Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira

SVB’s key paths to impact

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

Key path 1—Institutional Meat Reduction

SVB’s Institutional Meat Reduction program integrates plant-based meals in public and private institutions (e.g., schools, hospitals, community kitchens) across Brazil. They provide trainings, workshops, and advice on menus to support institutions’ adoption of Meatless Mondays and veg*n options. This outreach allows them to directly influence staff and beneficiaries while indirectly influencing families and communities to eat more plant based.

Overall assessment

This program has reached over 500,000 people, including students, hospital employees, and community kitchen beneficiaries across nine different cities in Brazil. Over 530 million plant-based meals have been served since this program started in 2009.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are strongly convinced that SVB’s Meat Reduction in Public and Private Institutions program can reliably increase the number of institutions including plant-based meals in their regular menus, leading to a reduced consumption of animal products. Although evidence of the effectiveness of Meatless Mondays is mixed,¹³ findings are difficult to apply to SVB’s Institutional Meat Reduction program, especially because studies are based in other countries (Global North), assess different types of interventions, or are conducted in different types of settings. The evidence in Brazil suggests that there is some acceptance of plant-based foods,¹⁴ and SVB has a strong track record of successfully developing this program across multiple institutions.

SVB reports that they design the meals to be nutritious by following the guidelines of the National School Feeding Program (PNAE, in Portuguese) and the Brazilian Dietary Guidelines, and by getting the recipes validated by nutritionists from the partnering institutions before implementation. They also design the meals to be tasty and culturally relevant by using similar tastes and ingredients to existing menus, and they make updates if the meals are not performing well—this might reduce negative reactions to mandatory days of eating plant-based foods. Additionally, because many institutions (schools and social assistance centers) where SVB has implemented the program serve people from vulnerable communities—often receiving their only substantial meal of the day there—it is unlikely that reducing meat in institutional meals would lead to increased meat consumption outside these settings.

SVB also reports that they ensure that meals are economically viable. For example, the implementation of plant-based meals in public schools and hospitals does not generate additional costs. Additionally, they do not remove dairy milk from recipes for public institutions, as plant-based alternatives are too costly for most municipalities. They also request the current supply list so recipes use ingredients already available on site, avoiding additional costs.

Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate as research on the effects of Meatless Mondays in contexts similar to SVB’s, as well as its long-term effects, is scarce.

Key path 2—Political outreach

SVB advances plant-based policies by building strategic relationships with government bodies and multilateral institutions (three or more nations working on issues of common interest, such as the United Nations). Through collaborations with ministries, municipalities, and alliances, SVB contributes to policy development; links plant-based advocacy to climate-related commitments; and supports initiatives on nutrition, food security, and public health.

Overall assessment

SVB has developed close advisory relationships with São Paulo’s Department of Education on meat reduction in public schools (CODAE Project), and has engaged the Department of Animal Protection and Defense in the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Social Development in ongoing and future projects. Also, SVB successfully influenced public policy in São Paulo by leading efforts that secured the Governor’s veto of a bill banning the use of the term “plant-based meat” on plant-based products.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are strongly convinced that SVB’s Policy Work and Government Outreach program can reliably lead to strengthened relationships with key government authorities, increased interest from national and international organizations in partnering with SVB, and increased inclusion of plant-based diet considerations in policy discussions and agendas. There is evidence of instances, especially in the E.U. and North America, where farmed animal legislation has helped millions of animals.¹⁵ In Brazil, recent government policies and international commitments demonstrate a positive shift toward supporting sustainable, plant-based food system reforms.¹⁶ However, significant opposition or competing interests remain from entrenched livestock industries and powerful food corporations, which could slow or complicate reforms.¹⁷

SVB reports that there is growing political will to implement plant-based policies in Brazil, particularly when they are framed in connection with climate action, public health, and food security. There is also interest from local governments, especially as cities are under increasing pressure to meet environmental targets (e.g., under Brazil’s national strategy to fulfill its Paris Agreement commitments, each municipality and state plays a direct role in reducing environmental impact). Cities like Santos and the Federal District (Brasília) have passed legislation to introduce or expand plant-based meals in public institutions such as schools and hospitals.

