From Performative To Transformative: Navigating Equity & Inclusion Across A Diverse Animal Advocacy Movement
Abstract
This report explores how farmed animal advocacy organizations can meaningfully integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles into their missions and practices in ways that enhance strategic focus and intended impact. Grounded in qualitative interviews with BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) advocates and movement leaders, as well as desk research on over 200 organizations, the report examines persistent cultural and structural barriers to inclusion and offers pathways for transformation. It is intended for a wide range of farmed animal advocacy movement stakeholders: organizational leaders, movement members, funders, and especially BIPOC advocates navigating their roles within a predominantly white-led movement.
The report begins by framing DEI efforts through two distinct but related approaches:
- Organizational justice, which emphasizes procedural and structural fairness; and
- Social justice, which centers identity, power, and systemic transformation.
The overarching thesis is that engagement with organizational justice is the bare minimum for DEI in this movement. How much social justice is incorporated should depend on a clear understanding of the organization’s identity and answers to key questions: “Who are we?”, “What do we do?”, and “How do we do it?” DEI work must be pursued intentionally and in alignment with this identity.
The report then offers two tailored sets of recommendations for organizations and their leaders:
- Table 1 outlines minimum DEI expectations by advocacy approach (Direct Animal Care, Individual Advocacy, and Institutional Advocacy), recognizing that organizational size and structure influence both capacity and responsibility.
- Table 2 provides aspirational recommendations by mission scope (Farmed Animal Welfare/Rights, Health and/or Environment, and Social Justice), encouraging deeper community engagement and cross-movement solidarity for organizations ready to lead beyond baseline inclusion and equity work.
Ultimately, the report calls on all actors to move beyond symbolic DEI gestures toward strategies rooted in accountability, power-sharing, and value alignment. It is offered both as a resource and an invitation to help shape a more inclusive and justice-driven movement.
Background
Farmed animal advocacy organizations face a strategic crossroads. While the impact of industrial animal agriculture on both animals and humans is undeniable, many groups struggle with whether to focus solely on animal suffering or engage more broadly with the interconnected systemic harms of animal agriculture. The tension between a narrow focus on animal protection and a broader, intersectional approach influences who is drawn to collaborate or work within the movement: While a standalone focus may be appealing to some, integrating related social justice issues, such as food justice or racial equity, can resonate better with more diverse advocates, thereby expanding the movement’s reach and impact (see Reisman et al., 2022).
These issues are integral to considerations of if and how organizations should approach diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work. When done well, DEI work is more than a strategy for equity and inclusion — it is a strategy for coherence, accountability, and long-term sustainability. As such, this report is intended as a resource for movement leaders, members, and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) advocates to better understand their organizational contexts, identify pathways for advancing DEI, and do so in ways that align with their personal values and experiences.
Specifically, the central question for this report is:
How can farmed animal advocacy organizations meaningfully support DEI efforts — internally and externally — in ways that align with and advance their core mission and strategic goals?
We offer a two-part response to this question: First, what an organization does on DEI should depend on awareness and recognition of its organizational identity — the answers to the foundational questions of who organizations are, what they do, and how they do it (Whetten, 2006).
Second, we suggest a reframing in how organizations and leaders conceive and execute DEI work: Organizations should understand their DEI strategies in terms of the relationship between organizational justice and social justice approaches. Some approaches are oriented more towards organizational justice, focusing on equity in how decisions are made, how resources are shared, and how people are treated (Brown & Coukos, 2025; Cropanzano, 2007). Issues of organizational injustice are often associated with differences in demographic identity, but organizational justice approaches tend to focus on structural and process fairness for everyone, rather than in relation to specific identity groups.
DEI work can also be grounded more deliberately in social justice perspectives, which center identity, power, and systemic transformation, asking not just whether practices are fair, but for whom, under what conditions, and to what end, and taking specific action to address these issues (Thrift & Sugarman, 2019).
