Tactics In Practice: The Data Behind Corporate Outreach

Author: Andrea Polanco | Published: March 25, 2026

Estimated Reading Time: 26 minutes

This deep dive explores the data on corporate outreach efforts that push companies to adopt higher-welfare animal products (e.g., cage-free eggs), examining what drives companies to act, how pledges are secured, and the factors that influence successful follow-through.

Welcome to another installment of Tactics In Practice, a series where we dig into the effectiveness of different interventions. Today, put on your blazers and polish up that sales pitch because we’re stepping into the boardroom to explore the power of corporate outreach on company commitments to source cage-free eggs or adopt the Better Chicken Commitment.

What Is Corporate Outreach And How Do Company Commitments Work?

Advocates face cascading challenges in preventing farmed animal suffering as companies and producers play different roles in the supply chain. Companies (such as retailers and food brands) make public commitments about better animal welfare standards, while producers (farmers and breeders) are responsible for raising animals and supplying higher-welfare products. Understanding this distinction is essential when evaluating progress toward welfare commitments, as it highlights the shared but different responsibilities of each group.

For instance, producers typically won’t switch to higher-welfare systems unless companies require it, while companies are unlikely to adopt animal welfare policies without consumer demand, and consumers rarely push for change unless they’re aware of the suffering involved. This chain of dependencies helps explain why corporate outreach has become a central strategy: by engaging companies directly, advocates can influence producers at scale without relying solely on shifting consumer behavior or waiting for legislation. In this way, corporate outreach targets a critical leverage point in the system, accelerating change across entire supply chains.

Corporate outreach involves advocacy groups persuading businesses (such as food companies, retailers, and restaurants) to adopt and implement higher-welfare policies, like sourcing cage-free eggs. This strategy engages corporations to voluntarily improve their practices in ways that can have large-scale impacts across supply chains, as companies often influence many farms and suppliers at once. In particular, corporate outreach today focuses on multinational giants whose global reach means a single commitment can reshape supply chains, producing “superlinear returns” where a few firms trigger industry-wide change.

A corporate commitment occurs when a company pledges to use only higher-welfare animal products — for example, sourcing all eggs from cage-free farms (cage-free commitments) or ensuring chickens raised for meat comply with the standards set by the Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) or the European Chicken Commitment (hereafter referred to just as the BCC). Commitments also exist in other sectors — pigs (crate-free), shrimps (ablation-free), fur, and animal-free cosmetics — but this resource focuses on the research behind cage-free eggs and BCC corporate outreach in particular, as they’re the most common commitments in the movement. See below for the general process behind corporate outreach and commitments.

While corporate outreach for cage-free eggs started in the 1990s, most cage-free egg commitments weren’t made until 2015, with 2025 being the most popular deadline for fulfilling those commitments. For example, there were more than 1,000 company cage-free egg commitments due in 2025 (see Figure 3). The BCC was established in 2016, with 2026 being the most popular deadline year for fulfilling those commitments (e.g., over 350 company commitments are due in 2026 for the BCC; see Figure 3).

A company’s cage-free egg commitment is considered fulfilled once it publicly announces that all the eggs used in its products and operations now come from cage-free farms. A company’s full compliance with the BCC is met when they satisfy its five requirements: lower stocking density, enriched housing, humane slaughter, use of slow-growing (higher-welfare) breeds, and third-party verified compliance. In other words, cage-free commitments only apply to cages, while the BCC is multidimensional.

The timeline for corporate commitments isn’t always a straightforward measure of progress. Many deadlines are set in response to campaign pressure or adopted benchmark dates rather than being grounded in a realistic timeline. With that caveat in mind, data from The Humane League’s 2025 Cage-Free Eggsposé report shows that leading U.S. restaurants and convenience stores took an average of 6.57 years to fulfill their cage-free egg commitments. As for the BCC, committed companies have given themselves between three and seven years to meet its requirements, depending on the scale of their supply chains.

To make sure these commitments are real and not just talk, progress is tracked through regular reports that show what companies have achieved, something we discuss in the next section.

