Sinergia Animal

How Sinergia Animal Performs on our Criteria

Interpreting our “Overall Assessments”

We provide an overall assessment of each charity’s performance on each criterion. These assessments are expressed as two series of circles. The number of teal circles represents our assessment of a charity’s performance on a given criterion relative to the other charities we evaluated this year.

The number of gray circles indicates the strength of the evidence supporting each performance assessment and, correspondingly, our confidence in each assessment relative to the other charities we evaluated this year:

Criterion 1: Programs

When we begin our evaluation process, we consider whether each charity is working in high-impact cause areas and employing effective interventions that are likely to produce positive outcomes for animals. These outcomes tend to fall under at least one of the following categories: increased availability of animal-free products, decreased consumption of animal products, improvement of welfare standards, increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values, stronger animal advocacy movement, or direct help.

Cause Areas

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

Countries of Operation

Sinergia Animal currently works in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Thailand, and Indonesia. We believe that animal advocacy in all of these countries is relatively neglected.

Interventions and Projected Outcomes

Sinergia Animal pursues different avenues for creating change for animals: They work to improve welfare standards, decrease the consumption of animal products, and strengthen the animal advocacy movement.

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

Below, we also describe the work that Sinergia Animal does.² Unless otherwise specified, we have sourced the information in this criterion from Sinergia Animal (2020c). For each intervention, we provide an assessment of how effective we think that intervention is at achieving a given outcome (weak/moderate/high).³ These assessments are based on the available evidence and are determined through a vote and discussion among our researchers. We flag assessments in which we have particularly low confidence, i.e., if we know of little or no supporting research or expert opinions.

A note about long-term impact

Each charity’s long-term impact is plausibly what matters most.⁴ The potential number of individuals affected increases over time due to population growth and an accumulation of generations of animals. Thus, we would expect that the long-term impacts of an action would be more likely to affect more animals than the short-term impacts of the same action. Nevertheless, we are highly uncertain about the particular long-term effects of each intervention. Because of this uncertainty, our reasoning about each charity’s impact (along with our diagrams) may skew toward overemphasizing short-term effects.

Improvement of welfare standards

Sinergia Animal works to improve animal welfare standards through their corporate outreach, investigations, and media outreach. This work generally seeks to make incremental improvements to the conditions in which animals live, e.g., in factory farms. For farmed animals, welfare reforms generally only result in small improvements to their living conditions. However, this is balanced by the large numbers of animals who can be impacted, and there is some evidence to suggest that farmed animal welfare reforms are likely to be very cost effective in the short term.⁵

Sinergia Animal works with corporations to adopt better animal welfare policies and ban particularly cruel farming practices. Specifically, they campaign for companies to make cage-free egg commitments. Cage-free egg systems are believed to reduce suffering by increasing the space available to hens and providing them important behavioral opportunities, although during the transition process mortality may increase, and there is some risk that it may remain elevated.⁶ We believe that campaigning for companies to make cage-free egg commitments is highly effective in improving welfare standards.

In addition, Sinergia Animal campaigns for companies to end the use of gestation crates for pigs, which is believed to reduce suffering by increasing the space available to pigs and providing them important behavioral opportunities. We believe that campaigning for companies to end the use of gestation crates for pigs is moderately effective in improving welfare standards.

Sinergia Animal conducts investigations to expose cruel practices in the animal agriculture industry, which can inform the public about welfare issues in animal farms and serve as a resource for animal advocates. Additionally, they leverage undercover investigations to garner strategic public support for their corporate outreach work. We believe that undercover investigations are highly effective in improving welfare standards.

To ensure that companies follow through with their pledges, Sinergia Animal runs a Cage-Free Tracker, which monitors companies’ progress toward their cage-free commitments. Many animal advocates are concerned that companies will fail to comply with welfare pledges; tracking their compliance allows advocacy organizations to exert pressure on companies that seem likely to fail to meet their commitments. We believe that monitoring companies’ compliance with welfare standards is highly effective in improving welfare standards.

Sinergia Animal leverages social media channels to garner strategic public support for their corporate welfare campaigns. We think that media outreach can have strategic value, especially when it supports other promising tactics such as corporate campaigns. We believe that media outreach is moderately effective in improving welfare standards.

Finally, Sinergia Animal engages in grassroots campaigns to support their corporate outreach work: They inspire and build grassroots actions to garner public support for their corporate and legislative welfare campaigns. We believe that developing grassroots actions in strategic support of corporate campaigns is moderately effective in improving welfare standards of farmed animals.

Decreased consumption of animal products

Sinergia Animal works to influence individuals to decrease their consumption of animal products through institutional meat reduction work and traditional, alternative, and social media outreach—sometimes by partnering with influencers and celebrities. Generally, there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the causal effects of different types of interventions on individual consumer behavior.⁷ Previous studies mostly rely on self-reported consumption data, which can be subject to misreporting and biases. There is a lack of empirical studies that measure the effect of interventions on observable dietary change, such as restaurant orders, food purchasing data, or biomarkers.⁸ Despite the uncertainty surrounding measuring the effectiveness of interventions on individual behavior, we think it is important for the animal advocacy movement to target at least some outreach toward individuals. We think that a shift in public consumer preferences could help drive industry changes and lead to greater support for more animal-friendly policies, and it may even be a necessary precursor to more systemic change. On the whole, however, we believe that efforts to influence public opinion are much less neglected than other types of interventions.⁹

Through their Feeding Tomorrow campaign, Sinergia Animal works with public institutions to increase the number of vegan meals served. We believe that this type of institutional campaign is highly effective in decreasing the consumption of animal-free products.