The maintenance of organizational justice is a bare minimum for formal organizations looking to operate in fair and just ways. The extent to which social justice approaches are integrated depends on questions of identity, and honest assessments of organizational goals and how DEI efforts fit with these goals (Ninh & Brown, 2024). These efforts, in cases where organizations orient toward justice-specific modes of engagement, like street-level activism, can and should include efforts oriented explicitly toward social justice. Other organizations, embedded in more mainstream contexts, must consider for themselves the broader role of social justice in their overall work and approach DEI through honest organizational assessment and reflection.
DEI initiatives that are disconnected from organizational identity and strategy often falter or create internal dissonance. Failing to integrate social justice efforts with organizational justice practices in a way that meaningfully considers organizational identity can result in detached and ceremonial processes and policies that do little to achieve intended outcomes and become sidelined, leading to their deprioritization or removal when resources become more constrained (Bromley & Powell, 2012).
For organizations and leaders, the path forward starts with a core question: Are we genuinely committed to equity, inclusion, and social justice? If the answer to any of these is no, that must be named honestly. Half-hearted or episodic efforts will not hold up under scrutiny or sustain over time. This complexity and often unacknowledged tensions between these perspectives are especially pronounced in the farmed animal protection movement (hereinafter referred to as the movement), where organizations vary widely in scope and strategy, from grassroots street-level activism to institutional engagement and policy change.
It is also important to note that we present this report at a contentious moment for DEI work. Across organizations, industries, and sectors, similar tensions are unfolding amid the current political climate, shaped by the 2025 United States (U.S.) presidential executive orders targeting DEI efforts. We recognize that external pressures from funders or the government, along with the emotional toll on staff and communities, may limit the ability to act on some of our recommendations and that some organizations may find it increasingly difficult to fully implement or sustain DEI initiatives. In light of these realities, we offer our findings not as one-size-fits-all solutions, but as guiding principles rooted in empirical findings and real-world challenges.
Nevertheless, to the extent that organizations and leaders can wholeheartedly commit to DEI efforts, moving forward requires embracing a broader vision of DEI: one that treats historically marginalized people not as participants to be “included,” but as active agents and co-creators of organizational purpose and structure.
This report can be read in its entirety or explored in sections based on your role or interest area in the sections outlined below. Additional details about our methodological approach, methods, and qualitative results can be found in our Methodological Appendix.
- Key Findings. Six insights from desk research and qualitative interviews conducted prior to January 2025.
- Key Concepts and Contextualizing the Findings. Insights from scholarly literature to frame DEI in the movement context.
- Recommendations for Organizations and Leaders. Practical guidance for aligning DEI with mission and identity.
- Recommendations for Funders. Strategic considerations for supporting DEI in movement infrastructure.
- Recommendations for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) Advocates. Centering agency, authenticity, and co-creation beyond representation.
Finally, 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 nonprofit organizations who would like guidance on applying these findings to their own work. Please visit our virtual Office Hours or contact us for support.
Key Findings
Our six key findings draw on desk research and qualitative interviews conducted prior to January 2025. They are organized from movement-level observations to insights shared by BIPOC advocates about their roles, challenges, and perspectives within the movement.
- DEI Commitments Are Often Absent from Core Missions. Out of 211 U.S. farmed animal organizations, only 20% include DEI or social justice in their mission statements and only 22% have formal DEI workplace policies. Qualitative data mirrors this pattern: Participants described the mainstream movement as siloed and often unwilling to integrate animal protection into broader justice frameworks. Despite this, 43% of organizations had a program dedicated to DEI or social justice, suggesting that organizations may be more likely to offer one-off initiatives than to make it a core aspect of their organization’s mission and identity. This finding also reflects the single-issue narrative of the mainstream movement described by our interview participants.
Key Takeaway: Organizations can update their missions and practices that go beyond one-off programs to reflect DEI or social justice values, attracting broader support and enhancing relevance in intersectional movements.
