Sinergia Animal

Programs

In this criterion, we assess the expected effectiveness of charities’ programs without considering their particular achievements. (For more information on recent program costs and achievements, see the Cost Effectiveness criterion.) During our assessment, we analyze the groups of animals the charity’s programs affect, the countries in which they take place, the outcomes they work toward, and the interventions they use to achieve those outcomes, as well as how the charity allocates their spending toward different programs. A charity that performs well on this criterion has programs that are expected to be highly effective in reducing the suffering of animals. The key aspects that ACE considers when examining a charity’s programs are reviewed in detail below.

Method

ACE characterizes effective programs as those that (i) target high-priority animal groups, (ii) work in high-priority countries, (iii) work toward high-priority outcomes, and/or (iv) pursue interventions that are expected to be highly effective. This year, we used a scoring framework to assess the effectiveness of charities’ programs on each of these categories: animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions.

We scored the priority levels of different types of animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions (i.e., categories) using the Scale, Tractability, and Neglectedness (STN) framework; for countries, we also included an assessment of global influence. Members of ACE’s research team individually scored various types in each category using their own percentage weights for STN. We averaged these scores and percentage weights to calculate an overall priority level score for each type. For ease of interpretation, we categorized these scores into priority levels of very low, low, moderate, high, and very high.

We then used information supplied by the charity to estimate the percentage of program funding spent on different types of animal groups, countries, outcomes, and interventions. Using those estimates and our priority level scores, we arrived at a singular program score for each charity, representing the expected effectiveness of their collective programs.

A note about long-term impact

Each charity’s long-term impact is plausibly what matters most.⁷ The potential number of animals affected increases over time due to an accumulation of generations. Thus, we would expect that the long-term impacts of an action would likely affect more animals than the short-term impacts of the same action. This year, we included some considerations of long-term impact in our assessment of each outcome and intervention type. 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) will skew toward emphasizing short-term effects.

Information and Analysis

Cause areas and animal groups

Sinergia Animal’s programs focus exclusively on helping farmed animals, which we think is a high-priority cause area.

Countries

Sinergia Animal’s headquarters are currently located in Austria. They have one subsidiary in Brazil and teams of international consultants and volunteers working in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Indonesia, and Thailand.

Sinergia Animal mainly develops their programs in Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru. A few of their programs target companies or banks in Latin America and elsewhere, and some of their work has a more international scope.

For each country, we report Mercy For Animals’ FAOI data and global ranking (out of 60 countries) for scale, tractability, and global influence. We report these scores alongside the human population per farmed animal advocacy organization in the country (out of a total of 753 organizations, excluding sanctuaries, that ACE is aware of worldwide), which we used to assess neglectedness.

Most of these countries are low priority based on their FAOI data on tractability (Indonesia, Brazil, Thailand, Argentina, Colombia, and Peru) and very low priority based on their FAOI data on global influence (Indonesia, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay, and Peru). Based on their FAOI data on scale, most of these countries are moderate priority (Brazil and Indonesia) or low priority (Thailand, Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, and Peru). Additionally, our assessment suggests that farmed animal advocacy in Indonesia, Thailand, and Brazil is highly neglected. Overall, we conclude that most of Sinergia Animal’s work targets moderate-priority countries.

Description of programs

Sinergia Animal pursues different outcomes to create change for animals. Their work focuses on improving welfare standards, and to a lesser extent, also aims to increase the availability of animal-free products, strengthen the animal advocacy movement, and decrease the consumption of animal products.

We use theory of change diagrams to communicate our interpretation of how a charity creates change for animals. 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 describe each of Sinergia Animal’s programs and the main interventions they use, listed in order of financial resources devoted to them in the last 18 months (from highest to lowest). Refer to Sinergia Animal’s general information request and our Cost Effectiveness criterion for more detailed information.

Sinergia Animal’s programs

Research for intervention effectiveness

We categorized the work Sinergia Animal does into nine intervention types: corporate outreach, legal or policy work, investigations, individual outreach, producer outreach, institutional (or corporate) vegan outreach, research, investor outreach, and media (or celebrity/influencer) outreach. Below, we summarize the most relevant research on the effectiveness of each of these intervention types (except for investor outreach, for which we did not find relevant literature), listed in order of financial resources devoted to them in the last 18 months (from highest to lowest).

