the moment.

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:

• This project has already attracted some funding and strong institutional partnerships. This seems like a “low probability, high impact” case, where it could significantly influence the industry or fail to gain traction. It seems worth exploring; the government and industry seem ready for ESGs, and there does not seem to be another organization better positioned than GFF to work on this.
• This work seems to be particularly well-timed, as the government and industry are leaning into ESGs at this time.

A challenge we faced when assessing this key activity is that the program is still in development and has not yet been launched, so we were initially unsure whether to include it. We decided to include it mainly because GFF is prioritizing it in the next one to two years and aims to launch in 2025. Additionally, we are unsure whether a small nonprofit organization is likely to define the ESG guidelines for a whole industry, even if they are the first on the scene. Strategically, it makes sense to position themselves as the first benchmark and set the tone, but there is still a sizeable risk that larger organizations will later settle on different standards.

Additional Considerations

• General risk/limitation of vegan outreach in China: There may be resistance to veganism if it is perceived as an elitist, Western idea.
  • Mitigation: GFF was established and is managed and overseen by Chinese individuals within a Chinese organization, ensuring that any food system transformation is fully owned and directed by local stakeholders. GFF places a strong emphasis on cultural appreciation, highlighting and promoting traditional Chinese plant-based products. By aligning their initiatives with the interests of the government, businesses, and the public, GFF aims to ensure that their activities are culturally and politically relevant within China.
• It’s important to note that many intervention types with more substantial evidence of effectiveness may not be feasible in China (e.g., because of the planned economy structure or restrictions on direct work for animals). Given the rapid growth in consumption and production⁴⁰ of animal products in China, even interventions with lower immediate return on investment might still be deemed effective given their potential to strengthen the Chinese veg*n and pro-animal communities in the long run.
• Throughout our evaluation, we made attempts to independently verify the information we received from GFF, especially when assessing cruxes and assumptions in the logic of their theory of change. For example, we asked GFF for a list of new organizations that joined Mama’s Kitchen in the last calendar year and independently verified this through an online search. We were able to verify the general type and activity of the organization provided by GFF as true, but we were unable to verify whether the organizations are at least 60% plant-based and working toward 85% plant-based.
• GFF is aligned with the Chinese government’s goals, uses the existing Chinese Dietary Guidelines to promote plant-based diets, does unique work in a high-priority country, and has a good knowledge of the local cultural context.

Our intention was to estimate Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs)⁴¹ averted per dollar for as many cost-effectiveness assessments as possible; however, when making this attempt for GFF’s programs, we found early in the process that the assessments would be reliant on highly uncertain inputs with insufficient empirical evidence, limiting the usefulness of any estimate we make. 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.

At the outset, we focused our analysis on three programs: (i) Mama’s Kitchen, (ii) Good Food Summit, and (iii) Good Food Leadership Program. These programs together cover most of GFF’s activities, and they all focus on reaching individuals through institutions and events to change individual behavior or build capacity. The key limitation of estimating these programs’ cost-effectiveness is the challenges in quantifying their impact beyond the numbers of people reached (referring to people who came in contact with GFF’s materials, education, or messaging, e.g., through attending events, participating in the Youth Fellowship, or attending events of their partner organizations). There is no data available on behavioral change or meals replaced as a result of these programs, and the tactics used are so different from other institutional work (such as nudging, plant-based defaults, or menu engineering) that we were unable to confidently extrapolate from estimates provided by that literature.

While we were unable to achieve a reliable estimate of SADs per dollar, we can share the following:

• Program 1: Mama’s Kitchen
  • GFF estimates that Mama’s Kitchen reached around 100,000 people through their licensed partner organizations in 2023, and they added 10 new organizations to their program. Per dollar spent, they reached about 0.3 people through this program. The organizations engaged were mostly eco-farms that focus on sustainable produce, educating visitors about eco-farming, and selling products.
  • A key limitation is that GFF provides educational materials and training to organizations but does not participate in the education provided by each partner organization. This means it is difficult to obtain data on the quality of education, the participants, and their attitudinal or behavioral change after visiting the partner organizations. Each organization has a slightly different focus and will likely impact the participants differently.
  • The counterfactual impact on individuals reached might also be limited because visitors at eco-farms may already be interested in sustainable consumption.
• Program 2: Good Food Summit
  • In 2023, the Good Food Summit reached around 450,000 people through online views on a streaming platform and 400 people in person. Per dollar spent, GFF reached approximately 2.5 people through this program.
  • There are likely indirect effects of conferences that are challenging to estimate, such as through media engagement or through increased collaboration. Generally, through the potential multiplier effect of capacity building, the impact per participant may be higher than for Mama’s Kitchen, which focuses mostly on individual behavior change. However, as a caveat, most were reached through online streams, with unclear levels of engagement.
• Program 3: Good Food Youth Leadership Program
  • The Youth Leadership Program had 40 leader participants and 90,000 students participating in their online competition. Per dollar spent, they reached 0.5 people. When considering only their leadership program participants, they reached 0.0003 participants per dollar or $3,000 per participant.
  • The online knowledge competition for university students encouraged young people to learn about food, practice healthy and sustainable diets, and act on climate change.
  • We can likely expect a higher impact from the program participants rather than from the one-off online competition. Because this program is still new, there is limited data available about participants’ achievements following the program. Qualitative information on what participants have achieved so far and what GFF expects them to achieve is available in our Theory of Change Analysis (see Key Activity 3).

If GFF were to find additional revenue to expand their organization, they would prioritize using the money to launch a Global Food Systems Accelerator in collaboration with Peking University and Harvard, which will focus on policy research, conferences, and training policymakers and city managers. They also plan to expand their Mama’s Kitchen program to institutions (such as universities and schools) and launch a new program to educate journalists and promote media coverage of plant-based diets and animal welfare in China. We found their plans for developing Mama’s Kitchen’s institutional work and their Accelerator policy collaborations 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 $2.0M, which we refer to as their funding capacity.

A more detailed summary of GFF’s future plans and the reasoning behind our assessments can be found in their Future Plans spreadsheet.

People, Policies, and Processes

The policies that the charity reported having in place are listed below.⁴³

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	N/A
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

GFF was transparent with ACE throughout the evaluation process.

Some of the information we required for our evaluation of organizational health is made available on GFF’s website. However, information not available on their website includes a list of board members, the organization’s theory of change, board meeting minutes, and financial statements. We learned from GFF that many of the requirements for charities in China are different from those in other countries.

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

Leadership and Board Governance

• Executive Director (ED): Melinda Hau, who has been involved in the organization for five years.
• Number of board members: five members.

We found that the charity’s board did not fully align with our understanding of best practices. GFF’s board meets only once per year, which seems too infrequent, but they reassured us that they keep regular communications with individual board members and that their quarterly newsletter also provides detailed reports of their progress.

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

Financial Health

Reserves

With only about 0% of their current annual expenditures held in net assets or reserves (as reported by GFF 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

0% of GFF’s revenue is recurring (e.g., from recurring donors or ongoing long term grant commitments).⁴⁴

Liabilities to Assets Ratio

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

Staff engagement and satisfaction

GFF has 13 staff members (full-time, part-time, and contractors), including the Executive Director. Ten staff members responded to our staff engagement survey, yielding a response rate of 83%—the Executive Director was asked not to take the survey.

GFF has a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, about 90% report that they are satisfied with their wage. GFF offers annual paid vacation in accordance with national policy, five paid sick days per month, and social insurance coverage. 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 4.7 (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 GFF staff were made aware of this option. If any staff or external parties to the organization have claims of this nature, we encourage them to read ACE’s Third-Party Whistleblower Policy and fill out our claimant form. We have received no such claims regarding GFF.