Sinergia Animal

How Sinergia Animal Performs on our Criteria

Criterion 1: Does the charity engage in programs that seem likely to be highly impactful?

Before investigating the particular implementation of a charity’s programs, we consider their overall approach to animal advocacy in terms of the cause(s) they advance and the types of outcomes they achieve. In particular, we consider whether they’ve chosen to pursue approaches that seem likely to produce significant positive change for animals—both in the near and long term.

Cause Area

Sinergia Animal focuses exclusively on reducing the suffering of farmed animals, which we believe is a high-impact cause area.

Types of Outcomes Achieved

To better understand the potential impact of a charity’s programs, we’ve developed a menu of outcomes that describes five avenues for change: influencing public opinion, capacity building, influencing industry, building alliances, and influencing policy and the law.

Sinergia Animal pursues one primary avenue for creating change for animals: they work to influence industry.

To communicate the process by which we believe a charity creates change for animals, we use theory of change diagrams. It is important to note that these diagrams are not complete representations of real-world mechanisms of change. Rather, they are simplified models that ACE uses to represent our beliefs about mechanisms of change. For the sake of simplicity, some diagrams may not include relatively small and/or uncertain effects.

Influencing Public Opinion

Sinergia Animal works to influence individuals to adopt more animal-friendly attitudes and behaviors. While it is difficult to measure incremental changes in public opinion—and, consequently, difficult to know when an intervention is more or less successful—we still think it’s important for the animal advocacy movement to target some outreach toward individuals. This is because a shift in public attitudes and consumer preferences could help drive industry changes and lead to greater support for more animal-friendly policies. However, we find that efforts to influence public opinion seem much less neglected than other categories of interventions in the United States.¹ While we do not have direct evidence for the situation outside the U.S., we would expect it to be broadly similar to the U.S.

While the majority of Sinergia Animal’s efforts and resources go towards securing welfare commitments, they report currently devoting a small portion of their budget to social media ads and investigations as well.² They have yet to complete their investigations, but if they are successful at releasing them and gaining media coverage, the footage could be impactful as there is some evidence of a weak negative correlation between media coverage of animal welfare and meat demand.³

Influencing Industry

Sinergia Animal works with corporations to adopt better animal welfare policies and to ban particularly cruel practices in the animal agriculture industry. Though the long-term effects of corporate outreach are yet to be seen, we believe that these interventions have a high potential to be impactful when implemented thoughtfully.⁴

In their first year of operation, Sinergia Animal has successfully achieved commitments from 12 companies in South America to phase out caged eggs, in addition to several commitments to ban gestation crates for pigs.⁵ These campaigns have involved direct negotiations, petitions, social media, and protests⁶ that gained media attention, and they are currently conducting investigations to strengthen their campaigns.⁷

Long-Term Impact

Though there is significant uncertainty regarding the impact of interventions in the long term, each charity’s long-term impact is plausibly what matters most.⁸ The potential number of individuals affected by a charity increases over time due to both human and animal population growth, as well as an accumulation of generations of animals. The power of animal charities to effect change could be greater in the future if we consider their potential growth as well as potential long-term value shifts—for example, present actions leading to growth in the movement’s resources, to a more receptive public, or to different economic conditions could all potentially lead to a greater magnitude of impact over time than anything that could be accomplished at present.

Predictions about the long-term impact of any intervention are always extremely uncertain, because the effects of an intervention vary with context and are interdependent with concurrent interventions—with neither of these interactions being constant over time.⁹ When estimating the long-term impact of a charity’s actions, we consider the context in which they occur and how they fit into the overall movement. Barring any strong evidence to the contrary, we think the long-term impact of most animal advocacy interventions will be net positive. Still, the comparative effects of one intervention versus another are not well understood.¹⁰ Because of the difficulties in forecasting long-term impact, we do not put significant weight on our predictions.

We’re generally optimistic that obtaining corporate welfare commitments will improve animal welfare in the long term,¹¹ reduce consumption of animal products via price increases,¹² and may raise awareness of the terrible welfare conditions on factory farms. However, some evidence suggests that welfare will not be significantly improved in cage-free systems, and that in some ways the conditions for hens may be worse, particularly in the transition from caged systems to cage-free systems.^{13, 14} Some animal advocates worry that marketing eggs and other animal products as “humane” may obscure the suffering and exploitation these purchases support. For some consumers, this may contribute to a belief that animals aren’t harmed in the production of “humane” products, which, some argue, could make subsequent efforts to reduce consumption of animal products more challenging.^{15, 16}

Criterion 2: Does the charity have room for more funding and concrete plans for growth?

In order to recommend a charity, we need to assess the extent to which they will be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that the recommendation may bring in. Specifically, we need to consider whether there may be non-monetary “bottlenecks,” or barriers to the charity’s growth. First, we look at the charity’s recent financial history to see how they have dealt with growth over time and how effectively they have been able to utilize past increases in funding. Next, we evaluate the charity’s room for more funding by considering existing programs that need additional funding in order to fulfill their purpose, as well as potential new programs and areas for growth. It is important to determine whether any barriers limiting progress in these areas are solely monetary, or whether there are other inhibiting factors—such as time or talent shortages. Since we can’t predict exactly how any organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, our estimate is speculative, not definitive. It’s possible that a charity could run out of room for more funding sooner than we expect, or come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we have suggested. Our estimates are intended to indicate the point at which we would want to check in with a charity to ensure that they have used the funds they have received effectively and are still able to absorb additional funding.

Recent Financial History

Sinergia Animal was established as a nonprofit in Brazil in October, 2017. During their first year of operations in Chile, Argentina, Colombia, and Brazil, their total revenue and total expenses have each been approximately $100,000. Aside from personnel, their largest expenses were on digital campaigning and investigations.¹⁷ Due to this early stage in their development and their limited budget, they currently only have one full-time employee and a few part-time employees.¹⁸

The chart below shows Sinergia Animal’s recent revenues, assets, and expenditures.¹⁹

Planned Future Expenses

Sinergia Animal would like to expand to have at least one full-time employee in each country they operate in. In addition, they would like to hire a regional campaign coordinator so that the CEO can spend more time on fundraising, hiring, and strategy.²⁰ The also expressed interest in hiring a Social Media Coordinator and implementing a 21-day vegan challenge pledge program.²¹ Additionally, they are planning to expand outside of Latin America—specifically, they will reportedly pursue cage-free commitments in Thailand and Indonesia in 2019.²² We have some concerns about this rapid growth, especially to a region as geographically distant and culturally different as Southeast Asia.