Sinergia Animal uses media outreach to support many of their programs, e.g., their investigations and corporate campaigns. There is some evidence of a weak negative correlation between media coverage of farmed animal welfare issues and demand for animal products.¹⁰ However, there is likely to be a large variation in the reach of these interventions, and it is uncertain whether they causally contribute to behavior change. We believe that media outreach is moderately effective in decreasing the consumption of animal products.

Sinergia Animal also works with celebrities and influencers to leverage social media coverage in order to build strategic public support for their corporate campaigns, which we think will also have some impact on building alliances and raising public awareness about farmed animal welfare issues. We believe with a low degree of confidence that engaging celebrities and influencers is weakly effective in decreasing the consumption of animal products.

Stronger animal advocacy movement

Working to strengthen the animal advocacy movement through capacity- and alliance-building projects can have a far-reaching impact. Capacity-building projects can help animals by increasing the effectiveness of other projects and organizations, while building alliances with key influencers, institutions, or social movements can expand the audience and impact of animal advocacy organizations and projects. ACE’s 2018 research on the way that resources are allocated between different animal advocacy interventions suggests that capacity building and building alliances are currently neglected relative to other interventions aimed at influencing public opinion and industry. Sinergia Animal’s capacity-building work involves conducting undercover investigations and engaging in community organizing.

Sinergia Animal conducts investigations in the animal agriculture industry and uses them in corporate campaigns. Investigations can inform the public about farming practices and serve as a key resource for animal advocates. We believe that investigations are highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

Sinergia Animal also maintains a network of volunteers who support actions relating to their corporate campaigns. We believe that community organizing is highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

As a member of the Open Wing Alliance (OWA), Sinergia Animal collaborates with other animal advocacy organizations on corporate campaigns. We believe that supporting other groups is highly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

Sinergia Animal builds alliances with key influencers, such as digital influencers and celebrities. This work could influence public attitudes and behaviors, thereby expanding the movement. The impact of building alliances can vary considerably depending on who the key influencers are and the kinds of decisions they can make. Overall, we believe with a low degree of confidence that building alliances with key influencers is weakly effective in strengthening the animal advocacy movement.

Criterion 2: Room for More Funding

We look to recommend work that is not just high-impact, but also scalable. Since a recommendation from us could lead to a large increase in a charity’s funding, we look for evidence that the charity will be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that the recommendation may bring in. To estimate a charity’s room for more funding, we not only consider the charity’s existing programs and potential areas for growth and expansion, but also non-monetary determinants of a charity’s growth, such as time or talent shortages.

Since we can’t predict exactly how an organization will respond upon receiving more funds than they have planned for, our estimate is speculative rather than definitive. This year, our estimates are especially uncertain, as we do not know the consequences of COVID-19 on financials. It’s possible that a charity could run out of room for funding more quickly than we expect, or that they could come up with good ways to use funding beyond what we expect. At midyear, we check in with each recommended charity about the funding they’ve received since the release of our recommendations, and we use the estimates presented below to indicate whether we still expect them to be able to effectively absorb additional funding at that point.

Financial History and Financial Sustainability

An effective charity should be financially sustainable. Charities should be able to continue raising the funds needed for their basic operations. Ideally, they should receive significant funding from multiple distinct sources, including both individual donations and other types of support. Charities should also hold a sufficient amount of reserves.

The chart below shows Sinergia Animal’s recent revenues, assets, and expenditures.¹¹ The financial information for 2019 and the first six months of 2020 was reported by the charities during this year’s evaluation process,¹² the financial information for earlier years was acquired from various sources, and the values for 2020 are estimated based on the first six months of 2020. Sinergia Animal’s revenue has grown in the past few years. They received a large donation (38% of their annual revenue) in 2019, and a large donation (42% of their annual budget) in 2020. Sinergia Animal has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of their prior recommended charity status. From 2018 to 2019, donations influenced by ACE accounted for 51% of Sinergia Animal’s total revenue. We estimate that in the first half of 2020, ACE-influenced donations may account for 37% of Sinergia Animal’s revenue.¹³ With about 93% of their current expenditures held in net assets, we believe that Sinergia Animal holds a sufficient amount of reserves.

Planned Future Expenditures

Below we list Sinergia Animal’s plans for expansion for 2021.¹⁴ For each plan, we provide an estimate of the expenditure as well as a confidence level, which indicates how confident we are that the plan can be realized in 2021.¹⁵ For staff salaries, we estimated the number of staff Sinergia Animal could hire by considering the number of existing staff they have and the number of staff they have plans to hire in 2021. For the corresponding costs, we made salary estimates based on information about the job’s seniority, type, and location using data from current and past job postings whenever possible.¹⁶ We also factored in additional costs incurred as part of the hiring process. We estimated non-staff-related costs for each charity’s plans for expansion¹⁷ based on their 2019 program expenditures;¹⁸ in some cases, we also considered Sinergia Animal’s estimations of their future expenditures¹⁹ and/or our impressions of how much the expansions would cost.²⁰ Additionally, we accounted for an estimate—based on a percentage of the charity’s current annual budget—of possible unforeseen expenditures.

Estimated Room for More Funding

We estimated Sinergia Animal’s room for more funding for 2021. For this, we relied on an estimate of their predicted revenue for 2021. Sinergia Animal has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of their prior recommended charity status, which we subtract from past values when estimating the predicted revenue. We estimate that Sinergia Animal’s revenue in 2021 will be $0.97 million or within the 90% prediction interval [$0.62M, $1.3M].²⁴ Sinergia Animal’s own prediction of their 2021 revenue ($1.3M) lies within the predicted interval.