How Effective Are Corporate Outreach And Company Commitments?

As mentioned above, while the goal of corporate outreach is to get a company to commit to a higher-welfare policy so that the welfare of farmed animals is directly impacted, there is a domino effect, as producers are also impacted and consumers are involved in this process. In this section, we review the evidence behind corporate outreach for cage-free eggs and the BCC on 1) getting companies to commit and fulfill their commitments, 2) producer impact, and 3) public support. The figure below outlines the state of evidence.

The direct effects of cage-free housing and the BCC on animal welfare are not reviewed in this resource as their welfare benefits have been covered extensively (e.g., see the Welfare Footprint Project). For a deeper look at the contextual factors that can make corporate outreach more or less effective, we also recommend reading Animal Charity Evaluators’ post on the evidence behind welfare commitments.

Promises Made, Promises Kept? Measuring Company Progress

Advocacy groups around the world monitor corporate commitments to higher-welfare policies by using fulfillment reports or report cards. These reports typically indicate both the number of commitments made by companies and the percentage of those commitments that have been fulfilled (see the table below for examples). Advocacy groups confirm a fulfillment by checking a company’s publicly available information (e.g., company website or company reports), confirming with a supplier that the company does indeed source higher-welfare products from them, and/or through third-party audits.

Additionally, Chicken Watch tracks the number of fulfilled commitments over time. The graph below highlights an increase in fulfilled corporate commitments from 2013, peaking in 2018, particularly in Europe. North America also shows notable fulfillments, while Latin America, Asia, Oceania, and Africa have fewer fulfilled commitments, pointing to regional differences (we’ll come back to this later).

While peaks in fulfilled commitments may suggest effective corporate outreach during those periods, the biggest limitation of observational data like this is that it doesn’t actually prove that corporate outreach caused those peaks. Increases in corporate commitments could be due to other reasons, like cage-free legislation. This is particularly relevant for the European Union, where legislation banned battery cages for hens from the year 2012 onwards (although “enriched” cages are still allowed).

Likewise, in the U.S., 10 states have banned the use of battery cages for laying hens and/or restricted the sale of caged eggs in the last few years (and an additional state, Ohio, only bans new egg farms from using battery cages). Nonetheless, observational data is useful for tracking corporate commitment progress and for advocates and the general public to hold companies accountable.

Additionally, the Open Wing Alliance’s 2025 Cage-free Fulfillment Report noted that 92% of worldwide cage-free egg pledges set for 2024 or earlier were achieved by July 2025. But, as mentioned before, many companies faced a crucial point in 2025 regarding their cage-free commitments: over 1,000 global cage-free egg pledges (or 40% of all pledges) had a 2025 deadline.

So, we come to the million-dollar question: Did companies meet the 2025 deadline? As of February 2026, data from Chicken Watch shows that only 64% of global cage-free egg commitments with a deadline of 2025 or earlier have been fulfilled, compared to 93% of those with a 2024 deadline (see Figure 7 below). In other words, the fulfillment rate is lower for companies that set a 2025 deadline versus a 2024 deadline.

In our conversations with corporate campaign advocates, companies often resist making cage-free commitments because they fear higher costs, losing ground to competitors, or they simply don’t want to shift resources away from other priorities. Even when they do pledge, those that stall on follow-through blame supply shortages or higher prices — though advocates note that large buyers themselves have the power to drive supply and offset costs. In the end, both commitment and fulfillment barriers come down to money, risk aversion, and a reluctance to lead, even as consumer demand and reputational risks make progress increasingly urgent.

As for the BCC, the proportion of commitments that have been fulfilled are much lower than those for simpler cage-free egg commitments. As of February 2026, data from Chicken Watch shows that just 6% of global BCCs with a deadline of 2025 or earlier have been fulfilled (which is just 1.5% higher than BCCs with a deadline of 2024 or earlier; see the charts below). Moreover, an alarming 76% of companies that have committed to meet the BCC by 2025 or earlier haven’t publicly reported their progress.