Figure 1. Percentage of U.S. Farmed Animal Advocacy Organizations Committed to Social Justice/DEI
- Balancing Mission Focus and Inclusivity Remains Divisive. Leaders and advocates are split on whether animal protection should be treated as a standalone cause or one inherently linked to other social justice issues. Some feel a broadened approach is necessary to attract younger, more diverse staff and collaborators. Others worry about “mission drift.” Still, many agreed that shared goals, like food justice, could open the door to broader coalitions and faster progress.
Key Takeaway: Embracing shared goals, like food justice, can bridge divides, spark new partnerships, and appeal to younger, more diverse advocates.
- Efforts Toward Inclusion Are Undermined by Structural Barriers. Many organizations struggle with inclusive hiring, particularly for leadership roles. At the movement level, financial precarity and funder resistance to DEI work hinder progress. Several participants reported that professionalizing too quickly or adopting corporate models can backfire, creating alienation rather than inclusion.
Key Takeaway: Addressing organization- and movement-level structures and processes (e.g., hiring practices, leadership access, and funding constraints) can create more inclusive and resilient organizations.
- Motivations for Joining the Movement Are Diverse. While animal ethics is a key motivator, many BIPOC advocates cited health or cultural experiences as entry points into plant-based lifestyles. Some had “light bulb moments” when they recognized parallels between the treatment of marginalized humans and non-human animals. Embracing these varied motivations can help the movement grow more diverse and inclusive.
Key Takeaway: Recognizing varied motivations for involvement with the movement — from ethics to culture — can help the movement connect with a wider, more diverse base.
- Exclusion Goes Beyond Demographic Identity Categories. While some participants described racial discrimination, many also felt excluded due to norms and values in the movement itself. For example, interview participants who were non-vegans or those who follow plant-based diets for non-animal reasons reported feeling judged or marginalized. Several BIPOC informants also critiqued the movement’s elitist and single-issue framing, which often ignores intersecting issues like food insecurity or worker rights.
Key Takeaway: Broadening movement norms beyond single-issue frames can foster inclusion and solidarity across diverse experiences.
- DEI Efforts Are Often Perceived as Performative. Many BIPOC informants criticized current DEI initiatives as superficial and focused on symbolic gestures or increasing diversity at white-led organizations, rather than shifting power and resources. One informant noted that the ability to be authentic at work is often a privilege not extended to BIPOC staff.
Key Takeaway: Shifting from symbolic DEI to real power-sharing builds trust and drives lasting change.
These findings underscore the need for more than surface-level fixes. To make sense of the tensions surfaced in our research, the next section draws on key organizational theory frameworks — namely, organizational and social justice — to contextualize why some DEI strategies succeed, while others stall or reinforce exclusion. These concepts offer leaders a strategic lens for decision-making grounded in identity, power, and accountability.
Key Concepts
Understanding the movement’s internal tensions requires not only empirical insight but also conceptual clarity. In this section, we emphasize two key frameworks — organizational justice and social justice — that help illuminate why some DEI strategies succeed while others can falter. These perspectives, contrasted in Figure 2 below, offer important tools for aligning equity efforts with organizational identity, values, and long-term coherence.
Organizational justice refers to distributive, procedural, and relational fairness — the fundamentals of equitable operations and decision-making within an organization (Cropanzano et al., 2007). In contrast, social justice brings a normative lens to resource distribution, emphasizing the need to address systemic inequities that disproportionately impact historically marginalized groups (Thrift & Sugarman, 2019).
Figure 2. Organizational Justice versus Social Justice
A social justice perspective also requires organizations to reckon with the historical roots of animal agriculture, which are deeply intertwined with colonialism, environmental degradation, and labor exploitation. For example, settler agricultural expansion in North America displaced Indigenous peoples (Krásná, 2022), while beef production in Brazil has accelerated Amazon deforestation, affecting over one million Indigenous people (Bandura & McKeown, 2020; Couto-Silva et al., 2023). In the U.S., the legacy of slavery and colonialism shapes today’s food system inequities: Black farmers receive disproportionately low government support (EWG, 2017), Black communities experience food apartheid (NRDC, 2021), and suffer environmental harms from animal agriculture (Faunalytics, 2022).