To ensure that proposed policies and regulations supporting plant-based options in public food systems are viewed by government bodies as practical, implementable, and politically desirable, SVB aligns them with existing national priorities and guidelines. They also develop plant-based policy implementations—particularly in schools and hospitals—that are cost neutral, and they provide support to nutrition teams, school cooks, and health professionals within municipal and state systems.

Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high because the policies can vary widely in scope. We have uncertainties about how Brazil’s next presidential elections in 2026 could shape—or even reverse—this work, especially if it ends up being from an opposition party because they can be less open to supporting plant-based diets. Note that SVB has adopted a non-partisan political stance, which allows them to work with all parties.

Key path 3—Outreach to CONSEA

SVB influences national food policy by presenting studies and proposals regarding the benefits of plant-based foods to the National Council for Food Security (CONSEA), participating in its discussions and working groups, and producing evidence-based materials. These efforts ensure that plant-based perspectives are appropriately incorporated into food security and climate policies and guidelines at the national level.

Overall assessment

One key achievement of SVB’s Policy Work and Government Outreach program was securing a seat at the CONSEA. This position is an opportunity for SVB to influence national resolutions—especially those that currently limit plant-based offerings in public institutions to just one day per week. Changing these regulations would significantly scale their Institutional Meat Reduction program, and their presence at CONSEA is a strategic step toward that goal.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are strongly convinced that presenting plant-forward studies and policy proposals to CONSEA within SVB’s Policy Work and Government Outreach program can lead to increased awareness and openness among CONSEA members and technical advisors of the benefits of plant-based diets, and formal consideration and endorsement of SVB’s proposals by CONSEA. There is evidence suggesting that plant-based diets can enhance food security by improving nutritional health, reducing environmental impacts, and efficiently using natural resources.¹⁸ CONSEA seems to be a central, influential advisory council with a clear mandate to shape food security and nutrition policies in Brazil, including promoting sustainable, healthy dietary changes.¹⁹ Its reinstatement and active functioning since 2023 reaffirms its role as a key institution for political and government outreach during the current administration.²⁰ However, if an opposing political party wins the 2026 presidential election, CONSEA risks being dismantled again (as happened in 2019).

SVB reports that CONSEA members and technical advisors are generally receptive to new scientific evidence and policy proposals, especially when they are clearly aligned with Brazil’s existing national priorities such as public health, environmental sustainability, and food and nutrition security. While no proposals from SVB have yet been formally presented to CONSEA (as the working group meetings are still upcoming), the council provides a strategic space for future engagement with evidence-backed initiatives.

Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high due to the possibility that CONSEA won’t be open to SVB’s proposals or doesn’t end up implementing the policies, and we are uncertain about the future of CONSEA after the 2026 presidential elections.

Key Path 4—Veg*n events

SVB promotes plant-based diets and products by organizing and participating in various public and professional events, from cultural gatherings to professional congresses. Through hosting Vegfests and gatherings, speaking at functions, and distributing educational materials, SVB educates and engages varied audiences while building visibility and credibility for plant-based solutions.

Overall assessment

SVB’s Vegfests are their flagship annual event. Their 2024 Vegfest established itself as the largest vegan event in Latin America with over 7,000 attendees. In 2024, they hosted or co-hosted 21 vegan and activist events, had a presence or booth in 10 events, and delivered 88 speaking engagements or lectures and 77 culinary demonstrations.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are moderately convinced that organizing and participating in events within SVB’s Movement Building program can reliably lead to increased exposure, openness, and credibility toward plant-based diets, and increased interest and collaboration in implementing plant-based initiatives and forming partnerships. The evidence on the effectiveness of veg*n events is very scarce. Feedback forms from 2023 veg*n festivals (vegfests) in the U.K. suggest that most attendees are already vegan; however, about 75% of non-vegan attendees expressed intentions to change their diets to consume more plant-based meals.²¹ Another study of a vegfest in the U.S. found no evidence of an overall shift in eating behavior in attendees after the festival, though the festival was still considered motivational and valuable for the community.²² Regarding SVB’s Vegfests in Brazil, experts say they are impressive events with high reach and high capacity building potential.