Assessing Funding Priority of Future Expenses

A charity may have room for more funding in many areas, and each area will likely vary in its potential cost effectiveness. In addition to evaluating a charity’s planned future expenses, we consider the potential impact and relative cost effectiveness of filling different funding gaps. This helps us evaluate whether the marginal cost effectiveness of donating to a charity would differ from the charity’s average cost effectiveness from the past year. We break down the total room for more funding into three priority levels, as follows:

High Priority Funding Gaps

Our highest priority is funding activities or programs that we think are likely to create longer-term impact in a cost-effective way, as well as programs which we have relatively strong reasons to believe will have a highly positive short- or medium-term direct impact in a cost-effective way.²³

As described in Criterion 1, Sinergia Animal has a couple of programs that we consider promising: cage-free campaigns and investigations. Of these programs, we estimate they could effectively use the largest increases in funding for their cage-free campaigns.²⁴ In terms of staffing, we think their plans to hire at least one full-time employee for each country they are working in will have significant benefits for their capacity. We estimate that Sinergia Animal has a high priority funding gap of $190,000–$720,000 in 2019.^{25, 26, 27}

Moderate Priority Funding Gaps

It is of moderate priority for us to fund programs which we believe to be of relatively moderate marginal cost effectiveness.

Of Sinergia Animal’s other planned areas of growth, including their expansion into Thailand and Indonesia, their 21-day vegan challenge, and their increased social media work, we estimate that they could use the largest increases in funding for their expansion into Southeast Asia.²⁸ We estimate that Sinergia Animal has a moderate priority funding gap of $50,000–$260,000 in 2019.²⁹

Low Priority Funding Gaps

It is of low priority for us to fund programs which we believe to be of relatively lower marginal cost effectiveness, or to replenish cash reserves. Because it is likely that there may be future expenditures we haven’t thought of, we also include in this category an estimate of possible additional expenditures (based on a percentage of the charity’s current yearly budget).

Using a range estimate of 1%–20% of their projected 2018 expenses to account for possible additional expenditures, we estimate that Sinergia Animal has a low priority funding gap of $20,000–$80,000 for 2019.³⁰

The chart below shows the distribution of Sinergia Animal’s gaps in funding among the three priorities:³¹

Sinergia Animal is planning a significant increase in their budget from 2018 to 2019—their projected budget for 2018 was around $100,000 and their projected expenses for 2019 are around $420,000.³² While there is a great deal of uncertainty in predicting their future trajectory given this early stage, Sinergia has been actively pursuing grants and has already received some of their funding for 2019, with many more grant applications in the works.³³ We estimate that next year they have a total funding gap of approximately $10,000–$610,000,³⁴ and that they could effectively put to use a total revenue of $440,000–$1.1 million.³⁵

Criterion 3: Does the charity operate cost-effectively, according to our best estimates?

Sinergia Animal runs several programs; we estimate cost effectiveness separately for a number of these programs, and then combine our estimates to give a composite estimate of Sinergia Animal’s overall cost effectiveness.³⁶ We generally present our estimates as 90% subjective confidence intervals. We think that this quantitative perspective is a useful component of our overall evaluation because we find quantitative models of cost effectiveness to be:

• One of the best methods we know for identifying cost-effective interventions³⁷
• Useful for making direct comparisons between different charities or different interventions³⁸
• Useful for providing a foundation for more informative cost-effectiveness models in the future
• Helpful for increasing our transparency³⁹

That said, the estimates of equivalent animals spared per dollar should not be taken as our overall opinion of the charity’s effectiveness. We do not account for some programs that have less quantifiable kinds of impact in this section, leaving them for our qualitative evaluation. For programs that we do include in our quantitative models, our cost-effectiveness estimates are highly uncertain approximations of some of their short-term costs and short- to medium-term benefits. As we have excluded more indirect or long-term impacts, we may underestimate the overall impact. There is a very limited amount of evidence pertaining to the effects of many common animal advocacy interventions, which means that in some cases we have mainly used our judgment to assign quantitative values to parameters.

We are concerned that readers may think we have a higher degree of confidence in this cost-effectiveness estimate than we actually do. To be clear, this is a very tentative cost-effectiveness estimate. It plays only a limited role in our overall evaluation of which charities and interventions are most effective.⁴⁰

Social Media

We estimate that in 2018 Sinergia Animal will spend about 5% of their budget, or $3,000, on social media.⁴¹ This will result in 25,000–45,000 new Facebook followers, and 45,000–80,000 video views across all platforms.⁴²

Investigations

We estimate that in 2018 Sinergia Animal will spend about 20% of their budget, or $12,000, on investigations.⁴³ This will lead to 1–2 investigations being released in 2018/19.⁴⁴ We estimate that this will result in 10,000–200,000 investigation video views. This is a cost of $10,000–20,000 per investigation, which equates to 0.7–16 views per dollar.⁴⁵

Corporate Outreach

We estimate that in 2018 Sinergia Animal will spend about 75% of their budget, or $45,000, on corporate outreach.⁴⁶ This will result in some companies adopting new policies, and these policies could result in reduced suffering for animals. We estimate that Sinergia Animal’s corporate campaigns will help drive 11–18 cage-free policy changes and 2–4 gestation-crate policies, affecting 20,000–2.2 million layer hens and 3,000–200,000 sows each year.⁴⁷

All Activities Combined

To combine these estimates into one overall cost-effectiveness estimate, we translate them into comparable units. This introduces several possible sources of error and imprecision. The resulting estimate should not be taken literally—it is a rough estimate, and not a precise calculation of cost effectiveness.⁴⁸ However, it still provides some useful information about whether Sinergia Animal’s efforts are comparable in cost effectiveness to other charities’.⁴⁹

We use an aggregated staff estimate to estimate that Sinergia Animal spares between -0.2 and 3 animals from life on a farm per dollar spent on investigations.^{50, 51}

We consider multiple factors⁵² to estimate that Sinergia Animal spares an equivalent of between -2 and 20 animals per dollar spent on corporate outreach.^{53, 54}

We exclude social media results from our final cost-effectiveness estimates and don’t attempt to convert them into an equivalent animals spared figure; it is too difficult to disentangle the effects of these interventions from the total effects of their other programs.