So what gives? Why are more companies meeting cage-free egg commitments than the BCC?

For one, cage-free egg outreach began in the early 2000s, while the BCC only emerged in the last decade, so there’s been less focus on the BCC relative to cage-free egg sourcing, especially in regions outside North America and Europe (see the graph above).

Second, cage-free egg commitments focus on one clear change — moving hens from cages to cage-free housing — while meeting the BCC involves many different factors. For example, while many companies in the U.K. have made progress on some aspects of the BCC, like giving chickens more space and better living conditions, the biggest resistance is switching to slower-growing breeds as they’re more costly for producers.

Third, there’s a lack of data to measure the supply of BCC-compliant chickens, at least in the United States. However, this doesn’t mean all hope is lost: The entire chicken industry in the Netherlands has met the standards of “Beter Leven chicken,” which surpasses that of the BCC, and is believed to be the result of cooperation along the entire supply chain. Recommendations to improve corporate outreach and to increase the likelihood of company fulfillments are discussed at the end of this resource.

While the progress of corporate commitments can be tracked over time with observational data and audits, the impact of corporate outreach per se is harder to measure. In other words, what evidence exists that engaging companies about farmed animal welfare gets those companies to pledge to and fulfill a higher-welfare policy?

In 2018, Founders Pledge set out to answer this question via observational evidence. For example, they compared the timing of advocacy campaigns with cage-free pledges to suggest a causal connection (i.e., many large companies announced cage-free pledges right after targeted campaigns). Additionally, they observed that a number of commitments were made in joint press releases with advocacy groups, suggesting direct negotiations rather than independent company decisions. And lastly, they observed periods where cage-free campaigns were absent and noted the lack of further commitments, implying that this pause in corporate commitments was due to an absence of advocacy.

Similarly, a case study by Humane World For Animals (formerly known as Humane Society International) revealed that corporate outreach, used in combination with undercover investigations, legislative advancements (e.g., cage-free laws), and litigation, led to cage-free progress in the United States.

While such reports are persuasive in linking corporate outreach campaigns to cage-free commitments, they’re limited by relying on case studies, which indicates a relationship but not definitive cause-and-effect. The lack of systematic quantitative data also makes it difficult to assess the exact scale of corporate outreach’s impact compared to other factors, like consumer demand or broader industry trends.

To properly assess cause-and-effect, we would need a movement-wide database that shows which companies were targeted, when, and with what tactics (e.g., meetings, protests, shareholder resolutions, media pressure), along with company pledge announcement dates. It’s also possible that some advocacy groups already have internal data that can link company meetings with corporate commitment decisions, but a more comprehensive, cross-organization database would help shed light on the issue.

Based on U.S. case studies, corporate outreach is effective at encouraging companies to make public commitments to higher-welfare policies, but observational data show that the actual fulfillment of commitments is uneven and slow worldwide. Indeed, only 64% of global cage-free egg commitments with a deadline of 2025 or earlier were met, showing meaningful but incomplete progress. And, unfortunately, only 6% of BCC commitments with a deadline of 2025 or earlier were fulfilled, indicating most of these promises are significantly behind schedule. While outreach can secure promises, additional follow-up or accountability mechanisms are needed to ensure companies meet their deadlines.

Partners Or Pushback? How Producers Navigate Corporate Welfare Commitments

In this section, we review the impact of corporate outreach and commitments on producers switching to higher-welfare systems. We also review the barriers for producers to change their practices.

A landmark study of 44 countries over 13 years found clear evidence that corporate cage-free egg commitments are driving real change for hens worldwide. The researchers found that, on average, each new commitment is linked to a 0.035 percentage point increase in cage-free housing, even after accounting for the effects of cage-free legislation. Just a few corporate fulfillments can impact many animals because of how large the industry is. For example, one study found that 16 cage-free egg commitments by Canadian food businesses could improve conditions for about 147,000 hens, assuming they fulfill their commitment.

Despite the positive impact of corporate commitments on cage-free housing, a limited supply of cage-free eggs is one excuse that companies use to explain their broken promises. But how accurate is this? In other words, are there enough producers transitioning to higher-welfare systems to supply the commitments?