These structural injustices complicate the mission and priorities of farmed animal protection organizations. Layered onto this are racial and cultural perceptions of veganism. Research shows that vegetarianism is widely associated with whiteness across different racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. (Rosenfeld et al., 2022). BIPOC vegans often face cultural backlash, such as being accused of “acting white” (Greenebaum, 2018). In experimental studies, Black participants report lower feelings of belonging in animal advocacy spaces when racial stereotypes are activated (Rosenfeld et al., 2022). In a non-representative sample, 57% of BIPOC animal advocates reported negative experiences in the movement compared to 40% of white respondents, including racial stereotyping and dismissal (Reisman et al., 2022). These studies point to a broader cultural misalignment between movement norms and the experiences of many BIPOC advocates.
As a result, many within the movement are calling for DEI strategies rooted in social justice frameworks. Yet these frameworks may not always align with an organization’s identity, the distinctive features that define its purpose, strategy, and values (Whetten, 2006). For example, an organization tightly focused on procuring large-scale philanthropic funding with animal welfare as its sole mission may struggle to adopt broader justice-oriented programming without confronting internal tensions.
At a minimum, all organizations should uphold the principles of organizational justice — what staff and stakeholders perceive as fair in how decisions are made and resources are allocated (Brown & Coukos, 2025; Cropanzano et al., 2007). This is where structural professionalization becomes essential, particularly for larger organizations or those evolving into more formalized nonprofits. Structural professionalization refers to the implementation of clear, consistent systems that promote fairness, such as transparent hiring practices, equitable compensation frameworks, and shared decision-making protocols.
This should not be confused with cultural professionalization, which refers to implicit expectations that employees share common backgrounds, interests, or forms of self-expression (Bourdieu, 1984). Cultural fit, when narrowly defined or not defined at all, can result in exclusionary hiring practices (Rivera, 2012) and reinforce dominant norms about communication, dress, or behavior in the workplace (Goodridge, 2022).
The distinction matters. Professionalizing structure means building durable systems that promote fairness. Professionalizing culture, on the other hand, often means pressuring people to conform to dominant norms. For organizations committed to equity and sustainability, the lesson is clear: build fairness into the system rather than expecting everyone to assimilate. When done intentionally, structural professionalization supports both organizational coherence and genuine inclusion, without erasing the diversity that the movement needs to thrive.
We discuss these and related concepts in the context of our findings in the next section.
Conceptualizing The Findings
Exclusion & Division in the Movement
Exclusion in the movement was experienced at the movement or organizational level and the individual level, relating to organizational and personal identities (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Causes of Exclusion in the Farmed Animal Protection Movement
Individual-level
People have multiple personal identities, such as their race/ethnicity, gender, and age, which impact organizational outcomes like engagement, satisfaction, and inclusion (Ramarajan, 2011). This was observed in our interviews, as feelings of exclusion at the individual level tied back to people’s multiple identities: age, race/ethnicity, cultural background, income, and gender.
Indeed, previous research has shown that exclusion in the movement typically manifests around people’s race/ethnicity (e.g., advocates witness inequity by race and ethnicity at higher rates than other types of personal identities: Reisman et al., 2022) and gender (e.g., women and non-binary advocates experience discrimination at over twice the rate of men: Faunalytics, 2020). Thus, race/ethnicity, as well as other demographic and personal identities like gender, sexual orientation, and ability should remain a focus of inclusion work in the movement for organizations who are committed to these efforts.
Movement-level
Movement characteristics also caused feelings of exclusion in our sample, which relates to how organizations identify themselves. For example, organizations that explicitly identify as “vegan” may, deliberately or not, exclude non-vegans as several prospective members felt excluded by the movement’s “vegan purity” politics, where being vegan for reasons other than animal welfare, such as health or environmental concerns, was not fully accepted. This created a barrier for those who otherwise align with the movement’s values but do not adhere to its strict dietary expectations.
