24 minute read

Better for Animals: Background

Animal Charity Evaluators’ Better for Animals: Evidence-Based Insights for Effective Animal Advocacy resource is an ongoing project in which we distill key research on different animal advocacy interventions to help us evaluate their impact in different contexts. We have made this research publicly available to support informed decision making about how to help the most animals. You may read more about the methodology in our recent announcement.

This is a living document and we want to make it as helpful, accessible, and up-to-date as possible, so please feel free to reach out with feedback! To keep up to date with ACE’s research and the work of the amazing organizations that we support, be sure to sign up for our mailing list.

To help make this information more accessible to a wide range of audiences, we are spotlighting one intervention each month through a series of social media and blog posts. This month we are focusing on the evidence around network building.

Intervention Spotlight #7: Network Building

What is this intervention?

This category refers to building or strengthening networks, alliances, and coalitions within animal advocacy. Tactics include organizing events and conferences to facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing and the development of strategic partnerships with other organizations to enhance collective impact. Networking initiatives for veg*ns and advocates are also used to improve motivation, wellbeing, and retention.

Network building is a broad intervention category. In order to organize the evidence systematically, we identified the three main levels at which network building can occur:

1. Interpersonal, which refers to building personal connections within veg*n and activist networks. Expected outcomes include improved retention of veg*ns and advocates, reduced burnout, stronger identification with the movement, and increased motivation for sustained engagement.
2. Interorganizational, which refers to collaborating and building coalitions with other animal advocacy organizations. Expected outcomes include improved coordination and reduced duplication of effort, more effective resource sharing, resulting in greater collective impact than organizations could achieve independently.
3. Intermovement, which refers to alliances between different social movements, such as environmental and animal advocacy groups. Expected outcomes include increased political leverage, access to new audiences and resources, and policy influence that would not be achievable by the animal advocacy movement alone.

These interventions overall aim to increase the capacity and effectiveness of the movement, and thereby the pace and scale at which impact for animals can be achieved.

What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?

• Our research indicates that there is currently a small evidence base regarding network building relative to other animal advocacy interventions. Most evidence we found consists of qualitative interview studies, self-report surveys, and case studies about the experiences of veg*n and advocate communities (at the interpersonal level) and the processes of coalition formation and sustainability in other social movements (at the interorganizational and intermovement levels). We are not aware of any evidence that directly demonstrates the impact of network building on outcomes for animals.
• Strength of evidence is low to moderate; the animal-advocacy-specific research relies on small, mostly demographically homogeneous samples (predominantly from the U.K., U.S., and Canada), uses self-reported and descriptive data, and lacks causal attribution or longitudinal follow-up. The literature about broader social movements offers useful theoretical frameworks and process-level insights, but is itself largely qualitative and case-study based, and does not resolve the question of whether network building produces impact beyond the sum of what individual actors could achieve alone.
• Therefore, our confidence in our overall assessment is currently low to moderate relative to other interventions.
• The available evidence suggests that network building might be a promising intervention because of the consistent (although methodologically limited) finding that interpersonal networking can support advocate retention and reduces burnout—both of which are significant problems in the movement—and because of the strong theoretical logic model for interorganizational and intermovement collaboration improving collective impact. However, direct evidence for actual downstream impact on animals is lacking, and there are documented risks of network building backfiring, e.g., through discrimination and harassment, power imbalances, or coalition collapse.
• We expect the effectiveness of this intervention to vary significantly depending on the context, the level of network building, and the approach taken. We believe this intervention is likely stronger when:
  • Interpersonal networking is paired with tangible next steps, such as follow-up groups, meetups, or actions that channel new connections into ongoing engagement, and when attention is paid to conflict resolution capacity and relationship maintenance, not just initial connection.
  • Interorganizational networks include “bridge builders,” which have connections across multiple organizations that share clear priorities and build organizational trust through shared norms and practices, rather than depending on a small number of personal relationships.
  • Intermovement coalitions share a concrete policy goal or acute threat and have decentralized and flexible leadership, strong shared norms, and either pre-existing ties or a well-connected coalition broker.
  • Coalitions are structured with a clear division of labor between partners, such as separating movement building and recruitment from campaigning, as seen in some animal advocacy coalitions.
• Conversely, the intervention is likely weaker—or may have unintended negative consequences—when:
  • Networking spaces allow discrimination, harassment, or power imbalances that make it difficult for some individuals to fully participate.
  • Organizational networks lack clear priorities, sustained commitment, trusted connections, and/or adequate platforms in which to share knowledge.
  • There are large resource or power asymmetries between coalition partners, particularly in Global North-South collaborations, where more powerful organizations risk dominating framing and strategy at the expense of less powerful partners’ priorities.
  • Intermovement coalitions require animal advocates to adopt frames that significantly de-emphasize animal suffering (e.g., leading exclusively with environmental or public health messaging), which may undermine internal cohesion, dilute core goals, or even cause more animal suffering—e.g., through the small animal replacement problem.
• Network building is also frequently used in tandem with interventions such as corporate campaigns, government outreach, and skill building, so, for context, we recommend also reading the evidence reviews for those interventions. Please note that effectiveness likely differs depending on the combination of interventions.
• Due to the high potential of network building as a force multiplier for other interventions, and the current scarcity of evidence, future research could be particularly valuable. We think future research should prioritize:
  • Quantitative and longitudinal studies measuring the impact of networking events and coalition participation on advocate retention, coordinated outcomes, and, where possible, downstream impact for animals.
  • Cost-effectiveness analyses of networking interventions, such as conferences and coalition-building initiatives.
  • Studies of network building in LMICs and non-English-speaking contexts, where the evidence base is especially thin and the dynamics may differ significantly.
  • Investigation of how ideological diversity within the animal movement (e.g., welfare v. rights-based approaches) affects the feasibility and effectiveness of coalition building.
  • Research that explicitly isolates the contribution of coalition structures to campaign outcomes, rather than attributing wins solely to individual organizations.
  • Research into the conditions under which networking and coalition participation increase, rather than reduce, retention and effectiveness, such as network designs that mitigate risks such as power imbalances and discrimination.