SVB believes that veg*n events are impactful for community building, generating media attention, and promoting local plant-based businesses. Their events in São Paulo and Curitiba attract strong participation, and Vegfest Brasil (in São Paulo) has become the largest vegan festival in Latin America. SVB finds that their Vegfest is not only an engaging, enjoyable festival, attracting attendees from across Brazil and the Global South—it also serves as a platform for connection, inspiration, and shaping the plant-based and animal advocacy movement in those regions.

Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate-to-high due to the very limited evidence on the effectiveness of veg*n events in general, and on the impact of SVB’s Vegfests in particular.

Additional considerations

Key overarching assumptions and risks

• In order for SVB’s programs to succeed, they must maintain high credibility and reputation among the stakeholders they engage with. For example, SVB needs to gain the trust of policymakers to be invited to be part of bodies like the National Commission for the Sustainable Development Goals (CNODS, in Portuguese).
• According to SVB, the nonprofit sector is often met with skepticism or resistance in Brazil—a dynamic that prompts SVB to work strategically across multiple sectors to maintain visibility and relevance, and to stay connected. This approach is crucial for establishing credibility with policymakers.
• Based on SVB’s track record and experts we consulted, both the public and governmental organizations seem to trust the expertise of SVB and the quality of their programs.

Risk assessment strategy

• SVB has identified multiple risks to their work, including reputational challenges, backlash from the industry, inadequate cultural sensitivity in their messaging, and misunderstanding socioeconomic barriers to adopting plant-based diets. They are also aware of operational risks (e.g., expanding programs too quickly) and political challenges in Brazil (e.g., potential change in government priorities or increased opposition to food system reforms).
• Their processes to identify, monitor, and respond to operational risks appears systematic: They conduct surveys and bimonthly meetings with staff. For reputational risks, they maintain a media watchdog system. In addition, they engage closely with communities to recognize potential social and cultural issues early, and they foster strong partnerships with public institutions and government authorities, and maintain political neutrality to reduce party-specific risks.
• Risk monitoring and response are shared responsibilities across key departments, e.g., their Campaign and Government Relations team monitors political and policy-related risks, while the Communications team handles reputational and media risks. Their incident plans include conducting a rapid assessment of the situation by the relevant department lead; escalating the issue to the executive leadership team; and forming a team to analyze the scenario, propose action steps, and coordinate implementation. SVB also documents all major decisions and reviews the response afterward to improve future crisis management.
• Overall, we have no concerns with SVB’s approach to risk assessment: They identify the main risks, have a process to respond to those risks, and are clear about responsibilities.
• We note that SVB could benefit from having more formal plans for risk management.

Use of empirical evidence in decision making

• SVB uses empirical evidence to inform their campaigns and to guide their strategic decisions. They rely on data from research, surveys, and evaluations to ensure that their messaging and programs are aligned with public concerns and have the highest potential for impact. For example, based on Datafolha survey results—which suggest that health is the main motivator for Brazilians when it comes to reducing animal product consumption²³—they began to use more health-focused messaging: They increased their presence at health events, expanded training for physicians and healthcare professionals, and strengthened their partnerships with hospitals.
• We would like to see more examples where SVB uses empirical evidence in their decision making.

