Food Systems Advocacy In The Global South: A Framework And Pilot In India
Executive Summary
This study develops a framework for contextualized food systems advocacy and tests it in the Indian context. Drawing on global implementation science and India-specific literature, we created a framework organized into four dimensions: External Environment, Organizational Conditions, Advocacy & Movement Landscape, and Stakeholder Characteristics. We then tested this framework via a pilot survey of 11 India-based advocates, who described a recent campaign and reported the contextual factors they perceived as most influential; we then coded and mapped these reported factors to the four framework dimensions to assess fit and practical coverage. Key findings include that political and cultural factors were most frequently cited as influencing outcomes (40% of responses), while organizational factors shaped adaptation capacity. Key recommendations include conducting structured contextual scans before launch, building organizational readiness checks into planning, and explicitly addressing caste, livelihoods, and economic realities in campaign design.
Why Context Matters
Across the animal advocacy movement, there is growing recognition that a strategy’s success is closely tied to the environment in which it is implemented. Recent commentary emphasizes the need for context-driven change, the value of deploying the most appropriate tactics for each setting, and acknowledgment from funders that different cultures may require distinct approaches.
This is especially salient across many Global South settings, where implementation and scale of advocacy efforts often hinge on context-specific constraints and system capacity rather than on assuming stable, transferable pathways.
The importance of context is especially visible in India’s food system, where public norms around animals are closely tied to identity, religion, and political narratives (PEW Research, 2021; Giacalone & Jaeger, 2024; Sarma & Hari, 2023). India-specific studies describe recurring contextual conditions such as upper-caste vegetarianism, religious dietary traditions, stigma around certain meats, and sensitivities around livelihoods and hunger.
Most established advocacy frameworks assume conditions like consistent policy enforcement and predictable policymaking that do not always apply in India. Research on India’s food system highlights distinct dynamics: social norms linked to caste and religion shape advocacy reception, policy reform involves navigating competing priorities rather than linear pathways, and outcomes depend on variable enforcement capacity and both formal and informal influence channels. For example, national animal welfare laws exist but enforcement varies widely across states, with some lacking basic infrastructure while others maintain active committees; policy influence often flows through informal networks and party intermediaries alongside formal processes; and plant-based advocacy can be read as reinforcing caste hierarchies, triggering resistance when campaigns ignore these identity dynamics. While India-specific literature describes these forces, it rarely translates them into structured planning tools. This gap motivated the development of a contextual advocacy framework grounded in both global evidence and India-specific realities.
In this study, we treated these as examples of contextual conditions in India and used them as reference points when extracting and clustering factors for the pilot framework’s four dimensions.
Objective Of The Study
Advocacy for food system transformation often relies on global narratives around climate, sustainability, and animal welfare that may not resonate in local contexts. This creates challenges for adapting and localizing advocacy campaigns across different cultural and political settings. To address this, we need a practical framework that helps advocates and funders identify which contextual factors matter most for campaign design.
This study follows three steps to develop such a framework. First, we built a pilot framework by drawing on global advocacy literature and existing frameworks from public policy, implementation science, and food systems research. Second, we cross-checked and refined the framework using India-specific literature on food systems, vegan advocacy, and case studies, to accommodate contextual factors specific to India. Third, we tested this framework in India as our first pilot site. India was chosen because it presents a distinct advocacy landscape shaped by caste, religion, moral norms, and complex policy dynamics around food and health (Sarma & Hari, 2023; Thow et al., 2016; Giacalone & Jaeger, 2024). The resulting framework organizes these contextual factors into four dimensions, introduced in Section 3 of the full report.
This pilot study examines whether the framework reflects the contextual factors Indian advocates describe working with, and whether it can help them make more strategic decisions. Based on feedback from this pilot, the framework can be refined and adapted for other contexts across the Global South.
The resulting framework examines contextual advocacy through four dimensions: (1) External Environment, (2) Organizational Conditions, (3) Advocacy & Movement Landscape, and (4) Stakeholder Characteristics (see Section 2 for framework development and Section 3 for detailed findings in the full report).
Key Findings
- Political and cultural factors were the most frequently referenced by Indian advocates as influencing campaign progress and outcomes. Around 40% of the 395 coded responses describing campaign factors and influences referred to political, cultural, or regulatory factors, such as government attention, policy priorities, or public sentiment, when respondents explained why campaigns moved faster or slower than expected.
Across questions on planning, success, and challenges, respondents most often explained why campaigns sped up, stalled, or changed direction by referring to political and cultural shifts rather than internal or movement-level factors. - Advocates highlighted India-specific social and economic conditions as central considerations for campaign planning. Six of 11 respondents (54.5%) referred to contextual forces such as caste, hunger, malnutrition, livelihoods, and price sensitivity when explaining how their campaigns were received. They described these conditions as factors they needed to keep in mind when setting campaign goals and choosing strategies rather than as general background. For example, one respondent argued that legal advocacy “must be done strategically and keeping in mind the complexities in India between farmed animals, livelihoods, malnutrition, chronic hunger and stunting, and the severe price sensitivity of the market” (Resp. 35).
- Organizational factors shaped how far campaigns could be adjusted once they were underway. Most respondents (nine of 11) rated organizational factors such as staffing, funding, internal systems, and leadership alignment as highly influential on campaign outcomes. Around one quarter of the responses we analyzed described how these internal factors shaped the kinds of changes teams could make once campaigns were underway, such as slowing or pausing campaigns, scaling back planned expansion, or redesigning program structures when they could not be implemented as originally intended.
- Organizational factors were mentioned more often in mid-campaign reflections than in early planning. Mentions of staffing, resources, internal coordination, and related organizational elements appeared primarily in responses describing challenges, pivots, or adjustments rather than in answers about initial campaign design. This pattern may indicate that some internal factors became more salient once campaigns were underway instead of being explicitly considered at the outset. A key question for future work is whether using the contextual advocacy framework can help teams bring these considerations into earlier planning and campaign review, or whether it mainly formalizes practices already used by a subset of organizations.
- Stakeholder groups were more often described as constraints to navigate than as primary audiences for influence. Stakeholder-related reflections represented a smaller share of the data (12%). When respondents did mention stakeholders such as government agencies, businesses, media, or communities, they typically described them as sources of risk or resistance (for example, a strong dairy lobby or risk of government pushback) rather than as primary audiences for engagement within the timeframe of their campaigns. In this small sample, advocates often focused on managing backlash and regulatory risk, so their reflections emphasized working around powerful actors rather than trying to change their positions directly.
Taken together, these responses indicate that, in this sample, social identity and socio-economic conditions were treated as key contextual factors to weigh alongside political and organizational conditions when assessing possible campaign directions.
Recommendations
When carrying out interventions that aim to reduce and/or eliminate the consumption or purchase of animal products, we make the following recommendations.
For Advocates
- Make external factors explicit in early planning: Include quick checks for political priorities, enforcement practices, cultural sensitivities, and public sentiment before setting goals. In this study, campaigns that faced backlash around religious festivals or weak enforcement after legal wins were often described as having not fully anticipated these risks. Naming these risks up front can surface ways to reduce harm and identify backup options if conditions shift.
- Include an internal readiness check before finalizing scope: Before launch, confirm that staffing, skills, decision-making processes, and funding match the ambition and duration of the campaign. Some teams in this sample only realized they lacked basic infrastructure — such as follow-up capacity or lead capture — after launch, which meant slowing down or scaling back. A short readiness discussion can help right-size scope, timelines, or sequencing without adding new formal processes.
- Turn reflections into reusable playbooks: Respondents often recognized missing pieces only once a campaign was underway. Build in milestone or post-campaign debriefs to capture what helped, what constrained progress, and what should change next time, and keep one or two pages of notes in a shared folder. The framework’s dimensions and factors can provide a light structure so reflections become a usable reference rather than ad hoc memories.
- Revisit assumptions about “fixed” stakeholders: Instead of assuming government, industry, media, or the public are immovable, treat them as audiences whose positions can shift in different ways over time. In this study, seeing stakeholders as completely fixed sometimes closed off options, while engaging medium and small producers, or even using backlash strategically, occasionally created openings. Stakeholder mapping tools can help make these assumptions explicit and prompt teams to explore alternative ways of engaging.
- Factor social identity and economic realities into campaign planning: Advocates should reflect deliberately on caste, religion, hunger, livelihoods, and price sensitivity when designing campaigns. Respondents described how these conditions shaped what felt acceptable and fair, especially where animal, food, and livelihood concerns intersected. This kind of reflection can guide choice of messages, messengers, and partners, and help anticipate when campaigns may be experienced as blind to local realities.
- Use peer spaces to share contextual and capacity tactics: Low-burden exchanges (short calls, shared templates aligned to the framework, informal peer circles) can help advocates swap practical ways of dealing with enforcement realities, coalition options, and internal capacity constraints, particularly for smaller or volunteer-led groups. These spaces can be built into existing relationships without creating new formal structures.
For Funders
- Fund structured contextual reflection in planning: Allow grantees to budget time and resources for structured scans of the external environment (policy priorities, enforcement practices, cultural dynamics, public sentiment) and organizational capacity (staffing, coordination, basic systems), and to integrate these findings into plans. In this study, campaigns that stalled or were redesigned were often attributed by respondents to public sentiment, enforcement gaps, or missing internal infrastructure that became clear only after work had begun.
- Support peer learning with attention to smaller and regional organizations: Funders should consider funding low-burden convenings, shared online spaces, and mentoring that enable organizations to exchange lessons on context, capacity, and stakeholder dynamics. Pay attention to timing, language, and travel so that smaller or regionally based groups can participate, and learning is not concentrated among a few better-resourced organizations.
- Be patient and encourage testing in sensitive contexts: In areas where caste norms, religious observances, dairy-related livelihoods, hunger, and price concerns are salient, feasibility and perceived legitimacy depend on careful message-testing, relationship-building, and consultation. Funders can support pilot projects and iteration, and avoid penalizing teams when evidence or community feedback suggests a change in approach is needed rather than pushing for rigid adherence to initial plans.
For Researchers
- Replicate the study in other countries with comparable instruments: Researchers should use similar dimensions and survey structure to enable cross-country comparison, while adapting examples, prompts, and a short literature review to each local context. Replication can support locally grounded campaign design and, over time, clarify which patterns of contextual influence are shared across settings and which are specific to particular regions.
- Build stronger Global South case studies to anchor local guidance: We still lack detailed, multi-perspective accounts of how campaigns unfold in India and similar settings. Researchers and advocates should develop multi-informant case studies that trace key stages and decision points, documenting design choices, pivots, and outcomes. These can be paired with surveys or workshops to compare individual and group reflections, and the results can be used to design light-touch planning and debrief tools tied to real decision points.
- Expand scope and deepen stakeholder analysis: In future work, include the “what” (interventions) and “how” (process) alongside context, and use stakeholder mapping (for example, power–interest grids) to distinguish relatively fixed conditions from actors who can be engaged or shifted. Test whether this clearer separation improves how advocates interpret their campaigns and makes any framework-based tools easier to use in practice.
Applying These Findings
We understand that reports like this have a lot of information to consider and that acting on research can be challenging. Faunalytics is happy to offer pro bono support to advocates and non-profit organizations who would like guidance applying these findings to their own work. Please visit our virtual Office Hours or contact us for support.
Behind The Project
Research Team
The project’s lead author was Anita Rajan (Good Growth) and Jah Ying Chung (Good Growth). Dr. Allison Troy (Faunalytics) reviewed and oversaw the work.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Varda Mehrotra (Co-Founder, Samayu and One Just World) who provided valuable input about this research throughout the process. We also thank the advocates who shared their insights through participating in the survey. In addition, we are grateful to Faunalytics’ donors for your support — your donations allow us to conduct essential research like this to help you take action for animals.
Research Terminology
At Faunalytics, we strive to make research accessible to everyone. We avoid jargon and technical terminology as much as possible in our reports. If you do encounter an unfamiliar term or phrase, check out the Faunalytics Glossary for user-friendly definitions and examples.
Research Ethics Statement
As with all of Faunalytics’ original research, this study was conducted according to the standards outlined in our Research Ethics and Data Handling Policy.
Let us know what you think!
We conduct research to help advocates like you, so we really value your input on what we’re doing well and how we can do better. Take the brief (less than 2 min) survey below to let us know how satisfied you were with this report.
Citations:
Rajan, A., Chung, J. Y., & Troy, A. (2026). Food Systems Advocacy In The Global South: A Framework And Pilot In India. Faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/food-systems-advocacy-in-the-global-south-a-framework-and-pilot-in-india/