Using the U.S. as an example, a researcher estimated that 75% of hens need to be cage-free by 2025 to meet the corporate cage-free egg commitments, yet recent data shows that only 46% of hens are currently cage-free (still a remarkable increase from 6% in 2015). This doesn’t mean that all hope is lost. In an industry survey of 37 U.S. egg producers, none expected cage-free eggs to be in short supply relative to high demand in 2025 or 2026 (49% expected “ample supply, no shortages” while 46% expected “brief periods of shortages”). While egg shortages are expected — especially due to bird flu — corporate advocates reminded us that companies have had years to prepare and that bird flu outbreaks have occurred before, which does not justify abandoning a commitment.

Looking at global data, 16% of egg-laying hens around the world are cage-free, and there are stark regional differences, with Europe, Oceania, and the U.S. making notable progress to be completely cage-free (see the graph below). Unfortunately, similar data isn’t yet available for the BCC as it has several requirements, which makes it difficult to track and say with confidence how many chickens come from BCC farms.

What are the barriers for egg producers to transition from battery cages to cage-free, and what requirements by the BCC are chicken producers struggling with the most? The most common barriers to cage-free transitions are higher operational costs and low consumer demand (e.g., U.S.), and lack of knowledge and government (financial) support (e.g., India). Likewise, in China and Southeast Asia, egg producer challenges include land scarcity, higher operational costs, management challenges, and the need for effective disease control (see also this study for China with similar results).

And, as touched upon earlier, barriers for BCC compliance center around cost, logistics, and consumer demand. The BCC promotes the use of slower-growing chicken breeds for better animal welfare, but these strains need more feed, water, land, and energy, thereby driving up costs and environmental impact. Such concerns are supported by land use estimates in switching from fast-growing to slower-growing breeds. Producers also face hurdles like reduced output per farm, limited infrastructure, and lengthy supply chain adjustments that can take years. Retailers are especially concerned about the “consumer-citizen gap”: the disconnect between what people say they value versus what they actually buy. For example, people may not buy higher-welfare products at the grocery store despite saying they care about farmed animal welfare or that they’re willing to pay more for it. We come back to the issue of consumers in the next section.

While interviews with producers and other industry stakeholders are valuable at identifying challenges, these studies are limited by small participant numbers and only tend to represent a fragment of the industry. Thus, these barriers might not translate to the entire agriculture industry, meaning that some challenges may be overlooked and others may be given too much weight. Indeed, while cage-free housing does cost more than conventional housing (at least 8% to 19% higher, according to U.S. egg producers), a review paper on the economics of cage-free egg production found that the additional revenue from cage-free systems compensates for its higher costs. In other words, even though cage-free systems are more expensive to run, producers can make up the difference by selling cage-free eggs at higher prices.

Likewise, even though it costs 6% to 22% more to produce chickens under BCC requirements compared to conventional methods (based on global data), spending just $1 more per kilogram on BCC-compliant meat can spare animals between 15 and 100 hours of intense pain, thereby challenging the assumption that slow-growing chicken breeds are too costly.

Hearts Vs. Wallets: Will Shoppers Pay For Better Animal Welfare?

This section reviews what consumers think about corporate commitments and farmed animal welfare, such as their level of support, and whether or not they’re willing to pay more for higher-welfare animal products. As depicted in Figure 1, consumer demand for higher-welfare products is an influential factor in companies deciding to commit to higher-welfare practices.

A few studies have investigated what people think about corporate animal welfare commitments. One study that surveyed customers of a large U.S. grocery chain found that 87% would support their grocery store if it made a commitment to sell cage-free eggs, and 46% said they would “definitely” or “probably” shop at a different grocery store if the store broke its promise. Likewise, 79% of egg consumers in another survey said they would support their grocery store if it made a cage-free commitment, even though 56% of them were unaware if their grocery stores have committed to a cage-free policy. Further, only 3% of egg consumers expected the entire U.S. egg supply to be 91% to 100% cage-free by 2026. For the BCC, 81% of respondents in another survey supported companies adopting it.

