Summary

There are many approaches to help animals but there is one intervention that has been the primary focus of most animal advocacy groups and funders in the effective altruism community: corporate campaigns.

Many corporations made higher animal welfare commitments like cage-free or better chicken commitment. The typical deadline of these commitments is between 2025-2030. 

If corporations comply with their commitments, this will improve the lives of millions of animals, set strong precedents, create momentum, and open more possibilities like comprehensive legislative reforms and other welfare improvements. 

It would be naive to expect that all corporations will comply with their commitments without holding them accountable. There will be a number of corporations that will refuse to comply, as some of them have already backtracked from their commitments. Producers are also likely to resist change and prefer to maintain the status quo. 

It is very probable that animal advocacy organisations will need to stage multiple pressure campaigns (or similar efforts) in this period. And additional funding in this period may be easily and effectively used. 

If these efforts are not successful, it may set a very bad precedent that can ultimately affect and shape the future of animal advocacy in a significantly negative way. 

Corporate campaigns as a very effective intervention

Corporate campaigns have been very successful and cost-effective at making numerous corporations commit to higher and meaningful animal welfare standards. 

Cage-free reforms in particular may impact millions of animals and provide meaningful improvements for animals.  

Corporate commitments as only the first part of progress. 

Most of these policies (especially the policies of larger and global corporations) are “committed” for a future deadline (typically between 2025 and 2030) in order to provide time for producers and corporations to make changes and mitigate the costs. 

Many animal advocacy organisations are currently focusing on accountability work in order to make companies stick with their commitments. While this may be in some sense easier (just making sure that they do what they promised), it is in many aspects harder (actually making the changes will cost companies and producers money - which makes them likely to resist).

There were cases where producers did not comply with corporations' requests for high animal welfare transitions, allowing corporations to use this as an excuse. 

Reasons to be (very) excited about success

• Advocates have certain advantages: they will primarily ask corporations to do what they promised to the public. It would be easier to gather public support to keep corporations accountable.
• IF corporations really implement their policies OR campaigns succeed in making them implement their policies, millions of animals will benefit from these reforms.
• Corporations and producers will get used to making changes for animal welfare in their supply chain. This can make them more flexible in the future about being more open to change and competition.
• Advocacy organisations can earn more credibility amongst corporations. Advocates can be seen more as professionals and less as activists.
• Corporations will take demands of animal advocacy organisations and threats of pressure campaigns more seriously.
• Higher share of high welfare production can make legislative campaigns possible.
• Clear progress in certain countries (like the US) or regions (the EU), can create pressure dynamics on other countries and regions to adopt similar welfare standards in the future.
• Organisations can copy and multiply their impact by designing similar asks and campaigns.
• EA will earn more credibility amongst animal advocacy circles. Making them “winners” in a place full of loss and frustration. This can channel more interest and support for EA.

Reasons to be (very) anxious about failure

• Advocates face challenges. Producers have all the reasons to resist if they don’t lose their profits. And in some cases, producers might control the market and force companies to drop their commitments. Corporations themselves would be unwilling to implement policies when they have to face real costs (which can be inflated by the producers to deter them). Advocates may still find it difficult to stage hard hitting pressure campaigns. It is hard to attract public attention and shape it. If advocates achieve to gather only a little support, corporations may judge that facing a small campaign is cheaper than changing their supply chain.
• The main claim of corporate campaigns/outreach ToC is that higher animal welfare is good for business and/or low animal welfare+pressure campaigns are bad for business. But if corporations come to see different results they may begin to value animal welfare much less than currently.
• If campaigns and related public reactions turn out to be weak, this will set a very bad precedent. Corporations and producers might see animal welfare demands as a “bluff” - something that will not really hurt their business.
• Producers may think they may get away with it as long as they resist (limited and weak) pressure. So they may band together and refuse to make changes for existing and future reforms.
• Advocates and supporters (including funders and donors) may lose morale and motivation.
• If this field stalls, a lot of talent and skill that are developed over the years may become dysfunctional and scatter.
• EA can lose credibility amongst animal advocacy circles. Making them “ineffective” after all. EA approaches like attention to tangible impact, scale sensitivity, evidence based thinking can lose their face value due to failure. 

How can funding make a difference?

• Organisations can spend less time on fundraising and focus more on their campaigns.Note that “not needing to think too much about money” is particularly valuable when organisations go through a very stressful time.
• Organisations can retain their staff and increase morale with better and competitive pay.
• Organisations can pay for more digital, print or TV mass advertising. You can view this period as a high value election year where spending a lot of money can be highly impactful given the huge impact of potential wins.
  • This item can absorb a lot of funds and is highly needed in order to achieve goals. Campaigns need to “bite” in order to convince decision makers and the only way to do it at scale is to reach more audience via these means. 

Conclusion

There may be good reasons for funding both global health and animal welfare. But it is possible that the coming years may be particularly crucial to keeping the corporate campaigns highly “viable” and open for further progress. This is not just about $ per animal welfare, it is also about public/institutional “lock in” - which would dramatically change long term outcomes, for the better and the worse.  For this reason, it may be better to prioritise animal welfare, at this particular time at the very least. 

It would be highly improbable that the GHD field would radically change if some programs don’t get off the ground or don’t succeed in achieving their goals. But if corporate campaigns fail in the end, it would dramatically change the field. Similarly, it would also be improbable that the GHD fİeld would radically improve, if some programs succeed. But if corporate campaigns succeed, this will be at least one thing that we can confidently point to and say “this clearly benefits many farmed animals and we made this happen”. 

Counterpoints

There are multiple ways to disagree with this argument. Firstly, one may be very optimistic and confident about corporations honouring their commitments as well as producers being happy with this transition. 

Secondly, it can be said that major funders will cover these funding gaps since they also see it as a priority and marginal donations have much less value. One can also argue that the power of ads and other paid campaign actions have significantly diminishing returns. 

Thirdly, one can be particularly pessimistic about this transition to begin with and thus judge its chance of success insufficiently low to justify more funding. 

Fourthly, one may be less excited about animal welfare reforms and care less about its eventual success. 

Fifthly, one may judge similar institutional “lock in” possibilities (for the better or worse) in the GHD field as well and judge them more important than this.  

Giving For Animals

Finally, if you want to support individual animal advocacy organisations and join a new community trying to effect change in this area either by donating directly to the funds discussed above or by discussing where we can most effectively donate our 10% 's to help animals most, you can check out Animal Advocacy Careers’ Giving For Animals program.