Similarly, some organizations may purposely have a single-issue mission (i.e., to help farmed animals) while ignoring broader social justice issues, including human rights and environmental concerns. Indeed, our desk research identified that just 20% of U.S. farmed animal advocacy organizations have a mission related to social justice, although 43% have at least one program related to social justice or DEI, which could reflect some organizations’ attempt to connect to social justice or equity through one-off initiatives without having to change their entire mission.
The lack of focus on intersecting issues was perceived as “white veganism” by some participants. This siloed approach may also explain why some advocacy organizations may not fully grasp the legal and safety concerns faced by BIPOC advocates who attend protests, as well as how vegan food can be perceived as elitist and inaccessible, especially by low-income individuals. Even when some single-issue organizations address other forms of injustice, some advocates perceive this as extractive when it is done disingenuously (e.g., discussing the harms of animal agriculture on people or the planet only because these harms can be connected back to animal suffering).
These movement norms around veganism foster an environment where individual-level exclusionary behaviors thrive, particularly affecting individuals based on their race or ethnicity. For instance, research outside the movement has shown that workplace norms associated with class or race can result in experiences of inequality by people of color (Ashcraft & Allen, 2003; Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Understanding how movement-level dynamics and individual-level identities influence each other is crucial for addressing these interconnected forms of exclusion and creating a more inclusive and equitable workplace.
Exclusion Versus Division
It is also important to distinguish between feelings of exclusion and areas of division in the movement. Our interviewees spoke about the existence of different groups and perspectives within the movement (e.g., Effective Altruism (EA) versus grassroots and welfarism (“inside game”) versus abolitionism (“outside game”)). Diverse views are a natural aspect of any social justice movement and having a wide range of perspectives to tackle the shared problem of farmed animal suffering is beneficial. For instance, our interviewees discussed various entry points into the movement — from personal concerns over one’s health to concerns about farmed animal suffering and/or social justice — which stemmed from various mediums (humane education, peer outreach, and documentaries), all of which can be points of contention in the movement when discussing tactics and messaging. But as mentioned, having division in the movement is not necessarily bad, and does not always lead to exclusion. For example, if a certain type of advocacy or representation is absent in a given organization, it may not necessarily mean that exclusion is occurring, but rather reflects a deliberate and intentional choice about how the organization works towards its goals. It can, however, lead to exclusion and discrimination when certain individuals or groups are silenced from participating in or accessing resources (e.g., funding) or opportunities (e.g., presenting at conferences).
Leadership Actions & Challenges
Our interviews with leaders of farmed animal advocacy organizations revealed that fostering an inclusive culture in animal advocacy organizations requires a dual focus on both individual- and organization/movement-level strategies, which are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Leaders are already engaging in a variety of efforts at both levels, with promising practices emerging across organizational sizes and contexts. Nonetheless, leaders also revealed several individual- and movement-level challenges that hinder progress toward meaningful inclusion.
At the individual level, leaders emphasized the importance of open communication, safety, and staff empowerment. Smaller organizations often rely on informal channels and personal connections to create inclusive environments, while larger organizations implement more formal systems, such as codes of conduct and anonymous reporting mechanisms. Other promising practices included organizing team retreats, encouraging feedback between peers, recognizing invisible labor, adopting collective or decentralized decision-making models, and increasing disability awareness and accommodations, all of which are key to reducing group conflict and reducing membership turnover (Nishii, 2013).
Conversely, many leaders acknowledged gaps in management and leadership skills, particularly within grassroots or activist-led organizations where formal training is often lacking. Recruitment and hiring also presented as major challenges with some leaders struggling to find candidates who both align with the mission and bring the necessary skill sets, especially for leadership roles. While some have moved away from requiring veganism as a hiring qualification to avoid exclusion, others emphasize the need for deep alignment with animal-focused missions to avoid internal conflict. Racial homogeneity within organizations also emerged as a concern, especially in the U.S., with rapidly changing demographics. However, some leaders expressed fears that transparency about their lack of diversity could backfire, exposing a tension between accountability and reputation.