Using our predictions of future revenue, Sinergia Animal’s room for more funding was estimated via Guesstimate. Note that when ACE estimates a charity’s room for more funding, we are estimating the amount of funding that the charity could use on top of their predicted, regular funding in the coming year.

The chart shows Sinergia Animal’s room for more funding in 2021 distributed across our three confidence levels. For donors influenced by ACE wishing to donate to Sinergia Animal, we estimate that Sinergia Animal’s room for more funding in 2021 is $0.18 million (90% prediction interval: [-$2.7k, $0.38M]) with high confidence. Overall, we have some confidence that Sinergia Animal has room for $0.43 million (90% prediction interval: [-$4.7k, $0.88M]) in additional funding in 2021. We believe that Sinergia Animal’s room for more funding relative to the size of their organization is of average size compared to the other charities we evaluated this year. We also believe that their absolute room for more funding is of average size relative to the funding we influence through our recommendations. Given the impact a recommendation may have on a charity’s funding, we base our rating of performance in this criterion on the latter assessment.

Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness

A charity’s recent cost effectiveness provides an insight into how well it has made use of its available resources and is a useful component in understanding how cost effective future donations to the charity might be. In this criterion, we take a more in-depth look at the charity’s use of resources over the past 18 months and compare that to the outcomes they have achieved in each of their main programs during that time. We have used an approach in which we qualitatively analyze a charity’s expenditures and key results, and compare them to other charities we are reviewing this year.

We categorized the charity’s programs into different outcomes—improvement of welfare standards, increased availability of animal-free products, decreased consumption of animal products, increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values, and stronger animal advocacy movement. Then, for a given outcome, we compared the charity’s key results and expenditures from January 2019 to June 2020 to other charities we evaluated in 2020, and we gave our assessment of how cost effective we think their work towards that outcome has been.

Improvement of Welfare Standards

Sinergia Animal engages in three programs that we have categorized as contributing to the improvement of welfare standards—cage-free egg campaigns and investigations in Latin America, cage-free egg campaigns and investigations in Indonesia and Thailand, and reducing suffering in neglected areas in Brazil. As the resource usage and key results of the first two programs are similar, we present results together. As the latter program is distinct, we have kept it as a separate category in our analysis.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for Sinergia Animal’s programs focused on the improvement of welfare standards, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of each program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see Sinergia Animal (2020a).

Table: Estimated number of animals affected²⁷ by corporate commitments, January 2019–June 2020

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

Sinergia Animal’s cage-free campaigns program focuses on securing commitments to improve welfare standards for farmed animals. In the past 18 months, Sinergia Animal has reported securing 26 cage-free commitments, alone and in cooperation with other groups. After factoring in the proportional responsibility that Sinergia Animal has for securing these commitments, we estimate these commitments have the potential to affect 4.4–50 million animals once implemented. A detailed analysis of these estimates can be found in this Guesstimate model.

Our estimates for the effects of corporate outreach take into account the uncertainty about the rates with which companies follow through on their commitments. In the U.S., for example, companies have made commitments often with deadlines 5–10 years after the commitment, which leaves the risk that they will not be followed through on without continued campaigning.²⁸ Sinergia Animal launched a Cage-Free Tracker program to track and follow up on cage-free commitments made by companies in Latin American countries. We believe that such efforts, especially holding companies accountable for their commitments, are very cost effective.

Sinergia Animal’s reducing suffering in neglected areas in Brazil program has also secured one commitment toward pig welfare in Brazil and conducted research for an awareness campaign on dairy cattle welfare in Brazil. In general, we expect a focus on chickens and fishes to be the most cost effective.

As part of their cage-free egg campaigns and investigation programs, Sinergia Animal conducted investigations on egg farms in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Ecuador, as well as in Indonesia and Thailand. We think that strategically connecting investigations with corporate campaigns can be cost effective.

Sinergia Animal has reported to us that in light of COVID-19, they slowed down the notices they send about new campaigns, which may lower the number of commitments they could have achieved otherwise.

Overall, we think that the cost effectiveness of Sinergia Animal’s work toward improving welfare standards seems slightly higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Decreasing Consumption of Animal Products

Sinergia Animal engages in three programs that we have categorized as contributing to decreasing consumption of animal products—Feeding Tomorrow, vegan challenges and celebrity engagement, and defunding the livestock sector. As the resource usage and key results of each program are distinct, we have kept them as separate categories in our analysis.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for Sinergia Animal’s programs focused on decreasing consumption of animal products, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of each program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see Sinergia Animal (2020a).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

Sinergia Animal’s Feeding Tomorrow program focuses on securing commitments from public and private educational institutions to serve vegan meals. In the past 18 months, they secured commitments from nine institutions, and they estimate that vegan meals will be offered to 32,600 students each week as a result. This work will directly decrease the number of animals consumed at these institutions, which will spare animals from being raised through a shift in demand. As they were one of only two evaluated charities running a similar campaign, we are particularly uncertain as to how cost effective its implementation has been. However, we think it is likely to be one of the more cost-effective approaches to reducing individual consumption of animal products. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think the cost effectiveness of Sinergia Animal’s work in their Feeding Tomorrow program seems slightly higher than the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward decreasing consumption of animal products we have evaluated this year.