Corporate outreach

There is some evidence that corporate outreach leads food companies to change their practices related to chicken welfare, and there are some cost-effectiveness estimates suggesting corporate outreach improves the welfare standards of farmed chickens.⁸ Cost-effectiveness estimates vary widely, and it is unclear which is the most accurate. The longer-term effects of improving welfare standards on the production and consumption of animal products are unclear.

Research suggests that the follow-through rate of cage-free corporate commitments ranges from 48%–84% and that corporate campaigns affect nine to 120 hen-years per dollar spent.⁹ Cage-free housing systems are believed to reduce suffering by increasing the space available to egg-laying hens and providing them opportunities to perform important behaviors, although mortality may increase during the transition process, and there is some risk that it may remain elevated. However, more recent research suggests that mortality and injuries are associated with operators’ lack of experience with the new system and should decline over time.¹⁰

ACE’s research suggests that if corporations follow through on their cage-free commitments, cage-free corporate outreach is likely to positively affect hen welfare because cage-free systems are higher-welfare than battery cage systems.

Although we are not aware of any cost-effectiveness estimates on corporate campaigns for pigs, we generally expect these campaigns to affect fewer animals than chickens or fishes. We recognize that they may build momentum to implement welfare improvements for other animals, and that they can be particularly effective in a country or region.

There are some concerns that companies will fail to comply with corporate commitments.¹¹ Tracking companies’ compliance can allow organizations to exert pressure on companies that seem likely to fail to meet their commitments.

Legal or policy work

Available evidence suggests that legal work by animal advocacy organizations can contribute to changes and modifications in the law, help ensure law enforcement, and motivate cultural shifts in societal attitudes toward animal welfare. The success of this legal work requires that such laws have a positive impact on the welfare of animals and that the work those organizations do contributes to the introduction of those laws. While legal change may take longer to achieve than some other forms of change, we expect its effects to be particularly long-lasting.

Investigations

A study on the Australian public’s reaction to investigative footage of cows broadcasted in the media concluded that they were emotionally affected, but that did not translate to significant behavioral change.¹² A later study on the same footage concluded that many people who view animal cruelty footage will have a long-term memory of it, but would still prefer to be informed about the issues rather than protected from them.¹³ Another study examining the impact of an Australian media campaign—which exposed animal cruelty during the live export of sheep—found no apparent difference in people’s concern for sheep or cow welfare, attitudes toward animal agriculture, acceptance of the meat industry, or trust in meat farmers, after the media campaign.¹⁴

Individual outreach

Existing research suggests that the effectiveness of interventions addressing consumers’ knowledge and emotions about decreasing meat consumption depends on three factors: (i) whether information is provided on health, animal welfare, or environmental effects; (ii) whether information is emotionally or cognitively framed; and (iii) whether information is aligned with consumers’ information needs.¹⁵ Some evidence suggests that a combination of information on the health and environmental effects of meat consumption appears to be the most effective, especially for individuals who already believe in those effects.¹⁶

Evidence also suggests that interventions appealing to animal welfare are generally effective at reducing meat consumption, purchase, or related intentions—at least in the short term.¹⁷ Triggering emotions (e.g., empathy, guilt, or disgust) seems to be even more effective at reducing meat consumption than providing facts, and intervention effectiveness can depend on the animal species being targeted.¹⁸ Note that most studies focus on the short-term effects of interventions on individual attitudes and intentions, and studies that measure consumption mostly rely on self-reported consumption data, which can be subject to misreporting and biases.

An experiment found that social media posts ​​reduced self-reported animal product consumption by meat-avoiders (i.e., reducetarians, pescetarians, and vegetarians) but did not affect full meat-eaters.¹⁹

Some empirical studies indicate that self-monitoring—a key part of taking a vegan pledge—reduces meat consumption, at least in the short term.²⁰ Other studies suggest that some participants adopt a more plant-based diet for several months after engaging with a pledge.²¹ However, an experimental study found a reduction in meat consumption during the challenge but not after it.²²

Producer outreach

We are not currently aware of any peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of producer outreach to improving animal welfare standards. However, a literature review suggests that increasing farmers’ knowledge of farmed animal welfare is an important factor to influence their views on farmed animal welfare.²³ The review also suggests that the economic disadvantages of implementing farmed animal welfare are a major influencing factor in farmers’ views and behaviors to improve animal welfare.