At the movement level, some leaders supported the idea of reframing animal advocacy within broader systems of oppression and collective liberation. This includes expanding the movement to be more welcoming to non-vegans and aligning with food justice, environmental, and rural equity issues. These leaders emphasized that to build larger, more inclusive coalitions, the movement must decenter rigid identity-based qualifications (like veganism) and instead focus on shared values and systemic solutions. At the same time, other leaders described funder resistance to DEI efforts and the challenge of balancing multiple priorities in an increasingly intersectional world, with these leaders feeling pressured to both stay focused on animal advocacy and respond to broader political and social concerns raised by their employees. This tension is heightened as some organizations shift from grassroots values toward more corporate models, which may alienate staff and compromise inclusive practices.
Overall, it is important for leaders to recognize how movement/organizational-level barriers related to organizational sustainability and the ability to achieve its mission (in other words, what the organization says it is and how it acts) can result in individual challenges, such as difficulties in hiring and recruiting a skilled and diverse team. Addressing both individual and organization/movement challenges, including how organizations can balance unity and inclusivity in a movement with diverse views, will require leaders to think strategically about their organization’s identity, as outlined in our Recommendations.
The following sections detail recommendations for three stakeholder groups: (1) organizations and their leaders, (2) funders, and (3) BIPOC advocates.
Recommendations
For Organizations & Leaders
Before engaging with the recommendations below, both leadership and staff must take time to reflect on their organization’s identity. Understanding who you are as an organization — your mission, strategy, and values — should guide how you approach DEI. This clarity helps leaders and teams make intentional choices about which DEI efforts align with their purpose and which may not. We hope that grounding in organizational identity can ease the tensions many interviewees described when balancing intersectional commitments with a focus on farmed animal suffering.
One core element of organizational identity for organizations in the movement is advocacy approach, which often correlates with organizational size. Previous Faunalytics (2024) research found organizations in the movement broadly focus on three areas:
- Direct animal care (e.g., sanctuaries, directly helping animals through veterinary aid or a sanctuary);
- Individual advocacy (e.g., diet change, advocating for individual-level behavior change, such as vegan outreach); and
- Institutional advocacy (e.g., corporate campaigns, advocating for systems-level change, such as company commitments or government policies).
This research further found that direct animal care organizations tend to be smaller, while those engaged in institutional advocacy are typically larger. For this reason, Table 1 categorizes recommendations by advocacy approach (i.e., organizations should adopt baseline equity practices appropriate to their size and structure). The recommendations here represent minimum expectations, especially for larger and more professionalized organizations. Given their larger size and workforce, these organizations have a greater responsibility to uphold principles of organizational justice, which requires greater bureaucratic structure and processes than smaller, local organizations. As such, we recommend policies that address fair and transparent decision-making for them specifically. For smaller groups, these serve as realistic entry points into equity practice that do not divert resources from their primary mission.
Table 1. Minimum Recommendations to Consider by Organizational Advocacy Approach
We also provide a second lens in Table 2, which groups additional recommendations by mission scope:
- Farmed animal welfare/rights. Organizations that advocate for the reduction, prevention, or end of animal agriculture because of its harm on farmed animals.
- Plant-based health or environmental goals. Organizations that advocate for the reduction, prevention, or end of animal agriculture because of its harm on people’s health and/or the environment.
- Social justice. Organizations that advocate for the reduction, prevention, or end of animal agriculture because of its total harm on people, the environment, and animals. These organizations view the above two mission types as part of the same problem.
These different scopes reflect distinct stakeholder communities and, therefore, different equity considerations, all in the context of a movement that is explicitly justice- and liberation-oriented in relation to non-human animals. As such, these recommendations are aspirational for organizations who, for operational or mission-aligned purposes, wish to go beyond the minimum of organizational justice and fairness that’s recommended in Table 1. We recognize, of course, that many organizations engage across more than one scope.
The full set of recommendations in Table 2 is organized into three categories: foundational learning (Recommendations 1–4), community engagement (Recommendations 5–7), and structural accountability (Recommendations 8–10). These reflect different levels of DEI commitment based on mission scope. For example, a social justice-oriented organization should try to enact all of these recommendations (hence all the checkmarks for this type of organization under Table 2) as their identity is central to social justice. The more committed an organization is to social justice, the more likely its staff, volunteers, and external audiences will expect the organization to address different injustices for reasons that are independent of its connection to animal suffering.
For organizations that are further from social justice as part of their mission and/or identity (e.g., health- or environmental-based organizations and animal welfare organizations), we offer fewer aspirational recommendations as their primary goals should be to establish a baseline of DEI understanding and relationship-building — structures that are already foundational to social justice organizations. This is why only Recommendations 1–4 are listed under farmed animal welfare/rights organizations, while Recommendations 1–8 are listed under health/environmental organizations.
These are not intended as a checklist but as strategic levers — tools to guide reflection and dialogue about where each organization is positioned and how it might grow.
Table 2. Aspirational Recommendations to Consider by Organization Mission
For Funders
To meaningfully advance equity and inclusion within the movement, funders must go beyond surface-level commitments and invest in the conditions that enable deep, systemic change. The following recommendations invite funders to reflect on their own values, support inclusive spaces that center BIPOC needs while remaining open to everyone, and help grantee organizations build more equitable internal cultures. Taken together, these strategies equip funders to become not just supporters of DEI, but active partners in creating a more just and resilient movement.
- Interrogate and affirm core values to guide equity-centered funding decisions. In a moment of heightened contestation over the value of DEI, the most essential step funders can take is to examine and clarify their own values. This includes not only reflecting on DEI itself, but also on broader commitments to organizational and social justice. Funders must ask: What principles guide our work? Do we affirm the pursuit of equity, and if so, how should that shape our approach to supporting grantee organizations?
While this kind of reflection is important for all leaders, it is especially critical for funders, whose influence often stems from the material dependency of the organizations they support. The first step is not strategic planning or public positioning: It is moral clarity. Funders must articulate their core convictions, even if only for themselves.
Importantly, these convictions need not, and often should not, be framed solely around interpersonal or internal organizational dynamics. Instead, as outlined in Table 2 for social justice-oriented organizations, funders should consider equity and inclusion through the lens of systemic impact: How are resources, narratives, and opportunities distributed across communities that have historically been marginalized? What responsibilities do we bear in shaping more just outcomes? By anchoring funding practices in clear, community-centered values, funders can move beyond performative support and become authentic partners in advancing equity.
- Fund and resource inclusive, community-rooted spaces that address BIPOC needs and structural inequities. In the nonprofit sector, organizations that center the needs and priorities of BIPOC communities often operate with limited budgets and receive fewer unrestricted funds compared to their white-led counterparts (Kunreuther et al., 2020; Nonprofit Finance Fund, 2022). Funders can help close these gaps by supporting spaces that not only respond to the structural concerns of BIPOC communities but also foster inclusive participation and movement-building across different organizations. Not all animal advocates are motivated solely by animal rights; investing in culturally relevant, justice-oriented spaces is a strategic way to broaden engagement and accelerate systemic change.
- Encourage organizational assessment with an equity and inclusion lens that considers the full employee life cycle. For funders interested in supporting organizational-specific DEI efforts, be aware that cultural norms and structural barriers (e.g., hiring for “fit”) often reinforce white-centric workplace expectations. Motivate grantees to assess internal practices, especially hiring, promotion, and representation, and to think about their organizational identity by helping them pay for external human resources or consultants to audit their workplace policies. Encouraging organizations to improve their workplace policies will help attract and retain skilled staff, creating a stronger movement in the long term.
For BIPOC Advocates
BIPOC advocates should not feel obligated to take on the work of organizational change unless they actively choose to. While some may find purpose in shaping equity efforts from within, others may determine that their energy is better directed elsewhere. Both paths are legitimate.
Much of the scholarship that informs DEI practice has rightly focused on how organizations can build more equitable structures and cultures for people with historically marginalized racial and ethnic identities (e.g., Ely & Thomas, 2001; Singh et al., 2013). This work has laid the groundwork for many of the interventions used today in DEI work. Yet, often embedded in much of DEI practice are a set of implicit assumptions that shape how inclusion is understood. Namely, it is often assumed that inclusion in these organizations is inherently desirable for those who are marginalized or excluded. Related, it is also often assumed that the people that DEI efforts aim to support have little agency in choosing whether or not to participate in these organizations or to find viable alternatives.
This report takes a different stance. We emphasize the agency of BIPOC advocates — not just as participants in organizational life, but as co-creators, challengers, and, when appropriate, non-participants. BIPOC advocates should feel empowered to define the terms of their engagement, to choose where and how they show up, and to seek out or build spaces that affirm their full selves. Inclusion should not be an expectation placed on those who have been historically excluded; it should be an invitation — supported by structures of justice and dignity — that people can accept or decline on their own terms.
For BIPOC advocates seeking active participation in the movement, rather than seeking perfection, the more strategic question is whether an organization is genuinely committed to creating space for BIPOC advocates to engage meaningfully, safely, and with support. That includes upholding the principles of organizational justice, including compensation, whether financial, material, or relational, for the labor of advancing equity. BIPOC advocates have agency: they are not only participants in organizational life, but also co-authors of the movement’s future. That agency includes the power to lead, to shape, and to opt out, each a form of participation on one’s own terms.
- Join spaces designed for BIPOC advocates. Feelings of exclusion often stem from racial and cultural disconnection in predominantly white spaces. Create or support affinity groups, mentorship circles, and BIPOC-led forums where advocates can share experiences, access peer support, and collaborate on projects (e.g., APEX Advocacy is an organization that centers the experiences of BIPOC animal advocates).
- Help shape the movement’s identity by sharing your ideas on what it means to be an animal advocate. Opportunities like speaking at conferences, creating short videos on social media, or writing articles/blogs can help redefine what the movement is about and counter ideas of “white veganism” (i.e., veganism that ignores human oppression: Walker, 2023) and fight stereotypes of what animal advocates or vegans think and look like. Use these opportunities to encourage other advocates to connect animal rights with broader social justice issues like food justice, environmental racism, or workers’ rights.
- Respect your boundaries. BIPOC advocates are often called on to “fix” organizational DEI problems while still doing core work, which can lead to feelings of tokenization and burnout. Set boundaries around labor (especially emotional or invisible work), and seek organizations that compensate or recognize this labor.
Concluding Thoughts
This report offers no single blueprint for equity in farmed animal advocacy. Instead, it surfaces a set of interlocking insights and recommendations that can guide reflection and action at the organizational, movement, and individual levels. By centering identity, aligning strategy with values, and redistributing power, not just representation, organizations can move from symbolic inclusion to structural transformation.
For an in-depth, accessible overview of this study’s findings in video format, be sure to check out the webinar below.
Behind The Project
Research Team
The project’s lead authors were Drs. Ahmmad Brown (Working IDEAL) and Andrea Polanco (Faunalytics). Drs. Allison Troy (Faunalytics) and Andie Thompkins (Mercy for Animals and Faunalytics) reviewed and provided input on methodology and conceptual framing.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank APEX Advocacy, who provided valuable input about this research throughout the process, in addition to Dr. Chris Rider (University of Michigan Ross School of Business) and Dr. Pam Coukos (Working IDEAL), who reviewed and provided feedback on the report. We would also like to thank our funders for their generous support of this research.
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. Additionally, this study was conducted in strict accordance with the ethical guidelines and principles outlined by the Research Ethics Board of Northwestern University, the first author’s academic affiliation at the time of data collection (approval reference ID: STU00221018).
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 2min) survey below to let us know how satisfied you were with this report.
https://osf.io/m2wks
Citations:
Brown, A., Polanco, A., Troy, A., & Thompkins, A. (2025). From Performative to Transformative: Navigating Equity & Inclusion Across a Diverse Animal Advocacy Movement. Faunalytics. https://faunalytics.org/from-performative-to-transformative-balancing-inclusivity/