Sinergia Animal has reported to us that in light of COVID-19, they have had to modify the implementation of this program toward online meetings with students, parents, and teachers, rather than their usual in-person work. It is therefore likely that this program will become more cost effective once the limitations imposed by the pandemic come to an end.

Sinergia Animal’s vegan challenges and celebrity engagement program focuses on challenging individuals to reduce their consumption of animal products. When taking an estimate of pledge days secured per dollar spent on this program, their work appears to be of similar cost effectiveness to the pledge programs of other charities we evaluated in 2020. That said, this is a somewhat simplistic quantification of cost effectiveness as it doesn’t take into account other factors such as the number of participants that follow through on the pledges. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think the cost effectiveness of Sinergia Animal’s work in their vegan challenges and celebrity engagement program seems similar to the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward decreasing consumption of animal products we have evaluated this year.

Sinergia Animal’s defunding the livestock sector program has so far secured five meetings with banks. As so few resources have gone into the program so far, we are particularly uncertain about its cost effectiveness and thus have not included any further assessment.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of Sinergia Animal’s work toward decreasing consumption of animal products seems similar to the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Increased Prevalence of Anti-Speciesist Values

Sinergia Animal engages in one program that we have categorized as contributing to an increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values—influencing public opinion.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for Sinergia Animal’s program focused on increasing the prevalence of anti-speciesist values, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of this program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see Sinergia Animal (2020a).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

Sinergia Animal’s influencing public opinion program focuses on promoting anti-speciesist values through media outlets and social media. They have appeared or been mentioned in media outlets of different countries (334 in Latin America,³⁴ 40 in Indonesia, and 51 in Thailand), which support some of their other programs, for example their cage-free campaigns and their vegan challenge, but also raise awareness about other topics—including the environmental impacts of animal agriculture and the use of antibiotics in the industry. Generally, we think that media campaigns are likely to be most cost effective when they are used to directly support other interventions the charity is engaging in. We are more uncertain about the extent to which messages regarding topics other than animal suffering can increase the prevalence of anti-speciesist values.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of Sinergia Animal’s work toward increasing the prevalence of anti-speciesist values seems similar to the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Stronger Animal Advocacy Movement

Sinergia Animal engages in two programs that we have categorized as contributing to strengthening the animal advocacy movement—investigations and building synergies to fight all forms of oppression. As the resource usage and key results of each program are distinct, we have kept them as separate categories in our analysis.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for Sinergia Animal’s programs focused on strengthening the animal advocacy movement, January 2019–June 2020. In this section, we have only included what we believe are the key results of these programs. For a full list of results and resource usage, see Sinergia Animal (2020a).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

Building a stronger animal advocacy movement encompasses a broad category of outcomes for animals that are typically indirect, and as such, it is difficult to make an assessment of their cost effectiveness. In the past 18 months, Sinergia Animal’s investigations program has published three investigations and launched a media center to make investigation resources available for others to use. As they were only one of two evaluated charities that reported running an investigations program, we are particularly uncertain of the cost effectiveness of the implementation of this program. Sinergia Animal reports that this program has been affected by COVID-19. Since fieldwork is on hold, they could not conduct four additional investigations they were planning to conduct this year.³⁸ Their media center seems to be a cost-effective way to make investigation resources in neglected countries available for animal advocates to use. When taking a long-term view, building a stronger animal advocacy movement in countries that do not yet have an established movement may be particularly cost effective.

Sinergia Animal’s program on building synergies to fight all forms of oppression focuses on building alliances with other animal advocacy organizations and other social movements. This program was launched in 2020; as the program is so new, we are particularly uncertain about its cost effectiveness, and thus have not included any further assessment.

Overall, we think Sinergia Animal’s work toward strengthening the animal advocacy movement seems slightly higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Criterion 4: Track Record

Information about a charity’s track record can help us predict the charity’s future activities and accomplishments, which is information that cannot always be incorporated into our other criteria. An organization’s track record is sometimes a pivotal factor when our analysis otherwise finds limited differences between two charities.

In this section, we evaluate each charity’s track record of success by considering some of the key results that they have accomplished prior to 2019.³⁹ For charities that operate in more than one country, we consider how they have expanded internationally.

Overview

Sinergia Animal was founded in 2017. As a newly formed organization, their track record is relatively short. Since their foundation, they have been working on their Corporate Outreach, Influencing Public Opinion, Celebrity Engagement, and Volunteer Engagement programs. In particular, they are building a strong track record of success in achieving corporate cage-free commitments and corporate commitments to stop using pig gestation crates. They have been working on their investigations programs since 2018.

Key Results Prior to 2019⁴⁰

Below is a summary of Sinergia Animal’s programs’ key results prior to 2019, ordered by program duration (with the longest-running programs listed first). These results were reported to us by Sinergia Animal, and we were not able to corroborate all their reports.⁴¹ We do not expect charities to fabricate accomplishments, but we do think it’s important to be transparent about which outcomes are reported to us and which we have corroborated or verified independently. Unless indicated otherwise, the following key results are based on information provided by Sinergia Animal (2020c).

Note that many of these results have been achieved in collaboration with other organizations and individuals.

International Expansion

We think that expanding internationally can be a way for effective charities to increase their impact. By introducing effective programs into countries where similar work is not being done—or where similar work is being implemented relatively ineffectively—those charities can expand their audience and impact. That said, international expansion needs to be handled thoughtfully; in addition to the strategic value of expanding to a new country, charities should consider the linguistic, social, political, economic, and cultural factors that could pose challenges. We think that charities should work carefully with local activists⁴⁶ during any expansions and that organizations founded in Western countries should consider the historical effects of colonialism in their expansion to non-Western countries.

