Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira

How Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira 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

Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (SVB) focuses exclusively on reducing the suffering of farmed animals, which we believe is a high-impact cause area.

Countries of Operation

SVB currently works in Brazil, where we believe animal advocacy is relatively neglected.

Interventions and Projected Outcomes

SVB pursues different avenues for creating change for animals: They work to increase the availability of animal-free products, decrease the consumption of animal products, increase the prevalence of anti-speciesist values, 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 SVB does.² Unless otherwise specified, we have sourced the information in this criterion from Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (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.

Increased availability of animal-free products

Increasing the quality and availability of plant-based foods may help to create a climate in which it is easier for individuals to reduce their use of animal products.

SVB runs a vegan product labeling program, certifying products free from animal ingredients and animal testing. We believe with a low degree of confidence that labeling animal-free products is moderately effective in increasing their availability.⁵

SVB also runs a program that advises restaurants and catering service providers in offering plant-based meals. We believe that working with companies to increase the range and accessibility of plant-based foods is highly effective in increasing the availability of these products.

Decreased consumption of animal products

SVB works to influence individuals to decrease their consumption of animal products through institutional campaigns, media outreach, and training health professionals. Generally, there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the causal effects of different types of interventions on individual consumer behavior.⁶ 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.⁷ 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.⁸

Through their Meatless Monday campaign, SVB works with public and private institutions to increase the number of vegan meals served. They also provide training to chefs and work with restaurant chains and catering service providers to increase plant-based options in corporate cafeterias. We believe that these types of institutional campaigns are highly effective in decreasing the consumption of animal-free products.

SVB engages in media outreach that aims to raise awareness about meat consumption and how it relates to infectious diseases. Some empirical studies suggest that providing people with written information may increase their intention to consume less meat.⁹ However, it is uncertain (i) how written information may affect attitudes toward animal products other than meat, (ii) how the format and the specific content of the message may affect the impact on intentions, and (iii) whether changes in intentions translate into changes in consumption behavior. 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 behavioral change–we are particularly uncertain about the effects of connecting animal consumption to infectious disease. We believe that media outreach is moderately effective in decreasing the consumption of animal products.

SVB provides training to health professionals (e.g., dietitians and physicians) on the benefits of plant-based diets, and they work with medical associations to influence dietary guidelines. We believe with a low degree of confidence that health and nutrition education aimed at professionals is weakly effective in decreasing the consumption of animal products.

Increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values

SVB works to influence individuals to adopt more animal-friendly attitudes through social media. In particular, these interventions are aimed at spreading and solidifying anti-speciesist values. There is uncertainty surrounding the impact of changes in anti-speciesist values on changes for animals, but we think an increased prevalence of anti-speciesist values may decrease individual consumption of animal products, improve welfare standards, increase direct help, and/or strengthen the animal advocacy movement.

Despite the lack of evidence surrounding interventions aimed at increasing the prevalence of anti-speciesist values, we think it’s important for the animal advocacy movement to target at least some outreach toward individuals’ attitudes. A shift in public attitudes could help drive industry changes and lead to greater support for more animal-friendly policies; in fact, it might 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.¹¹

SVB runs a social media campaign using celebrity influencers to persuade companion animal guardians that they should also care about farmed animals. While it is plausible that this target audience is easier to persuade than the general public, we are generally uncertain of the effectiveness of online outreach campaigns as people may not engage with them as deeply as they engage with other forms of outreach. We believe with low confidence that engaging celebrities and influencers is weakly effective in increasing the prevalence of anti-speciesist values.

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.

SVB maintains a network of volunteers who support a number of their campaigns. For example, the volunteers may exert online pressure on stakeholders at institutions, requesting that they incorporate more animal-friendly behaviors or policies. We believe that community organizing is highly 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 SVB’s recent revenues, assets, and expenditures.¹² The financial information for 2019 and the first six months of 2020 was reported by the charities during this year’s evaluation process,¹³ 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. SVB’s revenue has fluctuated in the past few years. They received a large donation (35% of their annual revenue) in 2019. SVB 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 18% of SVB’s total revenue. We estimate that in the first half of 2020, ACE-influenced donations may account for 11% of SVB’s revenue.¹⁴ With about 96% of their current expenditures held in net assets, we believe that SVB holds a sufficient amount of reserves.