In Depth

What does the research say about how effective this intervention is?

Interpersonal network building

The available research that is specific to animal advocacy mostly focuses on networks among veg*ns, and to a lesser extent networks among animal advocates. Research generally suggests that social networks can improve retention and motivation, but this is largely based on descriptive and qualitative data.

• A study based on 20 semi-structured interviews at the U.K. festival Vegan Campout explored how networking among vegans mitigates activist burnout and strengthens their vegan identity. Results indicated enhanced psychological connections and increased motivation for activism after the event.¹
• Consistent with that, an evidence review on the social and psychological barriers to sustained veganism suggests that to successfully achieve dietary change, meat avoidance needs to be consolidated into a new identity as a vegan or vegetarian. Some reviewed studies suggest that supportive veg*n friends or membership in a veg*n community could help maintain the dietary change in the long term.²
• The potential to reduce burnout and increase identification may be significant not just to prevent vegan recidivism, but also to prevent animal advocates from exiting the movement. A Faunalytics survey of 161 current or former advocates identified burnout as one of the top three reasons cited for leaving the movement, and—converseley—identification with other advocates as a key determinant for current paid advocates’ intentions to stay in the movement. For volunteers, identification with other advocates was the second-most important determinant of intentions to stay.³
• A Pax Fauna study based on interviews with 38 animal rights organizers in the U.S. found that activists’ low points in their activism often revolve around conflict with fellow advocates. The report therefore recommends spending resources on building strong relationships between activists that can endure conflict.⁴
• These findings are consistent with a broader body of research from social movement studies—though not specific to animal advocacy—that identifies interpersonal trust as a key mechanism underlying the benefits of activist networks.
  • Recent social movement research suggests that trust is not just a predictor of engaging in social movements and collective action, but can also be generated rapidly through action itself, creating a reinforcing cycle.⁵
  • Events such as vegan festivals or advocacy conferences may support retention in part because they generate trust between participants, which the social movement literature suggests can strengthen commitment to sustained collective action.⁶
  • Case studies from the social movements field also illustrate specific ways in which trust can break within activist networks: coalitions depend too heavily on a single trusted individual, member organizations feel their priorities are being subordinated to the group’s,⁷ or communication failures compounding existing differences.⁸ This echoes the Pax Fauna finding that conflict between advocates is a major driver of disengagement, and suggests that the quality of relationships within networks—not just their existence—is what determines whether networking supports or undermines retention.

Interorganizational network building

The idea that collaboration between organizations increases joint impact has a strong logic model. However, research that actually measures outcomes is sparse. Instead, the literature—largely from outside animal advocacy—is often theoretical or focuses on the processes of coalition building.