Sinergia Animal was founded in Brazil in 2017. They expanded to Chile, Colombia, and Argentina in 2017, and to Thailand and Indonesia in 2019. They prioritize expanding into countries in the “Global South” that have relatively neglected animal advocacy movements and have large numbers of farmed animals.⁴⁷

Sinergia Animal reports that they have one or two international directors for each program.⁴⁸ During weekly meetings, they make decisions together on how to implement and run programs in the different countries where Sinergia Animal operates with locally adapted messaging and culturally sound strategies. The international CEO reviews progress and makes recommendations. Also, all subsidiaries work with lawyers to help them understand the local context and fully respect national legislation. Note that Sinergia Animal’s subsidiaries have no independent boards; they have only one international Advisory Board, and all staff members are invited to participate in their regular meetings. Sinergia Animal reports that they are considering improving board diversity and having more national-focused strategies.⁴⁹

Overall, we think that Sinergia Animal has been strategic in their international expansion by focusing on neglected regions, but they might have expanded too quickly to other countries; they expanded to three countries the same year of their foundation. We are concerned that expanding too quickly can spread attention and resources too thin. Although they consult with local lawyers about the legal context of the countries where they operate, the cultural context seems overlooked. Because of the hierarchical structure of their international work, there seems to be a lack of autonomy of the subsidiaries, both financially and in terms of decision-making, strategy, and direction. We hope that Sinergia Animal gives more autonomy to their subsidiaries to make decisions about programs in their local context in the future.

Criterion 5: Leadership and Culture

Leadership directly affects an organization’s culture, performance, and effectiveness. Strongly-led charities are likely to have a healthy organizational culture that enables their core work. We collect information about each charity’s internal operations in several ways. We ask leadership to describe the culture they try to foster, as well as potential areas of improvement. We review each charity’s human resource policies and check that they include those we believe are important. We also send a culture survey to the staff of each charity.^{50, 51}

Key Leadership

In this section, we describe each charity’s key leadership and assess some of their strengths and weaknesses.

Leadership staff

• Chief Executive Officer (CEO): Carolina Galvani, involved in the organization for three years
• Global Campaigns Director: Lúcia Gomes, involved in the organization for one year
• Global Communications Director: Aline Baroni, involved in the organization for one year
• Global Corporate Engagement Director: Diamela Covarrubias, involved in the organization for three years
• Global Director, Food Policy and Animal Welfare: Fernanda Vieira, involved in the organization for nine months

All respondents to our culture survey agreed that Sinergia Animal’s leadership is attentive to the organization’s strategy. In comments, respondents emphasized that all staff can contribute to the planning process. All respondents agreed that their leadership promotes internal transparency, and 95% agreed that they promote external transparency. Some respondents commented that staff can often contribute to decision-making and that a lot of information is provided to donors.

Recent leadership transitions

Sinergia Animal did not have a transition in leadership recently. Their current CEO, Carolina Galvani, has been in the position since the organization’s foundation in 2017.

Board of Directors

Sinergia Animal’s board consists of 10 advisory board members. However, Sinergia Animal lacks a governance board that oversees leadership, which we consider to be a weakness.

Members of Sinergia Animal’s Board of Advisors

• Eduarda Nedeff: Director of Corporate Engagement at Mercy For Animals
• Lasse Bruun: Executive Director at 50by40, has a background in leading environmental and animal rights projects and campaigns
• Joanna Grossman: lobbyist and head of the equine program at the Animal Welfare Institute, has a Ph.D. and a background on legislation that impacts animal welfare
• Kirsty McCalden: has an academic background in animal behavior and welfare and psychology
• Lawrence Yeh: quality systems specialist in the medical device industry
• Mandy Carter: Global Senior Campaigns Manager at Compassion in World Farming International
• Mitchell Amman: has a background in corporate insurance/risk management, finance, strategic planning, and engineering
• Neta Rosenthal: Project Manager at the Modern Agriculture Foundation, Director of Challenge 22 at Animals Now, and certified translator
• Saga Gardevärn: founding partner at Blackwater group and Founder at TEDxMalmö, has a background in public event management, sponsor relations, marketing, and animal welfare nonprofits
• Taís Toledo: Outreach Manager at Animal Equality Brazil, attorney with a background in volunteer coordination

About 90% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that Sinergia Animal’s board supports the organization in achieving its strategic vision. In comments, respondents emphasized that the board is very engaged in Sinergia’s work.

We believe that boards whose members represent occupational and viewpoint diversity are likely most useful to a charity, since they can offer a wide range of perspectives and skills. There is some evidence suggesting that nonprofit board diversity is positively associated with better fundraising and social performance⁵² and better internal and external governance practices,⁵³ as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision-making.⁵⁴ Sinergia Animal’s advisory board is composed of individuals with diverse occupational backgrounds and experiences. We consider the advisory board’s relative occupational diversity to be a strength.

Policies and Benefits

Here we present a list of policies that, if properly drafted and enforced, we find to be beneficial for fostering a healthy culture. A green mark indicates that Sinergia Animal has such a policy and a red mark indicates that they do not. A yellow mark indicates that the organization has a partial policy, an informal or unwritten policy, or a policy that is not fully or consistently implemented. We do not expect a given charity to have all of the following policies, but we believe that, generally, having more of them is better than having fewer.