We weight our estimates by the proportion of funding Sinergia Animal spends on each activity; overall, we estimate that in the short term—after excluding the effects of some of their programs—Sinergia Animal spares between -2 and 6 farmed animals per dollar spent.^{55, 56} This equates to between -3.5 and 10 years of farmed animal life spared⁵⁷ per dollar spent.^{58, 59, 60} Because of extreme uncertainty about even the strongest parts of our calculations, we feel that there is currently limited value in discussing these estimates further. Instead, we give weight to our other criteria.

Criterion 4: Does the charity possess a strong track record of success?

To evaluate a charity’s track record, we consider how well the charity has executed previous programs. We also consider the extent to which these previous programs caused positive changes for animals. Information about a charity’s track record helps us predict the charity’s future activities and accomplishments—information that cannot always be incorporated into the criteria above. An organization’s track record can be a pivotal factor when our analysis otherwise finds limited differences in other important factors.

Have programs been well executed?

Founded in late 2017, Sinergia is a very young organization. They have some promising accomplishments, but their track record is much shorter than the track records of established groups.

In their first few months, Sinergia has achieved 12 corporate cage-free policies, as well as some policies to phase out gestation crates in Chile and Brazil.⁶¹ They are a member of the Open Wing Alliance,⁶² an international coalition of organizations aiming to end cage confinement practices globally. They seem to be adhering to some best practices during their campaigning. For instance, they have created a website template so that they are able to launch campaigns quickly with limited effort⁶³ and they utilize petitions and social media to put pressure on companies. They also report working on investigations in two Latin American countries in order to use them strategically to promote their corporate campaigns.⁶⁴ The investigations have yet to be released, so we’re unsure how well executed they’ll be.

While Sinergia Animal’s initial activities seem quite promising, the short length of their track record means that there is probably greater uncertainty associated with donations to Sinergia relative to more established groups that engage in similar work.

Have programs led to change for animals?

Many of Sinergia’s earliest accomplishments have not yet led to changes for animals. Their earliest actions (e.g., establishing and registering, raising funds, and creating a board of trustees) will affect animals only indirectly. However, these steps are essential to setting up any organization, and they’re especially important for potentially high-impact charities.

The commitments made due to Sinergia’s corporate outreach campaigns will likely affect a large number of animals if they are implemented. As these commitments are not legally binding, it will be critical to follow up with companies to ensure they are adhered to. Since several of the commitments obtained by Sinergia have deadlines in the 2020s, we may soon have a better understanding of how many companies meet their deadlines. We estimate that their corporate policy victories will reduce the suffering of 20,000–2.2 million layer hens and 3,000–200,000 sows per year once they have been implemented.⁶⁵

At present, we are uncertain if Sinergia’s investigations will receive significant media coverage, but it’s our view that they may. There is weak evidence that media coverage of the treatment of farmed animals is negatively correlated with meat consumption in the United States;⁶⁶ if such a correlation exists, it is possible that such coverage nudges people towards reducing their meat consumption. If the correlation between media coverage and meat reduction also exists in Latin America—and we expect that it does—then Sinergia’s undercover investigations, particularly of farm conditions, may help animals on a large scale by reducing demand for meat and other animal products.

Criterion 5: Does the charity identify areas of success and failure and respond appropriately?

A charity that has systems in place for assessing their programs is better equipped to move towards their goals effectively. By conducting self-assessments, a charity can retain and strengthen successful programs, and modify or end those that are less successful. When such systems of improvement work well, many stakeholders benefit: benefactors are inclined to be more trusting and more generous, leadership is able to refine their strategy for achieving their goals, and nonhuman animals benefit more.

To evaluate how well the charity adapts to successes and failures, we consider: (i) how the charity has assessed its past programs and (ii) the extent to which the charity updates their programs in light of those assessments.

Does the charity actively assess areas of success and failure?

/Since they have only been active since September 2017,⁶⁷ Sinergia Animal has a limited track record of assessing and improving their work. They do, however, seem to have a strong plan to assess and improve their work overall. They have repeatedly stated that their most notable strength is their capacity to generate results in a cost-effective way.⁶⁸ This suggests that they pride themselves in the cost-effectiveness of their strategy which involves both tracking their results and minimizing their costs. They also emphasize that one of their greatest strengths is a commitment to understanding the difference between output, outcome, and impact.⁶⁹ This suggests that they will likely have a strong focus on monitoring and evaluating the desired impact of their work.

Sinergia Animal has set both short-term and long-term goals that are plausibly achievable and also highly relevant to their mission of reducing animal product consumption and improving farmed animal welfare.⁷⁰ They have two sets of short-term goals, one for 2017 and 2018, and another for 2019 and 2020.⁷¹ Some of these goals appear to be fairly specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound,⁷² especially for their undercover investigations, funding, and corporate outreach programs. With regard to the last, we think that Sinergia Animal’s goals of achieving a particular number of corporate commitments could be more mission-relevant if they also tracked the estimated number of animals and consumers affected.

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

We are not aware of examples of Sinergia Animal changing their programs significantly in response to evidence about their success and failure, although they include a willingness to do so among their main values.⁷³ The fact that they haven’t made these kinds of changes may be due to the organization being relatively young and small, rather than them not reacting appropriately when encountering such evidence. Sinergia Animal’s leadership has specifically stated their commitment to continue learning from both their internal and external programs—they reported their intention to conduct research among their stakeholders, supporters, and social media followers in order to evaluate emerging trends and their organizational strengths and vulnerabilities.⁷⁴

Sinergia Animal has already seen some success in their stated goals for 2017 and 2018. Their main goal was to achieve five cage-free corporate commitments in each of Colombia, Chile, and Argentina. They were most successful in Colombia, where they achieved eight commitments from some of the most relevant companies in the country.⁷⁵ However, they failed to reach their goal both in Chile and Argentina, where only two commitments were achieved in each country.^{76, 77} They attributed this challenge to the fact that Chile and Argentina have a higher proportion of caged hens than Colombia. As a result, they have decided to double their efforts in these two countries and better prepare their campaigners, should they manage to secure funding.^{78, 79}

Sinergia Animal has shown that they can experiment with new programs, acknowledge when they have failed, and potentially change tactics in light of signs of such failures. For example, since their specific social media goals⁸⁰ will likely not be met by the end of 2018, they have already begun trying to improve their programs to better achieve their social media target. To that end, they have engaged a Chilean celebrity to help them grow their social media following.⁸¹

Additionally, they seem committed to improving their approach in light of the work of other similar organizations. For example, their reported achievement with Gastronomía y Negocios—the largest fast food chain in Chile—was inspired by a strategy common within the Open Wing Alliance. Instead of actually launching a campaign, they informed the target corporation of their intention to do so, then offered a limited time to agree to their terms.⁸²

Criterion 6: Does the charity have strong leadership and a well-developed strategic vision?