A 2019 Faunalytics’ study reviewed Facebook comments in response to cage-free announcements by U.S. companies and found that reactions were, on average, more positive and less negative than responses to other social media topics, thereby supporting the continued use of corporate outreach.

Several representative surveys (or weighted to be representative) find public support for farmed animal welfare and willingness to pay for higher-welfare products. In the U.S., 67% of the general public say animal welfare is “very” or “extremely” important to their purchasing decisions, 74% say it’s important that egg-laying hens don’t suffer, 78% would prefer to buy cage-free eggs, and 62% would pay more for chicken products that come from companies that comply with the BCC than conventionally raised chicken. In Europe, 84% of people consider farmed animal welfare to be important, while 69% are willing to pay more money for higher-welfare products (although the study did not ask by how much).

Similar results are found in other regions: most people think farmed animal welfare is important and would pay more for higher-welfare products if they could afford it, particularly for cage-free eggs. This was even true in countries where cage-free eggs are hard to find and where there hasn’t been major campaigning for them (see the graph below).

How much more money are consumers willing to spend though? Willingness-to-pay studies answer this. A U.S. study found people are willing to pay a little extra for cage-free eggs versus conventional eggs ($1.31 more on average), but it really depends on the labels. Adding organic, pasture-raised, or free-range tags can push the price people are willing to pay up to $3.37 per dozen.

To better understand consumer preferences, researchers from the same study divided consumers into three segments based on their willingness to pay for cage-free eggs compared to conventional. The first segment, representing 55% of consumers, wouldn’t pay extra at all. In contrast, 26% were willing to spend $2.51/dozen more for cage-free eggs, and 19% were willing to spend $3.74/dozen more.

Furthermore, some U.S. studies show how information on animal welfare influences willingness to pay for both slow-growth chicken and cage-free eggs. In a control group where no information was shown, 70% were willing to pay 40¢ to $1.00 more per pound for slow-growth chicken, while 30% would only pay up to 40¢ extra. Among those who saw positive coverage of slow-growing chickens, 45% were willing to pay over $1 more per pound, but in the group shown negative information about slow-growing chickens, no one was willing to pay more than 40¢ extra.

Relatedly, another study estimated that consumers would need to pay approximately 8.5% more to cover the extra costs of switching the industry to slower-growing breeds, which is actually below the estimated 14.3% price premium that consumers indicated they were willing to pay. In other words, what people are willing to pay (14.3%) is higher than what is needed to make the transition (8.5%), so theoretically, the industry can switch to slow-growing chickens without losing profits.

For cage-free eggs, similar results were found between a group of people exposed to welfare information on cage-free eggs versus a group shown no information. Across these groups, more than half of respondents were willing to pay up to 40¢ extra per dozen (rising to just over 60% in one of the welfare-education groups). Meanwhile, over 30% were willing to pay more than $1.00 extra (increasing to just over 40% in one of the welfare-education groups).

Overall, many consumers are willing to pay a modest premium — up to 40¢ extra for cage-free eggs and between 40¢ and $1.00 more per pound for slow-growth chicken — but a significant share is also willing to pay $1 or more, especially when given information about animal welfare benefits.

As is apparent from the above, willingness-to-pay studies are abundant, and show a range of positive results. However, the biggest limitation of these studies is that they often overestimate real spending, since they measure intentions rather than actual behavior, and in practice, many consumers choose the cheaper option. Because these studies ask people about their intentions to spend more money, they don’t actually capture whether or not consumers would spend more in the real world. This is sometimes referred to as the “vote-buy” gap or “citizen-buy” gap.

To help address this gap, researchers can also track the actual price premiums consumers pay for higher-welfare products compared to conventional ones. This provides real-world evidence to complement willingness-to-pay estimates, though it only applies to products already available in the market.