Culture and Morale

A charity with a healthy culture acts responsibly toward all stakeholders: staff, volunteers, donors, beneficiaries, and others in the community. According to Sinergia Animal’s leadership, their organizational culture consists of a compassionate, innovative, and empowering workplace where people feel happy, feel they fully belong, and are valued and respected.

The survey we distributed supports leadership’s claim that Sinergia Animal’s culture is overall positive. Respondents noted in an open-response box that work at Sinergia Animal is rewarding and that there is a great work environment and strong leadership. A few common adjectives that respondents used to describe Sinerga Animal’s communication style were “collaborative,” “kind,” “friendly,” “effective,” “efficient,” or similar.

According to our culture survey, Sinergia Animal has an overall level of employee engagement higher than the average of charities under review.

Sinergia Animal does not have a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, about 90% agreed with the statement that their compensation is adequate. Sinergia Animal offers 25 days of paid time off, paid sick days, and personal leave. About 90% of respondents agreed that these paid benefits provided are sufficient. Some respondents mentioned that pay is higher than other organizations working in those areas or that they have flexible working hours, while some mentioned that they do not have health insurance. Sinergia Animal reports that employees have clearly defined essential functions for all positions and regularly evaluate performance. However, 29% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that the system of staff performance evaluation needs to be changed or improved upon. Staff saw room for improvement once an HR person is hired.

Sinergia Animal distributed a first culture survey for their staff and expects to conduct feedback surveys every three or four months. They have identified the following areas for improvement: job security and HR policies.

Overall, we think that Sinergia Animal’s staff satisfaction and morale are higher than the average charity we evaluated this year.

Representation/Diversity,⁵⁵ Equity, and Inclusion⁵⁶

One important part of acting responsibly toward stakeholders is providing a representative/diverse,⁵⁷ equitable, and inclusive work environment. Charities that have a healthy attitude toward representation/diversity, equity, and inclusion (R/DEI) seek and retain staff and volunteers from different backgrounds. Among other things, inclusive work environments should also provide necessary resources for employees with disabilities, protect all team members from harassment and discrimination, and require regular trainings on topics such as equity and inclusion, in conjunction with year-round efforts to address R/DEI throughout all areas of the organization.

All staff that participated in our culture survey agreed that Sinergia Animal has members from diverse backgrounds. Sinergia Animal made an effort to increase representation/diversity through their recruitment process (i) by working with an agency in Brazil called Indique Uma Preta (translation: “Recommend a Black Woman”) to fulfill two positions and (ii) by leadership participating in workshops and other events about R/DEI.

In our culture survey, some respondents mentioned that leadership could offer R/DEI training to be more inclusive or to better support staff who are members of marginalized groups.⁵⁸

Sinergia Animal supports R/DEI through their human resource activities. Sinergia Animal does not have a workplace code of ethics/conduct, but they have a written statement that they do not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other characteristics. Sinergia Animal has a written procedure for filing complaints and explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment⁵⁹ or discrimination.⁶⁰ In our culture survey, all respondents agreed that Sinergia Animal protects staff, interns, and volunteers from harassment and discrimination in the workplace, and they also agreed that they have someone to go to in case of harassment or other problems at work. However, our culture survey suggests that Sinergia AnimaI’s staff experienced or witnessed some harassment or discrimination in the workplace during the past year, similarly to the average charity under review. Since staff feel protected from harrassment and discrimination, and Sinergia Animal seems to have systems in place to prevent and handle harrassment and discrimination in the workplace, we are not highly concerned about this finding.

Sinergia Animal offers regular trainings on topics such as harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In our culture survey, 81% of staff agree that they and their colleagues have been sufficiently trained in matters of R/DEI. Some respondents commented that an upcoming training is scheduled. We believe that the opportunities for the team to learn about R/DEI at Sinergia Animal are sufficient.

Overall, we believe that Sinergia Animal is more diverse, equitable, and inclusive than the average charity we evaluated this year.

Criterion 6: Strategy

Charities with a clear and well-developed strategy are more likely to be successful at setting and achieving their goals. In this section, we describe and assess each charity’s strategic vision and mission, plan, and planning process.

Given our commitment to finding the most effective ways to help nonhuman animals, we assess the extent to which the charity’s strategic vision is aligned with this commitment. We believe that their strategic planning should clearly connect the charity’s overall vision to their more immediate goals. Additionally, we assess the extent to which their strategic planning process incorporates the views of all their staff and board members and whether the frequency of this process is adequate, given the nature of their work. There are many different approaches to strategic planning, and often an approach that is well suited for one organization may not work well for others. Thus, in this section, we are not looking for a particular approach to strategy. Instead, we assess how well the organization’s approach to strategy works in their context.

Strategic Vision

Sinergia Animal’s vision: “[A] world where nobody needs to be hurt for food production”

Strategic Position in the Movement

We asked Sinergia Animal how they see their organization’s work fitting into the overall animal advocacy movement. They report that they aim to focus on movement building in countries where animal advocacy is relatively neglected and to support building a movement that is more representative of global majorities. In particular, they mention low- and middle-income countries in the Global South.

Strategic Plan and Planning Process

Type(s) of plan: Ten-year strategic plans

Leadership staff’s role: Leadership creates the strategic plan according to their vision, mission, and theory of change, and they incorporate feedback.

Board of directors’ role: The board can give feedback on a preliminary version of the strategic plan.

Non-leadership staff’s role: Non-leadership staff can give feedback on a preliminary version of the strategic plan.

