Shrimp Welfare Project

SWP’s key paths to impact

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

Key path 1—Humane Slaughter Initiative producer engagement

This key path aims to promote humane practices by providing electrical stunners to aquaculture operations at minimal or no cost, with the goal of reducing the stress and pain that shrimps experience during slaughter. As part of this initiative, producers who commit to stunning a minimum of 120 million shrimps every year and follow good farming practices are provided an electrical stunner. The long-term goal of this program is to catalyze industry-wide adoption of pre-slaughter stunning by supporting early adopters, building toward a tipping point that achieves critical mass.

Overall assessment

There is evidence available supporting all steps of this path, from initially engaging producers to deploying electrical stunners in the field. Since 2022, SWP’s engagement with producers has allowed them to deploy eight stunners and sign agreements to provide 17 stunners to producers in total. These agreements are projected to impact around 3.3 billion farmed shrimp annually. There are a few remaining spots of uncertainty, specifically regarding how well the farmers use the stunners after they are set up, and the efficacy and potential risks of the technology. SWP is aiming to resolve the former by adding third-party verification to their existing implementation support, which currently includes protocols for farmers and an in-person setup check at the point of delivery. The latter would benefit from more empirical research examining the efficacy of electrical stunners in the field. SWP is aware of these uncertainties and has collaborated with academics and other researchers to conduct this research, to hopefully better understand these risks within the next few years. External experts acknowledge SWP’s commitment to improving their understanding of optimal stunner deployment and the efficacy of the technology.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are strongly convinced that buying and delivering electrical stunners to producers can reliably replace less humane slaughter methods, such as asphyxiation and ice slurry, and thus avert a significant part of the suffering shrimps experience during slaughter. Our uncertainty in this verdict is low-to-moderate due to potential concerns about proper implementation in the field, and the potential risk of electrical stunning not always leading to immediate stunning or death.

Key path 2—Humane Slaughter Initiative retailer engagement

SWP engages large retailers, predominantly in the U.K. and other European countries, to secure public commitments for higher shrimp welfare. This key path supports the outcomes of Key Path 1 through outreach to retailers to get them to commit to selling only shrimps who were electrically stunned and experienced other welfare improvements. The majority of the commitments achieved are from retailers that buy shrimps from the producers that SWP had already engaged with and signed stunner deployment agreements with. The main impact of this key path is expected to come from normalizing higher welfare standards across the industry, increasing the incentives for producers to implement electrical stunning, and possibly securing public welfare policies.

Overall assessment

SWP has successfully engaged with seven out of the 11 main shrimp retailers in the U.K. and obtained public commitments⁶ with short implementation deadlines of typically one to two years. Three retailer commitments were secured in 2024, and three have been secured thus far in 2025. The importance of engaging retailers in addition to producers is supported by the fact that SWP has achieved only one producer commitment without the leverage of a retailer’s demand. Large buyers influence numerous suppliers, which means that each successful retail partnership can impact millions of shrimps across their entire supply chain. This approach also creates market incentives for other producers to adopt similar practices to remain competitive for major contracts. Retailer engagement has been a successful animal advocacy tactic across various regions and species. In the case of electrical stunning of shrimps, the implementation deadlines are relatively short⁷ and the producers are provided with free stunners by SWP, which gives us confidence these shrimp welfare commitments will be fulfilled to a similar (or perhaps higher) degree than those helping animals in other contexts.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are strongly convinced that outreach to retailers regarding improved welfare standards for shrimps—mainly electrical stunning pre-slaughter—can reliably lead to more stunners being used and the industry standards changing. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate due to the possibility that SWP has already secured commitments from the most receptive retailers, and it may prove more difficult to obtain future commitments. However, it could also have the opposite impact of setting an industry-wide standard, at least in the U.K. In addition, retailer engagement is complementary to producer engagement, as it provides additional incentives for more producers to adopt electrical stunning.

Key path 3—Sustainable Shrimp Farmers of India sludge removal

Alongside SWP’s main and largest program, which aims to reduce the suffering of animals at slaughter, they are also exploring a pilot program to address the suffering caused by poor water quality. In their Sustainable Shrimp Farmers of India (SSFI) program, SWP offers to remove sludge from the bottom of shrimp ponds on smallholder farms, provided that the farmers also reduce the stocking density in their ponds. This intervention targets the majority of the shrimp lifecycle, which consists of multiple stocking cycles. In the long term, SWP wants to leverage new producer relationships in India to engage United States retailers and secure more welfare commitments.

Overall assessment

In 2024, SWP completed the first full year of their SSFI program pilot,⁸ and removed sludge from 100 acres of ponds, impacting roughly 30 million shrimps annually. After a year of testing the program, SWP has identified ways to improve automation and reduce the costs of the program, allowing them to scale up significantly in 2025 and beyond. The evidence for this program lies in a limited number of scientific studies showing the harms of sludge accumulation, specifically due to the higher concentration of hydrogen sulfide (H₂S).^{9, 10, 11} SWP conducts water quality measurements pre- and post-intervention that have shown a positive impact on shrimp survival, lifecycle duration, and ammonia levels. However, there is still a lack of clarity on how different concentrations of H₂S specifically affect shrimp health. The improvements seen could be due to the reduced stocking density of the shrimps. SWP tracks the stocking density through farmers’ self reports and follow-up visits where possible.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are moderately convinced that removing sludge from ponds at shrimp farms reliably leads to improved welfare conditions for the duration of the shrimps’ lives. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high due to a very limited number of low-quality studies on sludge removal and how shrimps’ wellbeing is impacted by specific H₂S concentrations. This program is also less easily scalable than promoting electrical stunning, requires SWP’s involvement about every three years, and is labor intensive.