A charity is most likely to be effective if it has a well-developed strategic vision and strong leadership who can implement that vision. Given ACE’s commitment to finding the most effective ways to help nonhuman animals, we generally look for charities whose direction and strategic vision are aligned with that goal. A well-developed strategic vision must be realistic to manage and execute. It is likely the result of well-run, formal strategic planning; when a charity’s leaders regularly engage in a reflective strategic planning process, revisions and improvements to the charity’s strategic vision are likely to follow.

Does the charity have strong leadership and a well-composed board?

Carolina Macedo Galvani is the founder and President of Sinergia Animal. She has extensive experience in the animal advocacy movement, as well as environmentalism and other social movements.⁸³

Sinergia Animal has a relatively small board of three individuals: a campaign specialist in both climate advocacy and animal advocacy, an animal rights attorney, and a civil rights attorney.⁸⁴ We generally recommend that charities have boards of at least five individuals, which is in line with U.S. best practices.⁸⁵ However, there is only weak evidence that following these best practices is correlated with success in the U.S., and if they are correlated, that may be because more competent organizations are more likely to both follow best practices and to succeed—rather than because following best practices leads to success.

The members of Sinergia’s board includes men and women of three different nationalities. The board has limited occupational diversity, but we understand that it’s difficult to achieve diversity in all respects on a board of just three people. The evidence for the importance of board diversity is somewhat stronger than the evidence recommending board sizes of five or greater, in large part because there is some literature indicating that team diversity generally improves performance.⁸⁶ However, to our knowledge, the evidence of the impact of board diversity on organizational performance is less strong than the evidence of the impact of team diversity.⁸⁷

Does the charity have a well-developed strategic vision?

Does the charity regularly engage in a strategic planning process?

Sinergia Animal has recently developed its first strategic plan, which covers 2017–2027, with a particular focus on the next three years. Their leadership developed the plan in consultation with both staff and the board.⁸⁸ They plan to revisit their strategy informally every three months in order to update their shorter-term goals.⁸⁹ Once a year, they will have a more formal meeting in order to review their work from the previous year and set goals for the following year.⁹⁰

Does the charity have a realistic strategic vision that emphasizes effectively reducing suffering?

Sinergia is explicitly committed to reducing suffering as effectively as possible.⁹¹ They are focused on advocacy for farmed animals because, like we do, they consider farmed animal advocacy to be the most promising avenue for effectively reducing suffering. Sinergia takes a pragmatic approach; while they would like to see “a complete paradigm shift,” they also take actions to reduce suffering in the shorter-term in order to help animals before a paradigm shift occurs.⁹²

Does the charity’s strategy support the growth of the animal advocacy movement as a whole?

Our impression is that Sinergia’s participation in the OWA has been highly collaborative and productive. They have shared their knowledge about working in Latin America with other groups in the OWA,⁹³ and they have learned lessons from other groups about campaign strategy. Moreover, Sinergia has taken the lessons they’ve learned from the collaboration and brought them to bear on their work in relatively neglected countries.⁹⁴ These actions seem to serve the mission of the OWA—and the other organizations that are part of it—quite well.

Criterion 7: Does the charity have a healthy culture and a sustainable structure?

Effective charities are generally well-managed on an operational level; they should have healthy cultures and sustainable structures. We collect information about each charity’s internal operations in several ways. We ask leadership about their human resources policies and their perceptions of staff morale. We also speak confidentially with non-leadership staff or volunteers at each charity to solicit their perspectives on the charity’s management and culture.⁹⁵ Finally, we send each charity a culture survey and request that they distribute it among their team on our behalf, though just two out of three members of Sinergia’s staff participated in our survey.^{96, 97}

Does the charity have a healthy culture?

A charity with a healthy culture acts responsibly towards all stakeholders: staff, volunteers, donors, beneficiaries, and others in the community. One important part of acting responsibly towards stakeholders is protecting employees from instances of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Charities that have a healthy attitude towards diversity and inclusion seek and retain staff and volunteers from different backgrounds, since varied points of view improve a charity’s ability to respond to new situations.⁹⁸ A healthy charity is transparent with donors, staff, and the general public and acts with integrity; in other words, their professed values align with their actions.

Does the charity communicate transparently and act with integrity?

We have no reason to doubt the transparency or integrity of Sinergia, though we note that we are less familiar with Sinergia than we are with many of the other organizations we evaluate, both because (i) this is our first review of Sinergia, and (ii) Sinergia operates in countries where we have fewer contacts.

Does the charity provide staff and volunteers with sufficient benefits and opportunities for development?

Sinergia seems to provide the trainings necessary for their employees to succeed. For instance, they provide new staff members with at least 20 hours of corporate outreach trainings, as well as trainings in effective communication strategies.⁹⁹ They also encourage their staff to participate in trainings offered by the Open Wing Alliance.¹⁰⁰ However, while Sinergia offers opportunities for staff to improve in their current roles, they do not yet offer many opportunities for staff to develop skills that could allow them to grow into new roles within the organization or the broader animal advocacy movement. This may be predominantly due to the organization’s youth, limited funding, and small size.

Does the charity have a healthy attitude towards diversity and inclusion?

To our knowledge, Sinergia does not have an official statement in support of diversity and inclusion, nor do they have formal policies in place to promote these values. Galvani tells us that Sinergia is supportive of diversity and inclusion, but that their team lacks diversity in some respects in part because of their small size.¹⁰¹ Sinergia does have staff of different nationalities; in fact, their top priority when hiring is that each campaigner must be from the country in which they campaign. Galvani tells us that Sinergia does not want to be viewed as an international organization telling local businesses and activists what to do.¹⁰² We think that Sinergia’s strategy of hiring local campaigners is wise.

Does the charity work to protect employees from harassment and discrimination in the workplace?

Sinergia tells us that they are currently working on a policy to protect staff and volunteers from harassment and discrimination.¹⁰³ Given the problems we’ve seen with harassment and discrimination in the animal advocacy movement, we think that developing this policy should be a priority.