Contents of plan: Sinergia Animal’s strategic plan includes high-level strategy to analyze how their program work contributes to achieving their vision. As part of this analysis, their plan features an outline of the problem they are working to address, a theory of change, and a discussion of the strategy behind future initiatives. Additionally, they address their internal structure—e.g., fundraising—in their plan.

Goal Setting and Monitoring

Sinergia Animal includes specific goals in their strategic plan. Goals are adapted and monitored monthly by the board of directors and CEO. Sinergia Animal does not hold retrospective meetings—i.e., postmortems—following major projects.

Our Assessment

We support Sinergia Animal’s choice to focus on farmed animal welfare because we consider animal agriculture to be one of the most promising areas for doing the most good for animals, other things being equal. We think that they have a clear notion of how they fit into the wider animal advocacy movement, particularly on a global scale, and that this is reflected in their strategic decision to focus on neglected countries in the Global South. Their strategic plan seems thorough, featuring high-level strategy that explains why each program is important and how they all interrelate, as well as future projections for the direction of each program and considerations about their internal structure. Given the relative youth of the organization and the variable nature of their work, we are uncertain whether having a strategic plan that extends to ten years is adding much value when compared to a three-year or five-year plan. Their goal setting appears to be carried out well and monitored frequently. However, we think they could benefit from conducting retrospective meetings following major projects. Overall, we think Sinergia Animal’s approach to strategy is average compared to other evaluated charities, given the context in which they operate and the type of work they do.

Criterion 7: Adaptability

A charity’s self-assessment should inform their decisions. This will aid them in retaining and strengthening successful programs and modifying or discontinuing less successful programs, and will enable them to see if or when it is necessary to change their organizational structures. When such systems of improvement work well, all stakeholders benefit: Leadership is able to refine their strategy, staff better understand the purpose of their work, and donors can be more confident in the impact of their donations.

We have identified the following examples of how Sinergia Animal has adapted to success and failure:

Sinergia Animal reports that they are taking measures to increase their financial stability.⁶¹ While their focus is on the Global South, they diversified their programs, which reportedly attracted more large donors. They also identified their need to build larger reserves and started communicating this more directly to donors.

Sinergia Animal reports that they faced some struggles with engaging their staff in strategic matters.⁶² They previously encouraged staff to read their strategic plan but noticed that not many of them did so. They responded by allocating more capacity to the communication of their mission and goals to staff, and they increased the independence with which staff can set goals themselves. They also introduced a formal feedback system that allows all staff to give feedback on a regular basis.

Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected Sinergia Animal, mainly in their ability to secure commitments through corporate and institutional outreach.⁶³ Corporate outreach for cage-free commitments had to pause offline activities, and more focus has been given to video conferences. They have avoided launching new pressure campaigns during the pandemic, and they are generally using a friendlier approach. Similarly, their institutional meat reduction outreach in Colombia had to pause in-person meetings. Field work such as investigations also had to be paused. Sinergia Animal reports that they did some media outreach regarding zoonotic diseases and antibiotic resistance, and they plan to put more focus on these topics after the pandemic. Sinergia Animal also reported on how they are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in a piece published on ACE’s blog.

Overall, we believe that Sinergia Animal is just as able as the average charity evaluated this year to adequately respond to success and failure.

---

1. Note that we are never 100% confident in the effectiveness of a particular charity or intervention, so three gray circles do not necessarily imply that we are as confident as we could possibly be. 

2. We acknowledge that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has impacted each charity’s programs in various ways. This impact is addressed in Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness. 

3. We consider an intervention to be weakly effective if we believe it is unlikely to have a positive impact on the relevant outcome. We consider an intervention to be moderately effective if we believe it has some positive impact on the relevant outcome, though relatively less than other interventions. We consider an intervention to be highly effective if we believe it has a clear positive impact on the relevant outcome.  

4. For arguments supporting the view that the most important consideration of our present actions should be their impact in the long term, see Greaves & MacAskill (2019) and Beckstead (2019). 

5. Šimčikas (2019b); Capriati (2018) 

6. Cotra (2017) 

7. See Bianchi et al. (2018) for a review of the literature. 

8. See Peacock (2018) for more information on the topic. 

9. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018) 

10. See, for example, Animal Charity Evaluators (2016), Tiplady et al. (2013), and Tonsor & Olynk (2011). 

11. Sinergia Animal was founded in 2017. We show data for the last three years. 

12. Sinergia Animal (2020a) 

13. For further details, see our 2017 Giving Metrics Report, 2018 Giving Metrics Report, and 2019 Giving Metrics Report. At the time of writing this review, our 2020 Giving Metrics Report is not yet published.  

14. We do not list any expansions beyond what the charity itself plans to implement. We acknowledge that charities may differ in how ambitious their reported plans are independent of what they can realize. Such a difference in reporting could bias our estimates of the room for more funding. To counteract such a bias, we first ask all charities not only for the expansions they already planned for 2021, but also which expansions they would plan if their budget would increase by 50%—they report these responses in Sinergia Animal (2020a). Second, we indicate our confidence in whether the charities’ expansion plans could actually be realized. We refer to our evaluation of the effectiveness of Sinergia Animal’s programs for an assessment of the effectiveness of their planned expansions. 

15. For staff expenditure and any non-staff expenditure that is scalable with staff, we estimate confidence levels based on our researchers’ joint assessment of how feasible it is to hire a certain number of staff dependent on the organization’s current size. 

16. For estimating the salary of a given role, we used the following sources of information in order of priority: current and past job postings by that charity, current and past job postings by similar charities, seniority and type of job, and average wages in the country of hire. 