For example, cage-free eggs are roughly 21¢ to 23¢ more per dozen than conventional eggs in the United States. And in the Netherlands, chicken breasts that come from slower-growing breeds cost approximately $1.02 to $2.06 more per pound than conventional chicken breasts. Moreover, a U.S. study found that 43% of respondents remembered purchasing meat, egg, or dairy products in the past year that had an animal welfare certification, such as Certified Humane. Examples like these show that higher-welfare products are already sold at a premium in the marketplace, and are already being chosen by some shoppers, suggesting there is consumer acceptance of paying more, at least among a portion of buyers.

Regional Considerations For Corporate Cage-Free Egg Commitments

As shown in Figures 7 and 8 above, there is large variation in corporate BCC and cage-free egg commitments and follow-through rates around the world. Europe is leading the global shift to higher-welfare systems: 35% of BCCs and 70% of cage-free egg pledges due by 2025 or earlier have already been met (as of February 2026). In other regions, fulfillment rates for cage-free eggs range from 38% to 62% — and in North America, only 1% of BCC pledges with a deadline of 2025 or earlier have been achieved. The regional insights below focus on cage-free egg commitments as the BCC has only gained traction in Europe and North America for now.

United States

Grocery retailers are a particularly important target in cage-free corporate campaigns as supermarkets sell more than half of all eggs in the U.S. (the remainder being exported or sold wholesale to restaurants and manufacturers). While 46% of U.S. hens are already cage-free, achieving industry-wide change depends heavily on grocery stores transitioning to cage-free eggs. This makes the grocery retail sector both a key bottleneck and a significant opportunity for advocates.

Canada

While the U.S. is moving toward a fully cage-free egg industry, Canada is falling behind: 46% of hens in the U.S. are cage-free compared to just 18% in Canada (see Figure 9 above). So what’s happening in Canada? Instead of moving toward cage-free systems, Canada’s egg industry has largely shifted to “enriched” cages, which provide only about 20% more space than conventional cages and add minimal features such as a nest box, perch, and dust-bathing mat. However, public opinion is clear: 75% of Canadians find enriched cages unacceptable, and 79% believe grocery stores and restaurants should commit to a cage ban for eggs.

This slow progress underscores the need for action. Mercy For Animals suggests that advocates in Canada should run awareness campaigns that call out companies failing to report or be transparent about their animal welfare policies. Such campaigns could spark public criticism, which in turn may pressure the worst offenders to finally take meaningful action.

Latin America

In Latin America, 50% of cage-free egg commitments with deadlines of 2025 or earlier were met. Colombia, Chile, and Argentina are leading the charge, while Peru and Ecuador lag behind. Further, 57% of companies report progress at the regional or country level (most focus on global reporting), highlighting a need for more localized data.

Furthermore, while advocates in the Global North have used the power of a few big companies to push through industry-wide change, this could be trickier to navigate in Latin America. For example, a corporate enforcement expert informed us that the region’s largest egg producer has strong ties to policymakers, which could hinder advocate impact. Nonetheless, the expert we spoke to believes that consumer demand and proper labelling of egg products should help overcome this barrier.

Colombia stands out as a cage-free success story. Between 2010 and 2021, egg consumption rose by 56%, yet nearly 60% of hens now live cage-free — well above other major producers. This shift, largely driven by cost efficiency, shows that practical, economically viable choices can also benefit farmed animals. In contrast, Brazilian supermarkets cite the high cost of cage-free eggs as their main barrier, underscoring how cost-effective strategies like Colombia’s could serve as a model.

Africa

In Africa, 62% of cage-free egg commitments with a deadline of 2025 or earlier were fulfilled. While there is growing momentum, challenges remain. The “leakage effect” is significant: cages banned in Europe are often sold to countries that don’t have a cage ban, such as in Africa. Retailers and multinational brands are lagging behind their commitments. But public awareness campaigns that highlight higher-welfare brands could generate consumer pressure, nudging companies toward cage-free adoption.

China & Southeast Asia

Asia met 58% of its cage-free egg commitments with a deadline of 2025 or earlier. China, the world’s largest egg producer, faces supply constraints, but research shows that securing corporate buyers and establishing trusted certification may boost cage-free adoption in the short term. Chinese producers are motivated by growing consumer demand, emphasizing how consumers can drive change.