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

• SVB collects and analyzes data to evaluate program performance, inform improvements, and ensure alignment with their mission to reduce animal product consumption in Brazil. For example, to assess the resonance of their messaging and refine strategies for their awareness campaigns, SVB monitors key metrics (e.g., social media reach, website traffic, QR code scans, landing page signups, downloads of educational materials, participant surveys, and feedback from events and campaigns).
• To support their public policy advocacy and shape technical proposals, SVB measures the level of engagement with federal, state, and municipal governments, and the implementation of plant-based incentive programs.
• For their meat reduction program, they track the number of partnering schools and community kitchens, the number of plant-based meals served in place of animal-based ones, and the number of students and meals impacted. As stakeholders are also interested in the environmental benefits, they track environmental outcomes using a Brazilian-adapted calculator. To refine recipes and increase acceptance, SVB conducts federally-required acceptability tests with students for new menu items.
• For their programs targeting hospitals, hotels, and private companies, SVB tracks the sale of vegan items (when this information is available), stakeholder engagement, and openness to menu expansion. They also assess their trainings and request feedback from partnering companies regarding implementation and product launches. When training healthcare professionals, SVB conducts immediate post-event surveys and they will also start to include follow-up assessments six months later to measure impacts in the longer term.
• While SVB measures key indicators of impact of their Institutional Meat Reduction program, we believe they could gain useful insights by estimating the number of animals spared by this program.
• We also note that to guide their decision making for their skill-building interventions (e.g., trainings), SVB could consider conducting pre-post event surveys.

Strategic selection of programs to complement and support each other

SVB’s programs appear strategically designed to complement and reinforce one another:

• Their policy work is informed by field experiences from their meat reduction program in public institutions—for example, knowledge from that program led them to advocate for systemic reforms such as B12 fortification and improved procurement guidelines.
• In turn, their policy work can influence the scale of their meat reduction efforts. For example, by securing a seat at the CONSEA, SVB can now influence national resolutions—some of which restrict plant-based offerings in public institutions to one day per week. Changing these regulations would significantly increase the size and reach of their Institutional Meat Reduction program, and their presence at CONSEA is a strategic step toward that goal.
• Movement Building efforts—Vegfests, local chapters, and digital volunteer campaigns—maintain public visibility and generate grassroots support for their institutional and policy work.

Contribution of programs to the wider animal advocacy movement

• SVB helps develop the movement in Brazil, especially through their movement-building activities.
• They also advance animal advocacy in Brazil by engaging stakeholders through health and environmental arguments, building trust in sectors resistant to animal-focused messaging, and gradually introducing ethical considerations. They integrate animal advocacy issues into national and international decision-making spaces, such as CONSEA and COP30, by linking food, health, climate, and animal welfare. This approach reframes animal advocacy as a mainstream public policy concern and creates opportunities for structural change.
• Because SVB conducts their work in Brazil, their impact is mostly limited to this country. However, Brazil is a high-priority country, as it is the most populous country in Latin America and has a large animal agriculture sector; developing the movement there can have indirect effects in other countries.

• • We focused our analysis on one program, the Institutional Meat Reduction program. This is one of SVB’s most expensive programs, and there is enough data to make the impacts somewhat quantifiable. However, this estimate covers only one of four programs run by SVB (30% of total programmatic expenses), and may not be representative of all SVB’s programs.

• Institutional Meat Reduction program
  • We estimate that this program replaces 116 animal-based meals per dollar, or spares 12 animals per dollar, equating to 10 Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs) averted per dollar (range: 6–14).
  • This estimate includes all institutions where the program was implemented in 2024: 111 municipal schools of Mogi das Cruzes, five municipal schools in Novo Triunfo, and 65 community kitchens in São Paulo city. It also includes the costs of the work for those achievements (in 2024 or earlier), as well as the estimated future costs to maintain these commitments.
  • This estimate only includes meals replaced through Meatless Mondays; it does not include meals replaced through increased veg*n options at institutions, since that data is not available.
  • It excludes the impacts (and costs) of institutions that implemented Meatless Mondays prior to 2024, including those that SVB still supports (e.g., by providing technical support, recipe adaptation, and educational resources, which have sometimes led to an expansion of the program).
  • Most importantly, we think our estimate is not fully representative of SVB’s cost effectiveness and is likely to be an underestimate, because (for all evaluated charities) we only included achievements in 2024 in the cost-effectiveness analyses. For example, the institutions that launched the program in 2023 replace 11–12x more meals annually compared to institutions that launched the program in 2024, and there is reason to believe that even more meals may be replaced in 2026, if we account for expansions at existing institutions.
  • This analysis only includes the direct, short-term impacts of animal-based meals replaced, and excludes more indirect impacts such as normalizing plant-based diets and bringing healthier and more sustainable meals to new audiences. It also excludes any effects of positioning plant-based meals as viable public policy solutions for food insecurity and environmental goals, increasing political and institutional support.
  • Our estimates of animals spared and SADs averted per dollar rely on ACE’s figures for animals spared per meal replaced and SADs averted per meal replaced, both of which have limitations:
    • They are based on Brazil’s consumption data, which includes many of the main animal products consumed but leaves out dairy, fish oil, shrimp paste, and other animal subproducts.
    • Because we used ACE’s own version of SADs per animal, our estimates might not be comparable with other estimates that use Ambitious Impact’s SADs.
    • Because SADs are only available for a few animal species/types, we calculated averages for animal groups (e.g., farmed mammals, fishes, and shrimps) based on their global production stats, which might not accurately reflect the SADs of farmed animals consumed in Brazil.
    • The production data we used to create averages of SADs for animal groups were from 2017–2018, which might not accurately represent current data.