17. Sinergia Animal (2020a) 

18. Sinergia Animal (2020c) 

19. Sinergia Animal (2020a) 

20. Note that our cost estimates for non-staff expansions account for the partial correlation between costs for new staff and non-staff costs that involve staff.  

21. The column shows 90% confidence intervals assuming normal distributions for all variables, except for potential additional expenditure, for which we assume a log-normal distribution.  

22. For staff expenditure and any non-staff expenditure that is scalable with staff, we indicate the proportion of the charity’s expansion plans that we are highly confident they’ll be able to achieve, the proportion we are moderately confident they’ll be able to achieve, and the proportion we have low confidence in. We generally have high confidence that reserves can be replenished if funds are available, and low confidence in the amount of unexpected expenditures the charity may have. 

23. This is an estimate to account for additional expenditures beyond what has been specifically outlined in this model. This parameter reflects our uncertainty as to whether the model is comprehensive and constitutes a range from 1%–20% of the charity’s total projected 2020 expenditures. 

24. We assume a linear trend in revenue. The prediction interval allows for a variation of +/-50% around the growth rate we estimated for the change in revenue from 2018 to 2020. 

25. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

26. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

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

28. For more information, see Šimčikas (2019a) and Open Philanthropy (2019). 

29. Sinergia Animal reported to us that the total student population of these 9 institutions is 32,600. The largest institution accounts for 20,000 students. Six of the nine institutions have student populations of 400 or fewer (the smallest has 150).  

30. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

31. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

32. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

33. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

34. For the list of 2020 media publications in Argentina, Colombia, and Chile, see this spreadsheet, and for 2019 media publications, see this spreadsheet. 

35. This claim has been verified. 

36. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

37. To estimate their expenditures, we took their reported expenditures for this program and added a portion of their general non-program expenditures weighted by the size of this program compared to their other programs. This allowed us to incorporate their general organizational running costs into our consideration of their cost effectiveness. All estimates are rounded to two significant figures. 

38. Sinergia Animal (2020c) 

39. For more recent achievements (2019–2020), see Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness. 

40. For more recent achievements (2019–2020), see Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness. 

41. While we are able to verify some types of claims (e.g., those about public events that appear in the news), others are harder to corroborate. For instance, it is often difficult for us to verify whether a charity worked behind the scenes to obtain a corporate commitment or the extent to which that charity was responsible for obtaining the commitment. 

42. For the list of commitments, see Sinergia Animal (2020c). 

43. Sinergia Animal (2020c) reports that they have reached 3 million people with these ads. 

44. For the list of articles, see Sinergia Animal (2020c). 

45. Sinergia Animal (2020c) reports that these investigations were published in 2019. 

46. We recommend that charities refrain from taking a leading role in the countries they expand to and instead take on a more supportive role of the local movement, e.g., by sharing skills and providing funding to local groups. 

47. Sinergia Animal (2020c) 

48. Sinergia Animal (2020b) 

49. Sinergia Animal (2020b) 

50. We distributed our culture survey to Sinergia Animal’s 25 team members and 21 responded, yielding a response rate of 84%. 

51. We recognize at least two major limitations of our culture survey. First, because participation was not mandatory, the results could be affected 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. 

52. Siciliano (1996) 

53. Buse et al. (2016) 

54. Brown (2003) 

55. ACE uses the term “representation/diversity, equity, and inclusion (R/DEI)” in place of the more commonly used “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).” While we acknowledge that the terms “diversity” and “DEI” are in the public lexicon, as the concepts have become popularized, “diversity” has lost the impact of its original meaning. The term is often conflated with “cosmetic diversity,” or diversity for the sake of public appearances. We believe that “representation” better expresses the commitment to accurately reflect—or represent—society’s demographics at large.  

56. Our goal in this section is to evaluate whether each charity has a healthy attitude toward representation/diversity, equity, and inclusion. We do not directly evaluate the demographic characteristics of their employees.  

57. We use the terms “representation” and “diversity” broadly in this section to refer to the diversity of certain social identity characteristics (called “protected classes” in some countries), such as race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender or gender expression, sexual orientation, pregnancy or parental status, marital status, national origin, citizenship, amnesty, veteran status, political beliefs, age, ability, or genetic information. 

58. Sinergia Animal’s leadership noted that training was offered during a past retreat and that they have a further workshop booked in 2020. 

59. In the culture survey we included the following definition of harassment: “Harassment can be non-sexual or sexual in nature. Non-sexual harassment refers to unwelcome conduct—including physical, verbal, and nonverbal behaviors—that upsets, demeans, humiliates, intimidates, or threatens an individual or group. Harassment may occur in one incident or many. Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other physical, verbal, and nonverbal behaviors of a sexual nature when (i) submission to such conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; (ii) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the targeted individual; or (iii) such conduct has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” 

60. In the culture survey we included the following definition of discrimination: “Discrimination is the differential treatment of or hostility toward an individual on the basis of certain characteristics (called “protected classes” in some countries), such as race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender or gender expression, sexual orientation, pregnancy or parental status, marital status, national origin, citizenship, amnesty, veteran status, age, ability, genetic information, or any other factor that is legislatively protected in the country in which the individual works. ACE extends its definition of discrimination to include the differential treatment of or hostility toward anyone based on any characteristics outside of one’s professional qualifications—such as socioeconomic status, body size, dietary preferences, political views or affiliation, or other belief- or identity-based expression.” 

61. Sinergia Animal (2020b) 

62. Sinergia Animal (2020b) 

63. Sinergia Animal (2020c)