Planned Future Expenditures

Below we list SVB’s plans for expansion for 2021.¹⁵ 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 2021.¹⁶ For staff salaries, we estimated the number of staff SVB 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.¹⁷ 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 expansion¹⁸ based on their 2019 program expenditures;¹⁹ in some cases, we also considered SVB’s estimations of their future expenditures²⁰ and/or our impressions of how much the expansions would cost.²¹ 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 SVB’s room for more funding for 2021. For this, we relied on an estimate of their predicted revenue for 2021. SVB 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 SVB’s revenue in 2021 will be $0.41 million, or within the 90% prediction interval [$0.21M, $0.62M].²⁵ SVB did not provide a prediction of their 2021 revenue.

Using our predictions of future revenue, SVB’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 SVB’s room for more funding in 2021 distributed across our three confidence levels. For donors influenced by ACE wishing to donate to SVB, we estimate that SVB’s room for more funding in 2021 is $0.16 million (90% prediction interval: [$-3.1k, $0.34M]) with high confidence. Overall, we have some confidence that SVB has room for $0.22 million (prediction interval: [$-4.5k, $0.55M]) in additional funding in 2021. We believe that SVB’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 toward that outcome has been.

Increased Prevalence of Anti-Speciesist Values

SVB engages in two programs that we have categorized as contributing to increasing the prevalence of anti-speciesist values—If You Love One, Why Eat the Other?, and Bomba-Relógio (“Ticking Bomb”). 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 SVB’s programs focused on increasing the prevalence of anti-speciesist values, Jan 2019–Jun 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 Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020a).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

SVB’s “If You Love One, Why Eat the Other?” program is focused on spreading and solidifying anti-speciesist values through social media with the support of celebrities and influencers. This online outreach campaign may inspire some people who have companion animals to stop eating other animals. However, we believe people may not engage with online messages as deeply as they would engage with other forms of outreach, and therefore we are uncertain how many individuals have been successfully persuaded by SVB’s campaign. This program was relaunched in 2020; as the program is new, we are particularly uncertain about its cost effectiveness, and thus have not included any further assessment.

SVB’s Bomba-Relógio program has so far released a video featuring celebrities. This program was launched in 2020; as the program is new, we are particularly uncertain about its cost effectiveness, and thus we have not included any further assessment.

Overall, we think SVB’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.

Decreased Consumption of Animal Products

SVB engages in one program that we have categorized as contributing to decreasing consumption of animal products—their Meatless Mondays program, and their Training of Physicians and Dietitians on Vegan Eating/Influencing the Health Sector program.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for SVB’s program focused on decreasing consumption of animal products, Jan 2019–Jun 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 Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020a).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

SVB’s Meatless Mondays program focuses on securing commitments from institutions to serve meatless meals. SVB reports that 295 new institutions—resulting in a reported 81 million meals being served—were signed up as a result of the work done in 2019/2020. However, they report 67 million meals served in 2018. Assuming that number would be constant in 2019, an upper estimate of 14 million meals were served as a result of their work done in 2019/2020. This work will directly decrease the number of animal products 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. SVB has reported to us that in light of COVID-19, they had to cancel all in-person work associated with this program. Most notably, they canceled their chef trainings, for which an online alternative was not feasible due to the limited internet accessibility of trainees. It is therefore likely that this program will become more cost effective once the limitations imposed by the pandemic come to an end. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think the cost effectiveness of SVB’s work in their Meatless Monday program seems much higher than the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward decreasing the consumption of animal products we have evaluated this year.

SVB’s Training of Physicians and Dietitians on Vegan Eating/Influencing the Health Sector program focuses on training health professionals (dietitians, physicians and others) on the viability and benefits of vegan eating, and influencing dietary guidelines in Brazil. As SVB was the only evaluated charity running a similar campaign, we are particularly uncertain as to how cost effective its implementation has been. SVB has reported to us that in light of COVID-19, they started using a distance-learning platform that enabled the creation and presentation of an introductory class of plant-based nutrition for health professionals and dietitians as an alternative to the trainings. They reported a total of 548 participants in the first three editions.

After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think the cost effectiveness of SVB’s work in their Training of Physicians and Dietitians on Vegan Eating/Influencing the Health Sector program seems slightly higher than the average cost effectiveness of other similar programs working toward decreasing the consumption of animal products we have evaluated this year.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of SVB’s work toward decreasing the consumption of animal products seems much higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Increased Availability of Animal-Free Products

SVB engages in two programs that we have categorized as contributing to an increased availability of animal-free products—their Vegan Label and Guidance to the Food Industry program, and their Vegan Option program. 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 SVB’s programs focused on increased availability of animal-free 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 Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020a).

Evaluation of cost effectiveness

SVB’s Vegan Option program focuses on increasing the number of vegan options available at restaurant chains by working with companies to add plant-based menu items. Their work has led to new options being introduced at two chains totaling over 1,600 locations³³ at an approximate cost of $20 per location. Additionally, they have launched a map for locating restaurants in Brazil that offer plant-based options, and they have launched a website that provides support for restaurants wishing to add a plant-based option. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think the cost effectiveness of SVB’s work in their Vegan Option program seems much higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities working toward increased availability of animal-free products we have evaluated this year.

SVB’s Vegan Label and Guidance to Food Industry program focuses on increasing the number of vegan products that have a V-label in supermarkets and other retailers. Their work has led to V-labels being added to 1,600 products. Their V-label program generates revenue that offsets its costs, which may make it particularly cost effective. After accounting for all of their key results and expenditures, we think the cost effectiveness of SVB’s work in their Vegan Label and Guidance to Food Industry program seems slightly higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities working toward increased availability of animal-free products we have evaluated this year.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of SVB’s work toward increasing the availability of animal-free products seems higher than the average cost effectiveness of other charities’ work toward this outcome we have evaluated this year.

Stronger Animal Advocacy Movement

SVB engages in one program that we have categorized as contributing to strengthening the animal advocacy movement—their VegAction program.

Key results and use of resources

Below is our estimated resource usage for SVB’s program 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 this program. For a full list of results and resource usage, see Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (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. SVB’s VegAction program focuses on building a network of volunteers on social media who participate in campaigns to pressure companies and politicians to make changes favoring animals, as well as congratulate stakeholders who make positive changes. When taking a long-term view, movement building in countries that do not yet have an established animal advocacy movement may be particularly cost effective.

Overall, we think the cost effectiveness of SVB’s work toward strengthening the animal advocacy movement seems similar to 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 2019.³⁵ For charities that operate in more than one country, we consider how they have expanded internationally.

Overview

SVB was founded in 2003. They have been working on their Meatless Monday program for more than a decade, building a long track record of success in serving meatless meals in Brazil. SVB also has a long track record of success in their Vegan Label program, having been certifying products for seven years. They have worked on their public awareness campaign “Why love one and eat the other?” from 2013 to 2017 and relaunched it this year. They have worked on their Training of Physicians and Vegan Option programs since 2016, promoting plant-based diets among the general public, physicians, and the food industry.

Key Results Prior to 2019³⁶

Below is a summary of SVB’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 SVB, and we were not able to corroborate all their reports.³⁷ 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 Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020c).

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

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.^{40, 41}

Key Leadership

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

Leadership staff

• President: Ricardo S. P. de Laurino, involved in the organization for 12 years
• Executive Secretary: Guilherme Carvalho Felipe Leal, involved in the organization for seven years
• Campaign Manager: Mônica Buava, involved in the organization for 15 years
• Communication Coordinator: Larissa Rodrigues Maluf, involved in the organization for three years

About 78% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that SVB’s leadership is attentive to the organization’s strategy. Most respondents agreed that their leadership promotes external transparency (89%) and internal transparency (68%). We believe that SVB could benefit from increasing internal transparency.

Recent leadership transitions

SVB did not have a transition in leadership recently.

Board of Directors

SVB’s Board of Directors consists of 58 members, including nutritionists, civil engineers, architects, police officers, public servants, entrepreneurs, and others. SVB notes that they are currently reviewing the composition of the board because it has grown too big over the years.

About 88% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that SVB’s board supports the organization in achieving its strategic vision.

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 performance⁴² and better internal and external governance practices,⁴³ as well as with the use of inclusive governance practices that allow the board to incorporate community perspectives into their strategic decision-making.⁴⁴ SVB’s board is composed of individuals with diverse occupational backgrounds and experiences. We consider the 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 SVB 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 SVB’s leadership, their organizational culture fosters diversity and is inclusive, respectful, and effective.

The survey we distributed supports leadership’s claim that SVB’s culture is overall positive. Respondents noted in an open-response box that they enjoy working at SVB and that the team cares about the cause. A few common adjectives that respondents used to describe SVB’s communication style were “relaxed,” “inclusive,” “effective,” or similar. At the same time, others described it as “struggling,” and “weak.”

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

SVB does not have a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff that responded to our survey, about 68% agreed with the statement that their compensation is adequate. SVB offers 30 days of paid time off, and unlimited sick days. About 74% of respondents agreed that these paid benefits provided are sufficient. Some respondents mentioned that SVB does not offer a health plan to their staff. SVB reports that employees have clearly defined essential functions for all positions but they do not regularly evaluate performance. About 61% of respondents to our culture survey agreed that the system of staff performance evaluation needs to be changed or improved upon.

SVB distributes regular biannual surveys. They have identified the following areas for improvement: feedback process, self-evaluation and evaluation of the leadership team, setting clearer goals for each position, and developing a code of ethics.

Overall, we think that SVB’s staff satisfaction and morale are lower than the average charity we evaluated this year.⁴⁶ We think SVB’s culture could especially benefit from establishing a code of ethics, a system of regular performance evaluations, a compensation strategy, and from providing more professional development opportunities to their staff.

Representation/Diversity,⁴⁷ Equity, and Inclusion⁴⁸

One important part of acting responsibly toward stakeholders is providing a representative/diverse,⁴⁹ 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 SVB has members from diverse backgrounds. SVB made an effort to increase representation/diversity through their recruitment process by having a leadership team with a highly inclusive culture.

In our culture survey, some respondents mentioned that leadership could hire more Black staff to be more inclusive or to better support staff who are members of marginalized groups.

SVB supports R/DEI through their human resource activities. While their code of ethics/conduct is still being developed, they currently have a written statement that they do not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other characteristics. SVB has a written procedure for filing complaints and explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment⁵⁰ or discrimination.⁵¹ In our culture survey, 78% of respondents agreed that SVB protects staff, interns, and volunteers from harassment and discrimination in the workplace, and 74% agreed that they have someone to go to in case of harassment or other problems at work. However, our culture survey suggests that SVB’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 overall protected from harassment and discrimination, and SVB seems to have in place systems to prevent and handle harrassment and discrimination, we are not highly concerned about this finding.

SVB offers regular trainings on topics such as harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In our culture survey, 67% of staff agree that they and their colleagues have been sufficiently trained in matters of R/DEI. We believe that the opportunities for the team to learn about R/DEI at SVB could be increased.

Overall, we believe that SVB 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

SVB’s vision (translated): “A country where vegetarian food is tasty, accessible and convenient for any person or institution”

Strategic Position in the Movement

We asked SVB how they see their organization’s work fitting into the overall animal advocacy movement. They report that they see animal advocacy work in Brazil, the country they work in, as particularly relevant due to the high levels of meat consumption and the large farmed animal agricultural industry in the country. Within Brazil, they position themselves as focussing on the demand side of animal products.

Strategic Planning Process

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

Leadership staff’s role: Leadership creates the strategic plan and incorporates 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: SVB’s strategic plan focuses primarily on goals. It does not include any high-level strategy to analyze how their program work contributes to achieving their mission/vision or address their internal structure, e.g., culture, fundraising, operating model, etc.

Goal Setting and Monitoring

SVB includes specific goals in their strategic plan. SVB’s goals are monitored annually. SVB holds retrospective meetings—i.e., postmortems—following major projects. Furthermore, they hold summits with their local groups, department coordinators, staff, and board every six months. During these summits, they conduct a self-assessment of the state of the organization.