Institutional (or corporate) vegan outreach

We are not currently aware of any peer-reviewed research on influencing the availability of animal-free products through institutional outreach. However, we could learn from studies that investigate the effectiveness of institutional outreach to hospitals and schools on increasing the availability of “healthy foods” (specifically fruits, vegetables, and whole grains). Reaching out to nonprofit institutions with the effective strategies identified in these studies has the potential to increase the availability of animal-free foods, considering the high participation and success rates in health food outreach to schools and hospitals. Some of these strategies included working with the local hospital association and hospital workers’ unions to encourage participation in the intervention, enlisting in-depth assistance from dietitians, and providing advice on how to incorporate new standards into existing operations.

There is some evidence that increasing the availability of animal-free products in institutions can decrease the consumption of animal products. A literature review concluded that increasing the visibility and variety of vegetarian options in food environments decreases meat consumption.²⁴ The review also suggested that increasing the portion sizes of vegetable dishes in restaurants or canteens (and reducing meat portions) increases vegetable consumption and decreases meat consumption.

Research

Conducting research relevant to animal advocacy is a generally promising intervention, especially when considering its potential effects in the longer term. Due to the lack of empirical evidence about the extent to which research results are used by the animal advocacy movement to prioritize and implement their work, our confidence in the short-term effects of this intervention is low. We think the impact of research has a particularly high variance; some research projects can be far more influential than others, and researchers’ rigor seems to be a key factor in their impact. Considering an overview of issues in the research system related to the choice of research questions, the quality and reproducibility of research, and the use of results may be particularly important when determining the impact of research projects.²⁵

Media (or celebrity/influencer) outreach

An experiment found that reading news articles about farmed animal welfare reduced self-reported animal product consumption in meat-avoiders (e.g., reducetarians, pescetarians, and vegetarians) but not meat-eaters.²⁶ A previous study suggests that media attention to animal welfare has a small but statistically significant impact on meat demand.²⁷

Room for More Funding

A recommendation from ACE could lead to a large increase in a charity’s funding. In this criterion, we investigate whether a charity would be able to absorb and effectively utilize funding that a new or renewed recommendation may bring in. Our assessment of this criterion ultimately guides our recommendation decision; charities are ineligible to receive a particular recommendation status if they would be unable to absorb and effectively utilize the subsequent funding. All descriptive data and estimations for this criterion can be found in the RFMF model spreadsheet.

Method

We begin our room for more funding (RFMF) assessment by inspecting the charity’s revenue and plans for expansion through 2024, assuming that their ACE recommendation status and the amount of ACE-influenced funding they receive will stay the same. Then, we outline how the charity would likely expand if they were to receive funds beyond their predicted income and use this information to calculate their RFMF. Finally, we share our thoughts about the charity’s overall financial sustainability and revenue diversity.

Plans for Expansion

To estimate charities’ RFMF, we request their financial records from the past 30 months and ask them to predict what their revenue will be in the next 30 months. We also ask how they plan to allocate funding among their programs. We then assess our level of confidence in their projections based on factors such as past revenue, past expenditures, and nonfinancial barriers to the scalability of their programs (e.g., time or talent shortages).

Although we list the expenditures for planned nonprogram expenses, we do not assess the charity’s overhead costs in this criterion, given that there is no evidence that the total share of overhead costs negatively impacts overall effectiveness.³⁴ However, we do consider relative overhead costs per program in our Cost Effectiveness criterion. Here, we focus on determining whether additional resources are likely to be used for effective programs or other beneficial organizational changes. The latter may include investments into infrastructure and staff retention, both of which we think are important for sustainable growth.

Unexpected Funding

We ask charities to indicate how they would spend additional, unexpected funding that an ACE recommendation may bring in. This amount varies from charity to charity, but on average is roughly $200,000 per year for Standout Charities and $1,000,000 per year for Top Charities. We also ask previously recommended charities to indicate how they would use additional funding because there is some evidence that repeatedly recommended charities are more appealing to donors; therefore, they may get more ACE-influenced funding over time. We then assess our level of confidence in the charity’s ability to carry out their plans in 2023 and 2024—i.e., how much unexpected funding we believe they could utilize for effective programs in that timeframe—to estimate their RFMF for those years. These estimates are then shared with the charity and adjusted as needed based on feedback. Our RFMF estimates are intended to identify the point at which we would want to check in with a charity to ensure that they have used their funds effectively and can still absorb additional funding.

Reserves

We may adjust RFMF based on the status of a charity’s reserves. It is common practice for charities to hold more funds than needed for their current expenses in order to be able to withstand changes in the business cycle or external shocks that may affect their incoming revenue. Such additional funds can also serve as investments in future projects. Thus, it can be effective to provide a charity with additional funding to secure the organization’s stability and/or provide funding for larger, future projects. Therefore, we increase a charity’s RFMF if they are below their targeted amount of reserves. If a target does not exist, we suggest that charities hold reserves equal to at least one year of expenditures.³⁵

Revenue Diversity

The charities we evaluate typically receive revenue from a variety of sources, such as individual donations and grants from foundations.³⁶ A review of the literature on nonprofit finance suggests that revenue diversity may be positively associated with revenue predictability if the sources of income are largely uncorrelated.³⁷ However, there is evidence that revenue diversity may not always be associated with financial stability.³⁸ Therefore, although revenue diversity does not play a direct role in our recommendation decision, we indicate charities’ major sources of income in this criterion for donors interested in financial stability.

Information and Analysis

The chart below shows Sinergia Animal’s revenues, expenditures, and net assets from 2020–2021, as well as their own projections for the years 2022–2024.

_{Revenue, Expenditures, and ACE-Influenced Funding Over the Years 2020–2024}

Plans for Expansion

Sinergia Animal plans to expand their programs, especially in the Egg Industry, Institutional Meat Reduction, Research and Investigations, and in Brazil.

Below we share Sinergia Animal’s plans for each of their programs in more detail. Projected changes in expenditure are the charity’s own estimates from August 2022. We also include a surface-level assessment of the feasibility of their plans. More details can be found in the corresponding estimation sheet and in the supplementary materials.

Based on our assessment of Cost Effectiveness, Sinergia Animal’s research and investigations, neglected areas in Brazil, financial institutions, and education and social media programs are less cost effective than their other programs, as well as some programs at other charities that we consider to be highly impactful. Looking forward to 2023 and 2024, we estimate that about 73% of Sinergia Animal’s planned expenditures will go toward programs that ACE currently considers to be highly cost effective.

Unexpected Funding

In addition to other sources of funding, Sinergia Animal has received funding influenced by ACE as a result of their recommended charity status for the past four years. Thus, their RFMF analysis will focus on our assessment of whether they could continue to effectively absorb funding that comes from our recommendation.

Sinergia Animal outlined that if they were to spend an additional $200,000 per year, it would be focused on giving autonomy to three national teams (possibly in Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand) to enhance all programs in those countries, which we believe is an effective and plausible use of funding. Overall, we have high confidence that Sinergia Animal could effectively absorb at least an additional $200,000 per year beyond their plans for expansion outlined in the previous section.

Sinergia Animal outlined that if they were to spend an additional $1,000,000 per year, it would be focused on giving autonomy to six national teams, possibly adding Argentina, Indonesia, and Andino (Chile, Peru, and Ecuador together) to enhance all programs in those countries as well as increase the regranting program. We believe this is a plausible use of funding but may be too large of a sum for them to use effectively in the short term, especially given their plans for aggressive growth. Overall, we have moderate confidence that Sinergia Animal could effectively absorb an additional $1,000,000 per year beyond their plans for expansion outlined in the previous section.

Reserves

With plans to use excess funding to fill reserves this year—as reported by Sinergia Animal—we believe that they hold a sufficient amount of reserves.

Revenue Diversity

Sinergia Animal receives 100% of their income from grants/donations. In 2021, they received 99% of their funding from donations larger than 20% of their annual revenue, about half of which was from Open Philanthropy and is restricted to work on cage-free eggs.