Southeast Asia and India have different hurdles. Emerging cage-free farms require financial support for upfront costs, where commercial cage-free egg farms are just starting to emerge (e.g., India). Additionally, the egg industry in India is neither horizontally consolidated (where production is dominated by a few large producers), nor vertically integrated (where a single company controls multiple stages of production). Unlike in more concentrated markets, Indian advocates can’t approach a single dominant company for a major win, since many eggs are sold through informal channels like street vendors. The cage-free industry in Southeast Asia also needs strategies to control feed prices. For example, feed for laying-hens make up 60% to 95% of production costs in Vietnam and the Philippines, and the price of maize and soybeans has fluctuated greatly in these countries. Nonetheless, rising consumer demand in India and Southeast Asia presents a key opportunity for advocates to push broader adoption, especially if formal markets are likely to expand globally.

Most importantly, cultural context matters. In Japan, indirect communication, maintaining “face,” and long-term trust are crucial in corporate outreach. In China, consumers are often unfamiliar with the term “cage-free” despite preferring “free-range” eggs. Researchers note that China’s top-down corporate culture can slow adoption of cage-free eggs, as change often depends on leadership priorities rather than broader producer input.

These dynamics matter: strategies that are successful in the U.S. or Europe may not translate directly to other regions where corporate outreach training was identified as a top need by local advocacy groups.

Tips For Effective Corporate Outreach

What To Do If Corporate Deadlines Are Missed?

With the 2025 cage-free egg deadline just having passed, advocacy groups are ready to respond to the companies that have fallen behind. Corporate outreach advocates told us they will work constructively — renegotiating deadlines, pushing for roadmaps, and offering support to identify roadblocks. As examples, The Humane League suggests that companies who fail to meet their deadline should set new annual benchmarks to get to 100% within a reasonable timeline, while Compassion in World Farming and Sinergia Animal will help companies connect with cage-free suppliers.

All advocates we spoke to agreed that pressure is key and that deadlines must be treated as meaningful, not optional. If companies stall or move their targets without explanation, they risk public campaigns, negative media, and being called out for breaking their promises. For example, the recent campaign targeting Ahold Delhaize, the fourth-largest grocery store chain in the U.S., was successful in getting them to re-commit to a cage-free goal by 2032, after they had delayed their original 2025 deadline. Indeed, based on U.S. case studies, negative press has been effective in getting companies to commit and keep their promise to avoid further reputational damage.

Corporate outreach and campaigns tend to blend both approaches of support and pressure. Tracking reports like those in Table 1 shine a light on who’s leading and who’s lagging, while media campaigns amplify that visibility to consumers, investors, and peers. At the same time, groups like Compassion in World Farming and Sinergia Animal keep collaboration at the core — offering guidance, supplier connections, and recognition programs that highlight leaders (e.g., Good Farm Animal Welfare Awards). This balance of support and accountability makes it easier for companies to move forward than to risk falling behind.

Use Secondary Targeting & Other Tactics To Break Through Resistance

When direct outreach stalls, advocates can sometimes make progress by applying indirect pressure through business partners rather than focusing solely on consumers. This “secondary targeting” strategy has been described by experienced campaigners as one of the most dependable ways to overcome entrenched resistance. By raising animal welfare concerns (e.g., via undercover investigations) with companies that supply to, buy from, or otherwise partner with a resistant firm, advocates may increase reputational and relational pressure, which can in turn motivate reluctant decision-makers to engage in negotiations.

Longtime grassroots advocate Jake Conroy has a video series on pressure campaigns and secondary targeting. Check out our Tactics In Practice resources on protests and social media if you plan to incorporate these tactics into your pressure campaign.

Similarly, corporate advocates should work alongside policy advocates who work on farmed animal welfare legislation. When companies fail to take full responsibility, strong legislation may become the missing piece of the puzzle to ensure that stragglers catch up by establishing clear and enforceable welfare standards, creating a fair marketplace, and giving producers and investors the confidence they need.