Does the charity have a sustainable structure?

An effective charity should be stable under ordinary conditions and should seem likely to survive any transitions in which current leadership might move on to other projects. The charity should seem unlikely to split into factions and should seem able to continue raising the funds needed for its basic operations. Ideally, they should receive significant funding from multiple distinct sources, including both individual donations and other types of support.

Does the charity receive support from multiple and varied funding sources?

Sinergia relies heavily on grants from the Centre for Effective Altruism. In general, charities are more financially sustainable when they receive funding from multiple sources. Sinergia hopes to start fundraising from small-scale donors next year. However, they tell us that Latin America has a different culture from the U.S. regarding philanthropy, and Sinergia does not expect small individual donations to become their primary source of funding.¹⁰⁴

Does the charity seem likely to survive potential changes in leadership?

Sinergia is quite young and they currently rely heavily on Galvani to develop and guide their strategy and operations. We believe that a change in leadership at this time would not be wise, but we have no reason to believe that will occur.

Questions for Further Consideration

No matter how thoroughly we research a charity, there will always be open questions about some aspects of the charity’s strategy or programming. We’ve asked charities some of those questions, and we present their answers below, without commentary.

Given that the corporate pledges are not legally binding, how can we be sure that they meaningfully support improvements in farmed animal welfare?

Sinergia’s Response:

“That is something we are strongly concerned about and we want to make sure these reforms in corporate supply chains will be real and verifiable. Our current strategy is:

• We make clear to companies that we want annual reports
• We tell them we want to be able to visit their cage-free suppliers
• We strongly recommend certifications and independent audits

We have to wait a bit to see how this will evolve, as we are in the very initial stage of this work and the main goal now is to secure a good number of commitments. But, in the future, when implementation deadlines are closer, we will surely use public campaigns if needed when companies are not being transparent and committed enough about meeting their pledges. We also hope that when the market changes significantly, we will be able to push for legislation to ban the systems that are being phased out by companies.”

There are many more farmed fish than other species of farmed animals. Has Sinergia considered allocating more of their resources towards farmed fish advocacy?

Sinergia’s Response:

“Our organization was founded just one year ago and we have to be very focused in areas/species we can secure funding and for which there is great momentum (a lot of examples to follow) from other countries and organizations, to be able to deliver effective results and outcomes. Currently, laying hens are the species we focus the most for these two reasons, and also because they represent a very significant share of animals being farmed for food.

In the future, if we are able to secure funds and have proper resources to expand to other species, we would surely consider farmed fish. Especially because we are working in Chile, the world’s second largest producer of farmed salmon. We are also deeply concerned about the problems related to trash-fishing in Peru.”

How does the effectiveness of different programs vary in each country in which Sinergia works? Can you describe your strategy for choosing which countries to work in and which programs to pursue there?

Sinergia’s Response:

“We currently have just one program: cage-free corporate campaigns. As explained above, its effectiveness has varied in different countries. We are adapting to be better in the countries where we have been less effective.

Our strategy to choose Argentina, Chile, and Colombia was based on several criteria:

• Number of animals: We wanted to work against battery cages in egg production because science shows animals suffer a lot in these systems and egg production is responsible for a very large share of animals being farmed.
• Funding: We were able to secure funding to carry out this work effectively.
• Momentum: There is good momentum already in other Latin American countries (Brazil and Mexico).
• Legal possibility: These three countries are democracies, where we can safely run market campaigns.
• Neglected but important countries: Argentina, Chile and Colombia have the largest numbers of hens in Latin America after Mexico and Brazil.
  • Mexico and Brazil were not considered a priority because many other powerful NGOs already carry out cage-free campaigns there.
  • No other NGO was doing corporate (pressure) campaigning in these three countries.

About Thailand and Indonesia in Southeast Asia:

• Number of animals: Same response as the one given for Latin America.
• Funding: Same response as the one given for Latin America.
• Momentum: There are commitments coming from Japan and Taiwan, so momentum is building. Also, two producers already committed in Thailand.
• Legal possibility: Very experienced lawyers and campaigners from other major NGOs, who have experience in corporate campaigns, were already consulted in both countries. Thailand is a bit more sensitive, but with the proper care and legal support, it seems like we will be able to operate safely and effectively there.
• Neglected but important countries: Indonesia and Thailand are the first and the third largest producers of eggs in SE Asia.
  • No other NGO was doing corporate (pressure) campaigning in these two countries.
  • Malaysia, the second largest producer, was not chosen because Thailand looks more promising to start.”

;Total Revenue;Assets;Total Expenses;
2018 (estimated);$99,939;$0;$99,939;
2019 (estimated);$419,440;$0;$419,440;

,Lower estimate,Upper estimate
High Priority,190000,530000
Moderate Priority,50000,210000
Low Priority,20000,60000

---

1. For more information, see our recent research on Allocation of Movement Resources. 

2. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Projected Expenses (2017–2018). 

3. See, for example:

   • Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products. Animal Charity Evaluators.
   • Cordts, A., Nitzko, S., & Spiller, A. (2014). Consumer Response to Negative Information on Meat Consumption in Germany. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 17(A), 83–106.
   • Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
   • Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72.

    

4. In order to best estimate which programs are more or less effective, we collected independent staff judgments of the relative efficacy of every commonly-used intervention and reached a consensus with the following process. Seven research team members rated each type of intervention using a scale from -1 (“relatively ineffective”) to 1 (“relatively effective”), with 0 meaning “not enough information to decide.” The mean score for each intervention was then rounded to the nearest integer to yield a score with which all Researchers were satisfied. As a check, we also calculated the median score and came out with the same results. 

5. “Since establishing the Corporate Outreach team in September 2017, Sinergia Animal has won 12 corporate policies banning cages for hens used in the egg industry in Argentina, Chile and Colombia. Additionally, policies to phase out gestation crates in Chile and Brazil have been established via Sinergia Animal’s work.” —Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018) 

6. As part of their cage-free campaigns, Sinergia Animal conducts protests aimed at particular companies in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Chile. 

7. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018). 

8. See the 80,000 Hours article “Presenting the Long-Term Value Thesis” for a more detailed discussion of why long-term impact is plausibly what matters most. 

9. “When outcomes of interventions are interdependent, the effectiveness of each is inextricably linked with those of the others. Justifying one as being more effective than another is not quite straightforward—declaring so is often misleading.” —Sethu, H. (2018) How ranking of advocacy strategies can mislead. Humane League Labs. 

10. See our report on leafleting for a more detailed consideration of the potential long-term impact of a particular intervention. 

11. Hens in a cage-free environment may have opportunities for behaviors that seem likely to improve their welfare such as dust bathing, perching, foraging, and nesting, which are not possible in battery cages. For a description of some of these potential welfare improvements, see the Open Philanthropy Project’s report, “How Will Hen Welfare be Impacted by the Transition to Cage-Free Housing?“ 

12. Cage-free eggs are currently more expensive than conventional eggs and some research suggests this is attributable to increased labor, feed, and pullet costs. 

13. Several studies suggest higher levels of mortality in cage-free systems compared to battery cages, and there is reason to believe that higher levels of mortality correspond to lower levels of welfare since the increased mortality may result from disease, feather pecking, and injuries. Among the nine experts interviewed in The Open Philanthropy Project’s report, “How Will Hen Welfare be Impacted by the Transition to Cage-Free Housing?” there was unanimous agreement that mortality will likely be significantly higher following the transition to cage-free systems. Most experts agreed that mortality rates are higher in cage-free systems, even years after the transition. The authors of the report express optimism that producers will be motivated to—and capable of—reducing mortality levels to be comparable with battery cage systems, and they maintain the view that cage-free systems will have a net positive impact on welfare in the long term. 

14. Some evidence suggests that, in addition to increased mortality, there are other negative impacts on chicken welfare in cage-free systems that may outweigh the improvements in behavioral opportunities, such as increased stress and worse air quality. See Direct Action Everywhere’s blog post suggesting that cage-free systems may not be better for chicken welfare than caged systems. 

15. “‘Happy meat’ discourses […] invite ‘consumers’ to adopt a position of vicarious carer for the ‘farmed’ animals who they eat. […] While ‘animal-centred’ welfare reform and ‘happy meat’ discourses promise
    a possibility of a somewhat less degraded life for some ‘farmed’ animals, they do so by perpetuating exploitation and oppression and entrenching speciesist privilege by making it less vulnerable to critical scrutiny.” —Cole, M. (2011). From “Animal Machines” to “Happy Meat”? Foucault’s Ideas of Disciplinary and Pastoral Power Applied to ‘Animal-Centred’ Welfare Discourse. Animals, 2011, 1, 83–101. 

16. For more information, see Sentience Institute’s list of arguments supporting and refuting the theory that welfare reforms will lead to complacency. 

17. This information can be found in Sinergia Animal’s Projected Expenses (2017–2018). 

18. This information can be found in our Conversation with Carolina Macedo Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018). 

19. The 2018 estimates are based on Sinergia Animal’s Projected Expenses (2017–2018) and the 2019 estimates are based on their fundraising goal and planned expenses as expressed in Sinergia Animal’s Projected Budget (2019). 

20. “In the future, we want to have at least one full-time campaigner per country and a regional campaign coordinator who helps me with strategizing, so that I can spend more time on developing the organization and recruiting international funding.” —Conversation with Carolina Macedo Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

21. “In addition, we plan to target consumers promoting both veganism and reductionism. One possible campaign would be a “21-day vegan challenge”, as it has been successfully implemented in other countries. We also want one team member to specialize on social media communication, in order to publish new posts regularly. These should focus on health, the environment, and animals, in order to target a wider audience.” —Conversation with Carolina Macedo Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

22. This information can be found in our Follow-Up Questions for Sinergia Animal, Part Two (2018). 

23. In order to best estimate which programs are more or less effective, we collected independent staff judgments of the relative efficacy of every commonly-used intervention and reached a consensus with the following process. Seven research team members rated each type of intervention using a scale from -1 (“relatively ineffective”) to 1 (“relatively effective”), with 0 meaning “not enough information to decide.” The mean score for each intervention was then rounded to the nearest integer to yield a consensus score with which all Researchers were satisfied. As a check, we also calculated the median score and came out with the same results. 

24. In 2018 they deployed the majority of their resources towards these corporate campaigns. These campaigns also make up the largest portion of their planned expenses for 2019, according to Sinergia Animal’s Projected Budget (2019). 

25. This range is a subjective confidence interval (SCI). An SCI is a range of values that communicates a subjective estimate of an unknown quantity at a particular confidence level (expressed as a percentage). We generally use 90% SCIs, which we construct such that we believe the unknown quantity is 90% likely to be within the given interval and equally likely to be above or below the given interval. 

26. This estimate is an SCI based on our room for more funding Guesstimate model. 

27. The method we use does calculations using Monte Carlo sampling. This means that results can vary slightly based on the sample drawn. Unless otherwise noted, we have run the calculations five times and rounded to the point needed to provide consistent results. We did this by first rounding the 5% and 95% estimates given in Guesstimate to the nearest $10,000 and then taking the most extreme of the five estimates (the highest value for an upper bound and the lowest value for a lower bound) and rounding it outwards to the next $100,000 when the numbers are in the millions and to the next $10,000 when the numbers are in the tens or hundreds of thousands. For instance, if sometimes a value appears as $2.7 million and sometimes it appears as $2.8 million, our review gives it as $2.9 million if it were an upper bound and as $2.6 million if it were a lower bound. 

28. According to Sinergia Animal’s Projected Budget (2019), they are budgeting $60,000 for this expansion. 

29. This estimate is an SCI based on our room for more funding Guesstimate model. 

30. This estimate is an SCI based on our room for more funding Guesstimate model. 

31. The percentages used in this chart are based on the mean size of each funding gap. 

32. This information can be found in Sinergia Animal’s Projected Budget (2019). 

33. This information can be found in Sinergia Animal’s Projected Budget (2019). 

34. This estimate is an SCI based on our room for more funding Guesstimate model. 

35. This estimate is an SCI based on our room for more funding Guesstimate model. 

36. Note that all estimates factor in associated supporting costs, including administrative and fundraising costs, sometimes referred to as “overhead.” We assume that these costs are evenly allocated across each intervention. 

37. We consider all seven of our evaluation criteria to be indicators of cost effectiveness. If we were able to model charities’ actual cost effectiveness with very high confidence, we would make our recommendations based heavily on our CEEs. The most cost-effective charities are, after all, the ones that allow donors to have the greatest positive impact with their donations. Even given the risks and uncertainties described above, directly estimating cost effectiveness is one of the best ways we know for identifying highly cost-effective programs. 

38. Cost-effectiveness estimates are sometimes useful for comparing different charities or interventions to one another. We develop CEEs using a consistent methodology and consistent data so that our CEEs for similar charities are meaningfully comparable. Though there are many sources of error that might influence our estimates of the effects of a given charity or intervention, most sources of error would likely apply to all models and thus are unlikely to affect comparisons between models. 

39. We find that, in some ways, the quantitative components of our evaluations are easier for our readers to interpret than the qualitative components. Assigning numbers to uncertain values allows us to be clear about the effects we expect an intervention to have, and it allows our readers to identify specific points on which they may disagree. If our evaluations were entirely qualitative in nature, it might be harder for people who disagree with us about the effectiveness of a program to pinpoint the source of their disagreement—since our qualitative statements are more open to interpretation than our quantitative ones. 

40. For more information, see Our Use of Cost-Effectiveness Estimates. 

41. Sinergia Animal provided a budget projection for 2018. After redistributing non-program related costs proportionately across their programs, we used this as an estimate for 2018 in total. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Projected Expenses (2017–2018), and ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. 

42. For more information, see ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. 

43. Sinergia Animal provided a budget projection for 2018. After redistributing non-program related costs proportionately across their programs, we used this as an estimate for 2018 in total. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Projected Expenses (2017–2018), and ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. 

44. For more information, see ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. 

45. For more information, see ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. 

46. Sinergia Animal provided a budget projection for 2018. After redistributing non-program related costs proportionately across their programs, we used this as an estimate for 2018 in total. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Projected Expenses (2017–2018), and ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. 

47. For more information, see ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. 

48. In fact, there are already sources of error and imprecision in our estimates at this point, most notably in uncertainties about how much time Sinergia Animal employees spend on each activity we have described and about how administrative and fundraising costs should be assigned to the various areas. However, the amount of error in our following estimates can be expected to be considerably greater. 

49. We use similar assumptions for each of the groups for which we perform such a calculation. Other estimates of the cost effectiveness of charities may use different assumptions and therefore may not be comparable to ours. 

50. Note that these numbers reflect our estimate of the dietary effects of Sinergia Animal’s in-person individual outreach work, and not the effects of movement building, which were not estimated. 

51. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers. This does not necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally as likely to harm animals as to help them. It might simply mean that we think—often due to uncertainty around a particular factor—that it’s possible that an intervention could have a negative effect, even if we think that’s very unlikely. 

52. These factors include the number of animals affected by corporate policy changes associated with Sinergia Animal, the extent to which Sinergia Animal worked with other groups to achieve those victories, the extent to which these policy changes are accelerated as a result, and the proportion of suffering alleviated by those policy changes. 

53. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers. This does not necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally as likely to harm animals as to help them. It might simply mean that we think—often due to uncertainty around a particular factor—that it’s possible that an intervention could have a negative effect, even if we think that’s very unlikely. 

54. To equate the proportional welfare improvements created by corporate campaigns to a figure for animals spared, we make the assumption that X% improvement is equal to X% of an animal being spared. E.g. 10 hens experiencing a 10% improvement in welfare is equal to 1 hen experiencing a 100% improvement in welfare. 

55. Guesstimate, the software we use to produce the models, performs calculations using Monte Carlo simulation. Each time the model is opened in Guesstimate, it reruns the calculations. As Monte Carlo simulation relies on a sample of randomized numbers, the results can vary slightly based on the sample drawn. Thus, in order to ensure consistency, we have run the calculations five times and rounded to the point needed to provide consistent results. For instance, if sometimes a value appears as 28 and sometimes it appears as 29, our review gives it as 30. 

56. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -2.1 to 5.3, -2.1 to 5.6, -2.2 to 4.8, -1.9 to 4.7, and -2.1 to 5.6 farmed animals spared per dollar Sinergia Animal spent. 

57. Different farmed animals are raised for different lengths of time prior to slaughter, and so only considering the “number of animals spared per dollar” does not always give a complete picture of the total amount of suffering averted. Our unit, “years of farmed animal life spared per dollar,” factors in the average length of life of each species to better quantify the amount of suffering that has been reduced. 

58. Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers. This does not necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally as likely to harm animals as to help them. It might simply mean that we think—often due to uncertainty around a particular factor—that it’s possible that an intervention could have a negative effect, even if we think that’s very unlikely. 

59. The ranges from five computations from the Guesstimate model were: -3.5 to 8.7, -3.4 to 9.6, -3.7 to 7.9, -3.1 to 7.8, and -3.7 to 9.2 farmed animals spared per dollar Sinergia Animal spent. 

60. See ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. Our estimates in this model were calculated using Sinergia Animal’s Projected Expenses (2017–2018) and Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018). 

61. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018). 

62. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018). 

63. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018). 

64. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018). 

65. See ACE’s 2018 CEE Model for Sinergia Animal. Our estimates in this model were calculated using Sinergia Animal’s Projected Budget (2019) and Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018). 

66. See, for example:

    • Animal Charity Evaluators. (2016). Models of Media Influence on Demand for Animal Products. Animal Charity Evaluators.
    • Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. B., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2013). Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.
    • Tonsor, G. T., & Olynk N. J. (2010). Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(1), 59–72.

     

67. For more information, see our Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018). 

68. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027. 

69. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027. 

70. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027. 

71. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027. 

72. When considering how well charities assess success and failure, one useful consideration is whether their goals are SMART—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Specific, well-defined goals help guide an organization’s actions, and can help them determine which areas or programs have succeeded and failed. Setting a measurable target allows organizations to determine the extent to which they’ve met their goals. It is also important that goals be plausibly achievable; goals that are predictably over- or undershot tell an organization little about how well their programs have done. Goals should be relevant to the organization’s longer-term mission, both to guide their actions and to help them evaluate success. Finally, including time limits is especially important, as it keeps a charity accountable to their expectations of success. 

73. “We will constantly investigate, research and identify new ways to be pragmatic and help farmed animals in every possible way. We therefore work with animal welfare and animal rights groups alike to maximize our influence and ultimately impact.” —Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027 

74. “In order to better understand the strategic landscape, we will be conducting research among our supporters and social media followers, such as aspirations and emerging trends – and constantly evaluating the responses from our stakeholders and our organizational strengths and vulnerabilities.” —Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027 

75. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018). 

76. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments/(2017–2018). 

77. For more information, see our Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018). 

78. “Around 75% of laying hens are held in cages in Colombia, in contrast to over 90% in Chile and Argentina. The fact that a larger supply of cage-free eggs already exists in Colombia makes our work there easier.” —Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

79. “So next year, we will do everything we can to double our budget for these two countries, have full-time consultants and more funds to make our campaigns more impactful in terms of social media, online petitions, direct actions, and media coverage. We also feel our campaigners need to be more prepared and knowledgeable, so we are currently investing much more time in training and meetings/talks. And we are also taking more time to talk to other grassroot organizations for them to join the movement and campaign with us.” —Follow-Up Questions for Sinergia Animal, Part Two (2018) 

80. One of their specific goals for 2017–2018 was to achieve 50,000 followers on social media. For more information, see Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027. 

81. “Javiera Mena, one of Chile’s most famous singers, recorded a video for Sinergia Animal talking about cruelty in the egg industry. So far, around 29,000 people have seen it on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube. The aim is to increase the number of views at all channels.” —Sinergia Animal’s Accomplishments (2017–2018) 

82. “This was achieved without even actually launching the campaign. We use the strategy of informing companies about campaigns one or two months before they are launched. This ensures fairness and transparency, as companies have the right to reply and adopt the policy before public exposure. This is also very/effective because—if successful, as in the Chilean case—we do not actually have to run a costly campaign.” —Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

83. “Carolina Macedo Galvani, Brazilian (38), President Carolina is a campaign and communications specialist in animal protection, environmental and social issues, with fifteen years of experience in research, investigation, strategic planning, mobilization, communication and movement building. She has worked in over 25 different countries as an investigative journalist and campaign adviser to several leading NGOs such as World Animal Protection, Compassion in World Farming, IFAW, GAIA and Greenpeace.” —Sinergia Animal Leadership and Staff 

84. For more information, see Sinergia Animal Leadership and Staff. 

85. See these three standards for nonprofits in the U.S. suggesting between five and seven Board Members as a minimum. 

86. There is a significant body of evidence suggesting that teams composed of individuals with different roles, tasks, or occupations are likely to be more successful than those which are more homogeneous. Increased diversity by demographic factors—such as race and gender—has more mixed effects in the literature, but gains through having a diverse team seem to be possible for organizations which view diversity as a resource (using different personal backgrounds and experiences to improve decision making) rather than solely a neutral or justice-oriented practice. 

87. Board demographic diversity in for-profit organizations has been found to be positively correlated with better financial performance. Nonprofit board diversity (in terms of occupation and age) has been found to be positively associated with better fundraising and social performance, better internal and external governance practices, as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision making. 

88. “After consulting the staff and/our Board Members, we now have our first strategic plan ready.” —Conversation with Carolina Macedo Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

89. “We want to review and improve the plan every three months, inserting more short-term goals and deadlines.” —Conversation with Carolina Macedo Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

90. “Although this is rather informal, we hope to get feedback from the board on these occasions. Once a year, we have a formal meeting where results from last year and plans for the next year are presented and/then, with the help of the board, put into a strategic plan.” —Conversation with Carolina Macedo Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

91. “What is the most effective way to can help farm animals on a global level? This question drives the vision and mission of Sinergia Animal and is the foundation of our strategic plan.” —Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027 

92. “Sinergia Animal’s vision is to help build a world where no animals have to be exploited for food. We know that this will take a major shift in societal values, habits and economic models. For this reason, we believe strategies and actions to reduce animal suffering and decrease consumption (by promoting change of habits that include reductionism, flexitarianism, vegetarianism and veganism) are needed in the short run. While we want to see a complete paradigm shift for the global consumption patterns, we need to alleviate as much suffering as possible before our vision becomes a reality.” —Sinergia Animal’s Strategic Plan 2017–2027 

93. “We also offer training to other groups on what to expect/when working in Latin America and how the environment differs from Europe or the United States.” —Conversation with Carolina Macedo Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

94. “Furthermore, we participated at the OWA’s summit in Prague this year and took their online courses, both of which have been helpful to building up an animal welfare movement in the three new countries we work in.” —Conversation with Carolina Macedo Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

95. We speak with two non-leadership staff or volunteers at each charity, except when doing so would not allow us to preserve the anonymity of our contacts (i.e., when charities have fewer than four staff members). Our selections of contacts are random in all dimensions except the following: we aim to select staff members or volunteers who have been with the organization for at least one year (when possible), and we aim to speak with at least one woman and/or person of color from each organization (when possible). To protect our contacts’ confidentiality, what we learned in these conversations is paraphrased in the review, and references to these conversations are identified only as “Private communication with an employee of [Charity], [Year].” For more information, see our blog post discussing this change, which we implemented in 2017. 

96. Sinergia did not send the survey to their third campaigner, who had been with the organization for less than a month at the time. 

97. We recognize some limitations of our culture survey. First, because participation was not mandatory, the results could be skewed by selection bias. Second, because respondents knew that their answers could influence ACE’s evaluation of their employer, they may have felt an incentive to emphasize their employers’ strengths and minimize their weaknesses. 

98. There is a significant body of evidence suggesting that teams composed of individuals with different roles, tasks, or occupations are likely to be more successful than those which are more homogeneous. Increased diversity by demographic factors—such as race and gender—has more mixed effects in the literature, but gains through having a diverse team seem to be possible for organizations which view diversity as a resource (using different personal backgrounds and experiences to improve decision making) rather than solely a neutral or justice-oriented practice. 

99. “Every new staff member also has at least 20 hours of training on corporate negotiations, social media and campaigning strategies, as well as formal training on messaging to consumers and businesses. Although we want them to be specialized in a certain type of work, we/think it is crucial that everyone understands why we act in a certain way. We believe that this helps keep the team united.” —Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

100. “Also, we encourage our national campaigners to participate in trainings offered by the Open Wing Alliance.” —Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

101. “Although we are a small organization, we try to include diversity practices. However, this is limited because our team is so small.” —Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018) 

102. For more information, see our Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018). 

103. For more information, see our Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018). 

104. “Our plan is to start fundraising from small-scale donors, although the donation culture in Latin America is not very developed. We therefore do not expect this to become a major funding source, but we nevertheless want to create a base of/small-scale donors from the region.” —Conversation with Carolina Galvani of Sinergia Animal (2018)