Rapid back-of-the-envelope calculations

In addition to our cost-effectiveness analyses, we also made rough estimates of the impacts of some of SVB’s other programs, under simplified rough assumptions compared to the more detailed modelling of our CEAs. You can find our estimates below:

• Political outreach: 2 key stakeholders engaged per $1,000
• International engagement: 3 stakeholders engaged per $1,000
• Veg*n events: 7 attendees/dollar
• Social media: 211 people reached/dollar
• Vegan pledges: 8 meals replaced/dollar for Vegan April and about 16 meals replaced per dollar for Veganuary
• Public awareness campaigns: 2 people reached per dollar
• Local chapters: 200 people mobilized per $1,000
• Training for professionals: 23 trained professionals per $1,000

These were quick assessments based on uncertain assumptions, so we put very little credence in the specific figures, but they gave us a degree of additional confidence in the likely impact of these programs.

Future plans

If SVB were to receive additional revenue to expand their organization, they would prioritize increasing government engagement and advocacy, followed by growing their campaigns and training team, and strengthening their nutrition department with additional staff. We rated approximately 83% of their projected spending plans as effective. Their most promising plans:

• Expanding their government engagement and advocacy would strengthen their policy work, which can help scale their meat reduction efforts and create sustained impact at both subnational and national levels.
• Expanding the capacity of SVB’s campaigns and training team would support their meat reduction work, which is highly impactful and cost effective.
• Reducing taxes on plant-based alternatives in Brazil could generate impact at the national or subnational level.

Our reasoning for the plans we rated as moderately effective or below was the following:

• Staff training in management and planning can build important skills for advocates in the longer term, but it is not clear whether it addresses a key bottleneck and increases the impact of the organization.
• Strengthening organizational capacity through hiring a staff psychologist may help SVB to support the mental health of staff and volunteers, but it is unclear whether a staff psychologist is what is most needed.

Funding capacity

Based on our assessment of SVB’s future plans, we are confident that they could effectively spend up to a total annual revenue of $828 thousand, which we refer to as their funding capacity.

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

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

Strategic prioritization

Based on how SVB decides which programs to start, stop, scale up, or scale down, we have some minor concerns about their strategic decision making, but overall we believe that they will continue to make cost-effective decisions.

SVB appears highly strategic in their program management, basing decisions to expand or reduce programs on a combination of factors: impact metrics, strategic alignment with their mission, scalability, cost effectiveness, available resources, and capacity for institutional change. Programs are scaled up when they show reductions in animal product consumption or show institutional changes. High-impact programs are prioritized during periods with constraints on resources, while lower-value initiatives are scaled back. Programs like the Vegan Label are expanded in response to external demand. New initiatives are launched selectively when they address critical gaps and offer high potential for systemic impact.

While SVB’s overall strategy is sound, a key area of uncertainty is the lack of clear quantitative cost-effectiveness analyses for their programs. This makes it difficult to fully evaluate the return on investment for each initiative. For instance, the Movement Building program is their highest-expenditure initiative, but its impact is challenging to quantify because of the indirect nature of its outcomes and the variety of activities it encompasses, such as skill building and individual outreach. Even still, we think it would be beneficial for SVB to attempt assessments even for programs with more indirect outcomes. In contrast, the Institutional Meat Reduction program is a clear priority; we estimate it to be highly cost effective and a central component of the organization’s theory of change.

People, policies, and processes

We acknowledge that as a nonprofit organization based in Brazil, SVB faces unique structural and financial challenges that directly impact their ability to implement certain organizational policies commonly seen in better-resourced contexts. The policies that SVB reported having in place are listed in the table below—policies in bold are those that Scarlet Spark²⁵ recommend as highest priority.

Has policy

Partial / informal policy

No policy

COMPENSATION
Paid time off
Paid sick days
Paid medical leave
Paid family and caregiver leave
Compensation strategy (i.e., a policy detailing how an organization determines staff’s pay and benefits in a standardized manner)
WORKPLACE SAFETY
A simple and transparent written procedure for filing complaints
An anti-retaliation policy protecting whistleblowers and those who report grievances
A clearly written workplace code of ethics or conduct
A written statement that the organization does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other irrelevant characteristics
Mandatory reporting of harassment and discrimination through all levels, up to and including the board of directors
Explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment or discrimination
Documentation of all reported instances of harassment or discrimination, along with the outcomes of each case
Conflict of interest policy
Training on topics of harassment and discrimination in the workplace
CLARITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND BIAS MITIGATION
Clearly defined responsibilities for all positions, preferably with written job descriptions
Clear organizational goals and/or priorities communicated to all employees
New hire onboarding or orientation process
Structured hiring, assessing all candidates using the same process
Standardized process for employment termination decisions
Process to evaluate leadership performance
Performance evaluation process based on predefined objectives and expectations
Two or more decision-makers for all hiring, promotion, and termination decisions
Process to attract a diverse candidate pool
ORGANIZATIONAL STABILITY AND PROGRESS
Documentation of all key knowledge and information necessary to fulfill the needs of the organization
Board meeting minutes
Records retention and destruction policy
Systems in place for continuously learning from the past (e.g., feedback norms, retrospectives)
Recurring (e.g., weekly or every two weeks) 1-on-1s focused on alignment and development
ASSESSMENTS
Annual (or more frequent) performance evaluations for all roles
Annual (or more frequent) process to measure employee engagement or satisfaction
A process in place to support performance improvement in instances of underperformance

Transparency

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

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

Leadership and board governance

• President: Monica Buava, involved in the organization for 21 years
• Number of board members: seven, including Monica Buava, who is a voting board member. SVB does have a formal conflict of interest policy that aims to avoid any potential conflict of interest between the President and the board; however, only two of the seven board members are independent, and one board member is married to the President.

We found that the charity’s board did not fully align with our understanding of best practice; however, we understand from SVB that the regional context makes it challenging to recruit and retain dedicated board members.

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

Financial health

Reserves

With 43% of annual expenditures held in reserves (as reported by SVB for 2024; which is close to their target of holding six months of reserves), we believe that they hold a sufficient amount of reserves.

Recurring revenue

About 65% of SVB’s revenue is recurring (e.g. from recurring donors or ongoing long term grant commitments). Based on an external consultation with Scarlet Spark, we find this to be a high proportion of recurring revenue (the ideal being 25% or higher); however, the 25% target is dependent on the context for each charity, so while we have noted this information here, it did not influence our recommendation decision.

Liabilities-to-assets ratio

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

Staff engagement and satisfaction

SVB has 27 staff members (full time, part time, and contractors). Twenty-one staff members responded to our staff engagement survey, yielding a response rate of 81%. We did not have their President take the survey.

SVB has 30 volunteers working at least five hours per week. However, our survey was not sent to them.

SVB does not have a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff who responded to our survey, 71% reported that they are satisfied with their wage. SVB offers paid time off, paid sick leave, and paid medical leave. They do not have a policy for paid family/caregiver leave. About 57% of staff who responded to our staff engagement survey reported that they are satisfied with the benefits provided.

The average score among our staff engagement survey questions was 4.40 (on a 1–5 scale), suggesting that, on average, staff exhibit very high engagement.

Harassment and discrimination

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