Our Assessment

SVB is a vegetarian society focused on promoting 100% plant-based diets, not explicitly on reducing suffering—though those two goals may often overlap. We believe that promoting plant-based diets reduces suffering to the extent that it causes a reduction in the number of animals being raised for food. SVB has a good understanding of their role in the Brazilian animal advocacy movement, though we think their strategic plan is lacking in high-level strategy that connects their programs to their strategic vision and communicates the future trajectory of their organization. Conversely, their goal setting appears to be carried out well, and we think they have a strong approach to self-assessment. Overall, we think SVB’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 SVB has adapted to success and failure:

Regarding their programs, SVB reports that they strengthened their Meatless Mondays program by starting an influencer challenge and by hiring a vegan chef who regularly posts videos on their YouTube channel and Instagram.⁵² They also expanded two of their programs to include consultancy work. Their Vegan Label Program offers free-of-charge consulting to the food industry, and their Vegan Option campaign advises food service companies free of charge.

With regards to their organizational structure, leadership believes that they made a mistake by not foreseeing the changes in bylaws the growing organization would need.⁵³ SVB reports that they started adjusting their bylaws.

Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected SVB, mainly in that it has forced them to cancel or postpone events.⁵⁴ They had to cancel Vegfest Brazil 2020, SVB’s Cooking Show 2020, several training sessions with professionals, and they had to postpone the training sessions with chefs for their Meatless Mondays Campaign. They may move their training of physicians and dietitians and some of their volunteers’ activism online. SVB also reported on how they are affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in a video, as well as a piece published on ACE’s blog.

Overall, we believe that SVB 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. SVB reports that a 2018 poll commissioned by SVB suggests that up to 55% of Brazilians state that they would buy more vegan products if they were labeled as such. 

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

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

8. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018b) 

9. See Bianchi et al. (2018) for a summary of this literature. 

10. See, for example, Animal Charity Evaluators (2016b), Tiplady, Walsh, & Phillips (2013), and Tonsor & Olynk (2011). 

11. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018b) 

12. SVB was founded in 2003. We show data for the last five years. 

13. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020a) 

14. 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.  

15. 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 Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (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 SVB’s programs for an assessment of the effectiveness of their planned expansions. 

16. 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. 

17. 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, average wages in the country of hire. 

18. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020a) 

19. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020c) 

20. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020a) 

21. 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.  

22. 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.  

23. 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. 

24. 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. 

25. We assume a linear trend in revenue. The estimates are based on a linear regression using SVB’s revenue data from 2014 to 2020. 

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. 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. 

28. 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. 

29. See page 129 of Ministério Da Saúde (2019) for a reference to “vegetarian and vegan children.”  

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. Subway lists 1,639 restaurants in Brazil, and Temakeria e Cia lists 26 restaurants. 

34. 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. 

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

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

37. 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. 

38. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2018) reports influencing 67 million meatless meals served in 2018.  

39. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020c) reports that this ad reached over 276,000 people daily.  

40. We distributed our culture survey to SVB’s 24 team members and 21 responded, yielding a response rate of 87.5%.  

41. 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. 

42. Siciliano (1996)  

43. Buse, Bernstein, & Bilimoria (2016) 

44. Brown (2003) 

45. SVB reports that their code of ethics is under development. 

46. Leadership at SVB have notified ACE that these results were likely considerably impacted by the following circumstances: (i) The culture survey was distributed at the same time as SVB suggested that staff return to the main office (with safety protocols and more than two months after the end of the lockdown), which was contentious due to misinformation and polarization/confusion surrounding COVID-19 in Brazil at the time, and (ii) the survey was carried out at a time when two employees began suddenly displaying dissatisfaction—potentially affecting morale across the organization—before ultimately leaving SVB. 

47. 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.  

48. 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.  

49. 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. 

50. 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 upset, demean, humiliate, intimidate, or threaten 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.” 

51. 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.” 

52. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020c) 

53. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020b) 

54. Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (2020c)