Additional considerations

Key overarching assumptions and risks

• The level of sentience and the intensity of shrimps’ suffering:
  • For SWP to achieve their final impact of reducing the suffering of animals, they need to help sentient beings. The current evidence for the sentience of invertebrates—and shrimp specifically—includes nociception¹² (responding to noxious stimuli), coordinated responses to threats,¹³ and response to anesthetics.¹⁴ Rethink Priorities finds the sentience research to be insufficient to conclude whether or not shrimps are sentient.¹⁵
  • Given the available evidence and adhering to the precautionary principle¹⁶, we cannot dismiss the strong possibility of shrimp sentience and their capacity to suffer. While the uncertainty of sentience is higher for invertebrates compared to other animal groups, there is some uncertainty about the experiences of any animal species. In recent years, the question of shrimp sentience has been given increasingly more attention, and as of 2022, shrimps are acknowledged as sentient in the U.K.’s Animal Welfare Act.¹⁷

Risk assessment strategy

• To increase transparency and reduce the risk of engaging with collaborators who do not sufficiently align with SWP’s organizational values, SWP has published a document on their position and main values as an organization. This helps clarify the value differences and issues where other organizations might not be aligned with SWP, such as animal welfare.
• SWP’s focus on a neglected species may be seen and portrayed as too “weird”, and there have in fact been jokes and memes about shrimp welfare. This is a risk that was hard to foresee, and SWP has a Communications Director who solicits external advice before media engagements. This remains a risk, but SWP is taking reasonable actions to address it.
• Risks inherent in SWP’s direct work, such as the risks of the stunners not working as intended, are being addressed through the program’s monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) and the various research projects and collaborations.
• Overall, we have no concerns about SWP’s risk management strategy.

Use of empirical evidence in decision making

• SWP uses available studies when deciding to develop new programs. For example, the SSFI program is based on the evidence that shows existing toxic levels of H2S on shrimp farms. SWP also supports and collaborates on new empirical studies that are relevant to their work, for example developing a new stunning protocol with the University of Stirling, because there is limited empirical evidence regarding shrimp stunning. SWP uses the available evidence and contributes to new evidence being created to directly support and verify their approach.

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

• SWP has a dedicated MEL person on their team and they monitor their programs to improve implementation. They ran pilots before fully launching their programs, and it seems that MEL plays an important role when starting or modifying their programs.
  • Example 1: SWP conducted a pilot for their SSFI program to see whether removing sludge and decreasing stocking density is feasible. It seems feasible, so they are expanding the program.
  • Example 2: SWP gathers data on the initial setup of new electrical stunners. Because farm conditions vary, SWP has someone on the ground to observe and help with the setup. What they learn helps them improve their set-up protocols for farmers.

Strategic selection of programs to complement and support each other

• The HSI has two mutually reinforcing parts: producer and retailer outreach. The SSFI program focuses on smaller producers who are less likely to be receptive to the HSI. It also serves as an entry point to India, a region where SWP is considering significant expansion. Both programs build credibility within the industry and open new doors to different regions and retailers.
• The HSI and SSFI programs are currently mostly geographically separate and employ different interventions. They both have the same long-term aim, which is to improve shrimp welfare across the industry. The programs were strategically selected, with the shared goal in mind, and are used to support each other when possible.

Contribution of programs to the wider animal advocacy movement

• SWP operates in a relatively niche area of the animal advocacy movement and conducts the majority of their programmatic work on their own. There are some indirect ways in which SWP contributes to the animal advocacy movement, expanding their efforts to new species and possibly new tactics that are more industry-friendly. Their main impact probably does not lie in their contributions to the wider animal movement. That said, the Humane Slaughter Initiative includes collaborations with other animal advocacy organizations to achieve retailer commitments. SWP plays a unique role, providing stunners and minimizing the industry’s costs for implementing welfare improvements. SWP has also helped normalize shrimp welfare, a neglected concern that is now gaining more mainstream traction, and they are building credibility with the industry.