• A review of evidence on network building to improve capacity in nonprofits suggests that collaborative efforts may enable nonprofits to solve complex problems more efficiently; spread innovative approaches; and leverage shared resources to enhance organizational development, infrastructure, and impact.⁹

• “Social Movement Ecology” as a theoretical framework supports the logic model of coalition building. This framework posits that collaboration and coordination between organizations are integral to movement success, as different approaches—at the levels of changing individuals, changing institutions, and promoting alternatives—can mutually reinforce and support each other.¹⁰
  • Civil society counterstrategies to tobacco industry interference provide an example of this dynamic: A scoping review found that advocates consistently combined multiple strategies in a complementary way. For example, international organizations provided evidence and funding, while domestic advocates lobbied legislators and filed legal complaints, and coalition partners exposed industry conduct through media while simultaneously accessing decision-makers directly.¹¹
  • A historical case study of the U.S. anti-smoking movement illustrates a similar dynamic at scale: A wide range of organizations—including major health organizations, grassroots groups, and issue-specific coalitions—attacked the tobacco industry simultaneously, using research, public engagement, legislation, and litigation. The authors note that while there is little indication that the broad range of oppositional forces strategically coordinated their efforts, the sustained multi-front pressure contributed to a significant transformation of the social and regulatory status of tobacco in the U.S. They recommend that animal advocates be even more intentional about building coalitions and creating collaborative strategies across groups and issue areas.¹²
  • Similarly, a Pax Fauna article suggests that animal advocates are more effective if simultaneously using inside and outside strategies. Inside activists insert themselves into positions of influence in existing institutions and formal change, such as through running for office or collaborating with industry, while outside activists build pressure outside of the dominant institutions, such as through protests or open rescues. Importantly, inside activists can then seize upon this pressure to reinforce or make demands of the institutions. As such, communication between advocates across the spectrum is essential to coordinate efforts.¹³
  • Collaboration of more radical and more moderate advocates may also be strategically useful through the radical flank effect: One study found that awareness of Just Stop Oil’s radical tactics improved support for, and identification with, more moderate climate groups.¹⁴
• Two reviews of the social movement literature offer insight into the processes that shape whether interorganizational coalitions form and persist over time. The factors they identify include pre-existing social ties between organizations, ideological and cultural compatibility, the presence of shared threats or political opportunities, and sufficient resources to invest in collaboration. For coalition long-term stability, trust and commitment emerging through repeated interactions and the quality of communication between partners are key factors.¹⁵
• To the best of our knowledge, there is no research directly testing whether alliances between organizations, or between inside and outside activists, can achieve impact beyond the sum of their individual impacts. This evidence gap is well documented in social movement studies. Two major literature reviews of coalition research across social movements reach the same conclusion, noting that research on coalition outcomes remains the least-developed part of the field and calling for more research on how coalitions translate their potential advantages into measurable outcomes.¹⁶ The same may be true for impact measurement within animal advocacy: Catalina López from Aquatic Life Institute (ALI) argues that even where coalitions were clearly involved in creating large-scale change, such as the Open Wing Alliance’s cage-free wins for egg-laying hens, these tend to be analyzed as individual corporate campaign wins, with the unique contribution of the coalition being overlooked.¹⁷
• Other movement examples of coalition work include the three-way grassroots coalition between the International Council for Animal Welfare (ICAW), Animal Activism Collective (AAC) and the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) to achieve corporate commitments and their implementation. The coalition partners take on different roles, with AAC recruiting and training new activists who are then plugged into the campaigning organizations, ICAW and CAFT.¹⁸ The Aquatic Animal Alliance, spearheaded by ALI, is another example: In 2025, 168 members signed a joint letter to the government, advocating for divestment from octopus farming research, and eliciting a public response from the Fisheries Minister.¹⁹

Intermovement network building

Coalition building between different movements is even more understudied compared to intra-movement collaboration.²⁰ Again, there is hardly any research testing how effective coalitions are. However, recent scoping studies in Southeast Asia and other regions are beginning to shed light on how they form and what factors support or constrain them.

