Farmed Animal Advocacy In The U.K.: How Are Resources Spent?

Organizations across the globe spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually on farmed animal advocacy. But how is this money spent and what strategies are used? Social Change Lab, a U.K.-based research organization, set out to understand this dynamic by surveying U.K. organizations working in this area. This information can be used by animal advocates to understand what is currently prioritized and what needs more attention and resources.

Social Change Lab surveyed 17 farmed animal advocacy organizations in the United Kingdom. They assessed how much they spend in different areas, their strategies for influencing change, and what they feel is missing in farmed animal advocacy. 14 organizations, like PETA U.K., The Vegan Society, Open Cages, and others, answered the survey directly. For three organizations that didn’t complete the survey, the authors were able to estimate funding from past data. In total, these 17 organizations accounted for £13.1 million in yearly spending — about 6.5% of global spending by organizations focused on ending factory farming.

These organizations were asked about their spending on government advocacy, business initiatives, public awareness, and movement building (e.g.research hiring and training staff). The researchers found that spending was highest for business-focused campaigns (39%), followed by government advocacy (26%), public awareness (26%) and movement building (9%). This is surprising because globally, farmed animal advocacy spending tends to focus on the public and spends more on the overall movement than these U.K.-based organizations do.

The researchers then asked organizations to break down these categories further. For example, how much of government initiatives went towards advocating for alternative proteins or animal welfare policies? How much of business spending was allocated to plant-based advocacy, alternative proteins, or welfare campaigns? 

The three most dominant areas for these organizations were “animal welfare-related partnerships with food businesses” (£2.59 million), “animal welfare policy via public pressure” (£1.48 million), and “mass communications towards the public” (£1.37 million). It’s worth noting that there is potential overlap. For example, encouraging a business to adopt a cage-free egg policy often goes along with a public communication campaign to the public. As a result, the public communications spending is probably higher than estimated here, as the researchers noted that some organizations recorded £0 on public communications even though they do have such campaigns.

Next, the survey asked the organizations about strategies for spending. The researchers asked these organizations to what extent their work uses an “inside game” approach of working alongside those they want to influence or an “outside game” approach of applying pressure using confrontational tactics. On a scale of 0-100 (0= extremely cooperative, 100= extremely confrontational), respondents were split, with the two most common responses being between 0-19 or between 80-100, showing a preference for distinct approaches rather than moderate ones. It’s important to note that this is an overall estimate, and organizations might be more or less confrontational against some businesses or government agencies than others.

The researchers found that most resources are spent on “inside game” approaches, with 58% of resources going towards working with stakeholders “very collaboratively.” The inside game figure increases to 72% if you include organizations who rated their approaches as “working collaboratively”. On the other end of the spectrum, about 19% of resources were spent on “extremely confrontational” tactics. This reiterates the idea that organizations generally prefer to spend resources on the “inside game” or the “outside game,” with less landing in the middle.

Organizations rated their overall objectives on a 5-point scale, including promoting veganism, promoting meat reduction, abolition of farmed animals, and improving welfare of farmed animals. By roughly comparing the ratings to organizational spending, the researchers found that most resources (45% of total spending, £5.9 million) went towards welfare improvements. 21% (£2.8 million) went towards abolition of farmed animals and 17% (£2.3 million) went towards promoting veganism. The authors argue that advocacy to increase plant-based consumption is weaker than these other areas, although this is just a rough estimate.

Finally, the researchers asked the organizations where they thought the biggest gaps in the U.K. movement for farmed animals. Responses varied, highlighting needs such as lobbying capacity, alignment in objectives, increasing enforcement, and willingness to try untested or risky approaches. In all, there was no clear consensus on the main gaps.

Based on these results, the researchers argue that at least 30% of resources should be dedicated to “outside game” tactics. Drawing on experimental psychology, previous opinion polling, and consultation with academics, they argue that groups pursuing radical tactics often lead to a more positive perception of moderates. These strategies succeed in attracting media attention and raising awareness, as seen in the movement to ban live exports. They also suggest exploring business-focused plant-based campaigns, pointing to large food providers in the U.S. who have made commitments to more plant-based options. Additionally, they recommend that more resources should be spent on bringing animal advocacy groups together, sharing resources and knowledge, and ensuring goals and messages are aligned.

While this study offers an interesting view into farmed animal advocacy efforts in the U.K., it has some limitations. Only 17 organizations were surveyed, missing many “meta” animal organizations like Sentient Media and Animal Advocacy Careers. As these organizations focus on empowering the overall animal advocacy movement, this may partially explain the limited spending on the movement found in this study. Relatedly, the high spending on animal welfare policy via public pressure (£1.48 million) was also skewed by one organization’s focus in this area. 

For animal advocates, this study offers useful insights into how the U.K.-based farmed animal advocacy movement uses its resources. Its findings can guide organizations both within and outside of the United Kingdom. Awareness of strategies and resource distribution within the movement can be useful in enhancing the effectiveness of farmed animal advocacy efforts, and help advocates evaluate which kinds of organizations that most align with their own goals.