• We focused our analysis on two programs: (i) Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI) and (ii) Sustainable Shrimp Farmers of India (SSFI). Together these programs make up 87% of SWP’s programmatic expenditures (HSI is 81%). In both these programs, SWP supports producers’ implementation of new technologies to reduce shrimp suffering: electrical stunning during slaughter and water quality improvements. The remaining 13% goes toward research and policy collaborations, with outcomes that vary more significantly year to year and directly or indirectly contribute to HSI and SSFI.
• Program 1: Humane Slaughter Initiative
  • The results of our CEA indicate that this program is likely to help over 10 thousand animals per dollar (range: 9,282–11,602), which translates to 48 Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs) averted per dollar (range: 43–53).
  • The biggest point of uncertainty is around the SADs calculation, where we make a lot of assumptions about the intensity and duration of suffering experienced by invertebrate species (such as shrimps). While uncertainty exists regarding any species’ experiences, it is usually harder to assess those that differ most from human experiences.
  • We did not quantify the long-term industry trend toward implementing electrical stunning as a standard. SWP’s long-term theory of change aims to push the industry toward a tipping point, where producers will buy stunners themselves and SWP will no longer need to. This would be highly cost effective, but the likelihood, timing, and extent of this shift are highly uncertain.
• Program 2: Sustainable Shrimp Farmers of India
  • The results of our CEA indicate that this program is likely to help over one thousand animals per dollar (range: 740–1,481), which translates to about 729 SADs averted per dollar (range: 464–840).
  • As in the estimate for HSI, the most speculative part of this calculation is the Suffering-Adjusted Days. The uncertainty is likely higher in this case, as the result involves a higher number of estimates around the extent, prevalence, and duration of suffering that the sludge removal would avert. Given the lack of evidence around relevant welfare issues, all estimates are highly speculative and should be considered with all of these limitations in mind.

Future plans

If SWP were to receive additional revenue to expand their organization, they would prioritize increasing the accessibility and technical specifications of electrical stunners and significantly bring their price down by developing a new, cheaper stunner. They would also develop third-party verification for producers who commit to use stunners, establish shrimp stunning credits, increase their conference and marketing budget, and increase reserves so they can deploy a large number of stunners if the opportunity arises. We rated 95% of their projected spending plans as highly effective.

We rated their plan to develop shrimp stunning credits as moderately effective because we are less sure about the usefulness of credits, given the short timelines of retailer commitments.

Funding capacity

Based on our assessment of SWP’s future plans, we are confident that they could effectively spend up to a total annual revenue of $3.612 million, which we refer to as their funding capacity. 

The chart below shows SWP’s revenues from 2022–2025 and their funding capacity for 2026 and 2027.

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

Strategic prioritization

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

SWP has had a relatively steady growth of the program they started with (Humane Slaughter Initiative), and has not had major strategy shifts. As such, it appears their HSI program is working cost effectively. Their expansion plans are centered on the activities that could help a high number of shrimps, and they aim to be prepared to act on opportunities that arise in farmed shrimp welfare.

In their strategy, they include both short-term and long-term plans and consider how they complement each other. An example of their long-term thinking is their goal to find new interventions to help shrimps: SWP ultimately intends to stop purchasing stunners when the industry reaches a tipping point and stunners are expected to become the norm. At that point, SWP wants to be ready with the next intervention; therefore, they are continuing to do some exploratory work (like research and policy, precision welfare, and stunning credits) to reveal new paths to impact in the longer term. They acknowledge that the exploratory work comes at a cost of less impact in the short term.

People, policies, and processes

The policies that SWP reported having in place are listed in the table below—policies in bold are those that Scarlet Spark¹⁹ recommend as highest priority.

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 roles
Annual (or more frequent) process to measure employee engagement or satisfaction
A process in place to support performance improvement in instances of underperformance

Transparency

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

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

Leadership and board governance

• Chief Operations Officer: Aaron Boddy, involved in the organization for four years
• Chief Programmes Officer: Krzystof Wojtas, involved in the organization for two years
• Number of board members: four, including former CEO/President Andrés Jiménez Zorrilla

SWP had a transition in their leadership in the last year. Andrés Jiménez Zorrilla stepped down as CEO and became SWP’s Board Chair. This transition was handled by informing the team and promoting Krzystof Wojtas to Chief Programmes Officer.

We found that the charity’s board mostly aligned with our understanding of best practice.

About 86% of staff respondents to our engagement survey indicated that they have confidence in SWP’s leadership.

Financial health

Reserves

With only about 27% of their current annual expenditures held in reserves (as reported by SWP 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. This would also allow them to meet their target of holding six months’ of expenditures in reserves.

Recurring revenue

Less than 10% of SWP’s revenue is recurring (e.g. from recurring donors or ongoing long term grant commitments). Based on an external consultation with Scarlet Spark, we find this to be a low proportion of recurring revenue (the ideal being 25% or higher); however, the 25% target is dependent on the context for each charity, so while we have noted this information here, it did not influence our recommendation decision.

Liabilities-to-assets ratio

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

Staff engagement and satisfaction

SWP has 10 staff members (full time, part time, and contractors). Eight staff members responded to our staff engagement survey, yielding a response rate of 89%. We did not have their COO and CPO take the survey.

SWP has three volunteers working at least five hours per week. One volunteer responded to our survey.

SWP has a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff who responded to our survey, 100% reported that they are satisfied with their wage and the benefits provided. SWP offers a paid-time-off policy, annual sick leave, and family and caregiver leave.

The average score among our staff engagement survey questions was 4.81 ​​(on a 1–5 scale), suggesting that, on average, staff exhibit very high engagement.

Harassment and discrimination

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