• Social movement literature theorizes some specific benefits of diverse coalitions beyond pooling resources. A literature review suggests that coalitions involving non-obvious allies—i.e., groups not typically associated with a cause may force audiences and campaign targets to take the movement more seriously because the involvement of unexpected supporters signals broad public backing. Diverse leadership coalitions might also enable more creative strategy and problem solving because of the varied perspectives, experiences, and tactical skills the coalition members bring. Smaller and less powerful movements can seek strategic alliances with more powerful movements to widen their reach and benefit from the leverage and infrastructure of the more powerful movement.²¹ This may be the case, for example, where animal advocates build coalitions with the climate movement.
• The broader social movement literature finds that coalitions of all kinds are most likely to form in response to shared political threats or opportunities.²² This dynamic might be especially relevant for intermovement coalitions, where groups often lack pre-existing ties and a shared identity, and may therefore need a concrete external prompt to collaborate across movement boundaries.
• Two case studies, including literature reviews and interviews with key stakeholders, examined notable intermovement coalitions. These case studies primarily shed light on the process of intermovement coalition building: how such coalitions form, what holds them together, and what generates tension—rather than measuring their impact.
  • The EU Food Policy Coalition (EUFPC) was formed to advocate for a common food policy in the E.U.²³ It united a diverse range of stakeholders in Europe, from progressive to radical, to push for policy changes based on environmental, social, global justice, and agroecological norms. The coalition consisted of both professional movement communities working on formal institutional change and grassroots movement communities focused on individual behavior change. Coalition brokers played a crucial role in helping groups with differing interests find common ground and collaborate effectively. E.U. officials acknowledged that EUFPC’s advocacy influenced the European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy.
  • The Stop the Bioterror Lab Coalition was a cross-movement collaboration between environmental justice and peace groups in the U.S. that managed to persist and achieve some success, despite internal tensions and positional differences. The coalition’s success was attributed to a bridging process where activists modified their practices to resolve conflicts or exited before causing significant disruption.²⁴
• Studies conducted with animal advocates and possible coalition partners indicate that there is some interest to form more cross-movement coalitions:
  • Asian advocates interviewed as part of the Asia Landscape Scoping Study spoke about the importance of forming strategic alliances beyond the animal advocacy movement, particularly in regions where there are few dedicated advocates. Possible connections involve academics, industry stakeholders, and individuals engaged in sustainability and climate activism.²⁵
  • Faunalytics researchers interviewed advocates at eight environmental organizations in Brazil, China, and the U.S. to explore the potential for collaboration with animal advocates. Half of the environmental organizations interviewed were already collaborating with animal advocates, and all were interested in collaboration—particularly with advocates engaged in legal advocacy, education, and promoting plant-based diets. Results also suggested that willingness for collaboration depends on aligning values, interests, and tactics, as well as the capacity to manage the partnership effectively.²⁶
  • A subsequent scoping study by Faunalytics and Good Growth examined opportunities for cross-movement collaboration for farmed animal advocates in six Southeast Asian countries. Based on desk research across a range of social movements, environmental and health/development movements were prioritized as the most promising partners for farmed animal advocates due to their overlapping concerns around sustainable food systems, agricultural emissions, antibiotic resistance, and zoonotic disease. Interviews with 10 leaders from organizations in these movements then explored collaboration dynamics in more detail:²⁷
    • Youth-led climate groups were often already sympathetic to animal advocacy.
    • Coalitions in the region tended to be based on pragmatic considerations and were mostly project based rather than requiring full value alignment. They commonly included shared funding, joint events, and complementary role assignment (e.g., some partners doing grassroots mobilization, while others handled institutional engagement).
    • Farmed animal advocacy was often perceived as niche, and plant-based messaging faced resistance in lower-income communities where meat is viewed as aspirational.
    • The authors recommended that animal advocates build trust by demonstrating alignment with widely-shared concerns like public health or environmental protection first, before introducing farmed animal issues.

Strength of evidence

• The overall strength of evidence is low to moderate. Most studies are qualitative, descriptive, or based on case studies, and there is hardly any causal attribution or rigorous evaluation of outcomes.
• For interpersonal network building, much of the evidence comes from self-report studies with small, mostly demographically homogeneous samples, often from the U.K., U.S., or Canada. While findings suggest benefits for motivation and retention, causal attribution, generalizability, and long-term impact remain uncertain.
• Research on interorganizational and intermovement collaboration largely draws from fields outside animal advocacy and is supported by anecdotal reports and logic models, rather than empirical studies. The broader social movement literature offers useful frameworks for understanding how coalitions form, what sustains them, and what causes them to fail, but it is largely process focused and does not resolve the question of whether coalition building produces impact beyond the sum of what individual organizations could achieve alone.
• Major research gaps include lack of quantitative and longitudinal studies across all three levels of network building; limited attention to risks, such as increased burnout, power imbalances, or ineffective coalition structures; minimal representation from LMICs and other under-researched regions; and few indicators or metrics for measuring the impact and cost effectiveness of network building.
• Additional gaps highlighted by the broader social movement literature include the role of trust—both between individuals and between organizations—as a mechanism underlying network effectiveness, which has only been studied outside animal advocacy;²⁸ and the influence of ideological diversity within the animal movement (e.g., welfare v. abolition approaches) on the tractability and effectiveness of coalition building, which the literature identifies as a major factor in other movements.²⁹

Cost effectiveness

We were unable to find any robust cost-effectiveness analyses of network building interventions within animal advocacy.

Under what conditions is this intervention more or less effective?

Interpersonal network building

• Qualitative evidence suggests that network building may be more effective at increasing engagement with animal advocacy when informal networking is combined with the provision of tangible resources for getting involved, such as groups or meetups to join after the event or actions to participate in,³⁰ but this was implied rather than directly tested.
• The social movement literature also suggests that the quality of relationships within networks determines whether networking supports or undermines sustained engagement. Trust between activists is built through repeated positive interactions, but can also be damaged quickly by interpersonal conflict, perceived betrayal, or over reliance on a single trusted figure.³¹ This is consistent with the Pax Fauna finding that advocates’ lowest points often revolve around conflict with fellow advocates,³² and suggests that networking initiatives may benefit from deliberately investing in conflict resolution capacity and relationship maintenance, not just creating the initial opportunities for connection.
• There are also anecdotal accounts of interpersonal networking being a potential source of burnout rather than a protective factor, as, for example, in this Effective Altruism Forum post, which describes burnout experienced after an EA Global Conference. Many of the responses recount similar experiences. We are not aware of any empirical research on the factors that make these experiences more or less likely.
• Additionally, all networking spaces bring with them the risk of discrimination, harassment, or other harmful interpersonal dynamics. Another Effective Altruism Forum post, for example, discusses how networking and community events within the Effective Altruism space can inadvertently create environments where power disparities make it difficult for various individuals to voice dissent or assert their boundaries. This dynamic can foster anxiety and conformity, potentially compromising the overall effectiveness and integrity of the community.
• In contexts where advocates face significant government opposition, the social movement literature also documents regimes actively working to erode trust within activist networks through surveillance, infiltration, and co-optation.³³

Interorganizational network building

• Interorganizational network building may be more effective when organizations are clear about their capacity building priorities, networks explicitly share learnings and resources with each other, e-learning and other online resources are used to network cost-effectively, and there is long-term commitment and mutual trust.³⁴ However, this is based on just one literature review that is not peer-reviewed or systematic, and it is not clear what indicators of effectiveness were used.
• Reviews of social movement literature provide evidence for additional factors, but focus mainly on the conditions that facilitate coalition building and sustainability rather than those enhancing their effectiveness:
  • The presence of “bridge builders”—individuals with connections across multiple organizations—was identified as one of the strongest predictors of whether interorganizational coalitions form and persist.³⁵
  • Organizations with broad, multi-issue goals seem more likely to enter coalitions than those with a narrow single-issue focus.³⁶
  • Organizational trust, i.e., trust between organizations as collective entities, seems to be a key factor predicting coalition sustainability; coalitions where organizational trust depends on a small number of personal relationships may be more fragile than those where trust is embedded in organizational norms and shared practices.³⁷
  • The degree of ideological alignment needed between coalition partners appears to depend on the intensity of the collaboration. Loose, project-based coalitions (e.g., co-authoring a policy brief or cohosting a one-off event) can tolerate significant ideological diversity, while long-term formal collaborations involving joint strategy and shared decision making require greater congruence.³⁸ This may have implications for animal advocacy, where meaningful ideological differences exist (e.g., between more welfare- and more rights-based approaches), but this has not been explicitly studied within the movement.
  • Availability of resources can both support and inhibit collaboration. The more resources an organization has available, the better positioned they are to invest time and staff in coalition work. When resources are scarce, organizations may be motivated to pool resources with others but may also be stretched too thin to invest in collaboration, or be forced to turn inward to focus on organizational survival. Forming a coalition with a better-resourced partner can also carry risks: The more powerful organization could dominate framing and strategy, potentially at the risk of subordinating the weaker partner’s priorities.³⁹ This dynamic is especially relevant for coalitions between Global North and Global South organizations, and could plausibly affect animal advocacy given the concentration of well-resourced organizations in North America and Europe.

Intermovement network building

• For animal advocates specifically, issue framing may be an important factor. Interview data suggests that farmed animal advocacy can be perceived by potential partners as niche or disconnected from broader social priorities, so animal advocates may need to lead with shared concerns, such as public health or environmental protection, before introducing animal-specific issues. However, this may come with risks, especially if climate or health framing encourage small animal replacement.⁴⁰ Plant-based messaging in particular can face resistance in lower-income contexts, suggesting that messaging strategies need to be adapted to the economic realities of the context potential partners operate in.⁴¹
• Wider social movement research indicates several factors that may enhance or threaten their formation and cohesion, but does not examine directly what makes them more or less effective.
  • Diverse coalitions seem to be more likely to form when they are triggered by a shared political threat or policy opportunity that gives otherwise disconnected groups a concrete reason to collaborate.⁴²
  • Power asymmetries between coalition partners are identified as a major source of tension, particularly when coalition partners have unequal power and access to resources. The challenges may be exacerbated when coalitions form rapidly in response to a crisis with little time to establish shared principles before action is needed.⁴³
• Case studies from other movements also suggest conditions under which the coalitions may be more effective, but these are anecdotal and have not been rigorously tested:
  • The coalition forms decentralized networks with flexible, dispersed leadership and opportunities for sub-groups to act independently without requiring full consensus.
  • There is a full-time coordinator to manage coalition efforts.
  • There is a broad-based commitment across all groups to overarching norms and shared values, despite differing interests.
  • There are pre-existing interpersonal or professional ties, or there is a “coalition broker” with connections to multiple organizations.⁴⁴
  • Activists engage in strategies such as cause affirmation, strategic deployment, exclusion, and co-commitments.⁴⁵

Our priorities for improving this evidence review

• Where possible, we would like to include more diverse geographic and demographic perspectives, particularly from LMICs and non-English-speaking contexts, to improve generalizability.
• We are hoping to solicit unpublished impact data and cost-effectiveness analyses.
• We would like to seek out experts in the field and incorporate their opinions where relevant.
• We would like to explore relevant research relating to other social movements in more detail, such as environmental, civil rights, or labor, where network-building has been more extensively studied.

1. Prosser et al. (2023) 

2. Bryant et al. (2022); see also this Faunalytics (2023) study on bringing back former veg*ns. 

3. Anderson (2020) 

4. Hamer (2023) 

5. Weipert-Fenner et al. (2024) 

6. Weipert-Fenner et al. (2024) 

7. Piper et al. (2023), as discussed by Weipert-Fenner et al. (2024) 

8. Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

9. Chandler & Kennedy (2015) 

10. E.g., Cockburn (2018) 

11. Matthes et al. (2023) 

12. Dillard et al. (2022) 

13. Kankyoku (2023) 

14. Ozden & Ostarek (2022) 

15. Gawerc (2019); Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

16. Gawerc (2019); Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

17. López (2026) 

18. Our Hen House (2026) 

19. López (2026) 

20. Beamish & Luebbers (2014); see also Holt (2008) 

21. Gawerc (2019) 

22. Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

23. Shawki & Schnyder (2021) 

24. Beamish & Luebbers (2014) 

25. Wong (2023) 

26. Arévalo, et al. (2024) 

27. Stennet et al. (2025) 

28. Weipert-Fenner et al. (2024) 

29. Gawerc (2019); Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

30. Prosser, et al. (2023) 

31. Weipert-Fenner et al. (2024) 

32. Hamer (2023) 

33. Sika (2023) and Ho (2023), as discussed in Weipert-Fenner et al. (2024) 

34. Chandler & Kennedy (2015) 

35. Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

36. Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

37. Weipert-Fenner et al. (2024)  

38. Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

39. Gawerc (2019) 

40. E.g., Nicholles (2024) 

41. Stennet et al. (2025) 

42. Van Dyke & Amos (2017) 

43. Gawerc (2019) 

44. Shawki & Schnyder (2021) 

45. Beamish & Luebbers (2014) 

---

---

---

About Alina Salmen

Alina joined ACE in September 2022. She holds a Ph.D. in Social Psychology, with a focus on gender role beliefs and attitudes toward veganism. She is passionate about using her research skills to support ACE’s mission and reduce animal suffering as much as possible.

ACE is dedicated to creating a world where all animals can thrive, regardless of their species. We take the
guesswork out of supporting animal advocacy by directing funds toward the most impactful charities and programs,
based on evidence and research.

167
Recipients working on promising projects

42
Countries across six continents.

$68M
Donations within the animal advocacy movement.

$58,000,000+
in donations already made to our recommended charities between January 2019 and March 2025

Looking to make your first donation? We’re happy to help

Learn more

Donate now