Other Strategic Considerations

Watch Out For Flock Thinking And Diminishing Returns

Corporate outreach carries the risk of institutional isomorphism — when organizations adopt identical tactics just to appear professional and legitimate to others. If animal advocacy groups all replicate the same outreach models, innovation may stall, and sector-wide effectiveness could decline. This is especially relevant for corporate campaigns: while effective, they may suffer from diminishing returns. Early wins often come from the most accessible or willing companies, but the final holdouts may prove disproportionately costly to influence.

Interviews with advocates echo these concerns, suggesting that rather than starting more campaigns targeting the same major food companies, outreach may be better directed toward niche or high-leverage targets. For example, if you want to work on welfare commitments outside of cage-free eggs or the BCC (e.g., shrimp welfare commitments), focusing on a small number of key producers (such as dominant suppliers) could deliver greater impact than spreading efforts across many downstream buyers.

Secure And Strengthen Commitments

Push companies to adopt clear timelines, measurable targets, and transparent reporting. Use a combination of reputational pressure (consumer demand, peer comparisons, shareholder influence) and practical support (roadmaps, supplier connections, technical guidance) to make commitments realistic and credible.

Leverage Consumers And Transparency

Connect corporate change to consumer influence by running awareness campaigns, mobilizing public feedback, and highlighting the reputational benefits of stronger welfare policies. Advocate for companies to publicly report progress, increasing accountability while strengthening consumer trust and engagement.

Join Forces

Build alliances with other advocacy groups working towards the same goal. The Open Wing Alliance, for example, is one of the most well-known coalitions working on this issue. By working together, advocates can learn how to tailor outreach to regional and cultural contexts and showcase regional success stories. At the same time, advocates can invest in a shared database of campaigns and outcomes to evaluate impact, avoid duplication, and strengthen strategy across the movement.

Additionally, advocacy groups that take a more radical approach can help more moderate groups achieve a win, highlighting the benefits of groups alternating between “good cop” and “bad cop” roles (you can read more about the “radical flank effect” here).

What To Say When First Reaching Out?

Frame Animal Welfare As A Consumer Priority: Show that this is not a niche concern. Present evidence that customers increasingly expect stronger welfare standards and that companies face reputational risk if they lag behind.
Highlight Industry Momentum: Stress that peers and competitors are already making commitments. Positioning change as the emerging norm makes delay look risky and unstrategic.
Offer Practical Pathways Forward: Don’t just identify shortcomings — provide solutions. Share supplier contacts, implementation guides, and other resources that make the transition straightforward and achievable.
Connect On A Human Level: Remember that decisions are made by people, not faceless institutions. Building trust, offering recognition, and appealing to emotions like pride, fear, or empathy can help your case.

Faunalytics is deeply appreciative of the thoughtful contributions and insights shared by the following advocates: Beth Anne Hendrickson (The Humane League), Catalina Castaño Correa (Sinergia Animal), Kelcie Leach (Mercy For Animals), Madison Longenecker (Compassion in World Farming), Nurkhayati Darunifah (Sinergia Animal), and one anonymous organization.

Sources

Observational Data & Tracking Reports

Case Studies

Producer Needs’ & Barrier Studies

Public Opinion Surveys Or Studies

Willingness-To-Pay Studies

Pressure Campaigns

Other

Meet the Author: Andrea Polanco

Andrea is a social science researcher at Faunalytics with a PhD in animal welfare science from the University of Guelph. With both an academic background and experience in grassroots advocacy, Andrea is passionate about how research can inform and strengthen the animal advocacy movement—from understanding the psychological factors that shape people’s attitudes and behaviors toward animals, to examining equity within the movement itself. She is driven by a belief in collective liberation (the idea that no group can be free while others are oppressed) and seeks to align her research and advocacy with that vision. Andrea also values rest and joy, which for her include birding, discovering new TV shows, and relaxing with her cat companion Zupa/Sopa (‘soup’).

Tags: