Every other year, we published the report in May (catching fulfilment data up to April), but this year we prioritised our work on the world's largest egg investigation. Just FYI, if we had taken fulfilment data from April the rate would have been higher than last year's report too. But since we had to push the report launch back, we didn't want to ignore the following months' data. The change was about workload and nothing to do with the numbers (I know you're not insinuating that, but just want to be clear!). Thanks so much again :)
Yep, 20% does feel too high to me. But I think it's hard to define infighting. The RSPCA stuff is an obvious example of it, but depending on how far you broaden the definition I feel some sympathy for the view that a fair amount of energy is wasted on it. I think Melanie Joy has worked with a number of orgs and gotten insight that others might not get in their positions, especially granters.
Things coming to my mind on this are a bit more day-to-day/mundane than your things:
- I think groups competing for funds at a country level, regional level and global level does create resentment in those that get more funds or support, and this can result in groups working together less well or not getting on because they view each other as competitors - In some campaigns it is not clear who 'won' due to multiple orgs targeting companies, with many wanting the recognition/credit, or to be the first to announce it to supporters/media. It's plausible that this creates tension among orgs, that is not helpful - Groups disagreeing on theories of change, for example where we should put resources - some might think everything should go on accountability and try and turn others against orgs that disagree with this. Or some might be annoyed that other groups are too nice and won't give up their 'good' relationships with companies, seeing them as threatening important co-campaigns, which can fracture collaboration - Departmental disagreements within orgs, with corporate engagement teams not wanting campaign teams to go after companies, causing fragile relationships and resentment with teams unable to properly advance their work. In my experience this has happened in non EA style orgs.
I'm not arguing strongly that infighting is a huge problem. But I do think it's plausible that the above scenarios are not very rare, and even if individually some feel insignificant I think they are likely unhelpful collectively
On culture, I didn't look into the data but I went to a Melanie Joy talk this year and she estimated we spend a significant amount of movement resources on infighting (I think it was around 20%). I guess this comes in a variety of forms - whether orgs at a country level competing for funds and having different theories of change, or big disagreements on whether Animal Rising should go after the RSPCA. I'd love any real examples of how you've seen people across the spectrum of strategies collaborating in meaningful ways!
No, not at all! Please don't worry, I understood perfectly! Keep us updated with social media and other ways that we can follow and support - we are all in this together :-)
This is exciting. I wish you so much luck with this important work, I've heard a lot that legislative work in Latin America is important. In the OWA we focus on corporate campaigning to secure cage-free commitments, so I really hope you have success in tackling the legislative side of animal suffering.
Caroline highlighted the work of the Open Wing Alliance well (we both work for The Humane League). In Asia for example, a maximum of 2-3% of eggs are likely to be cage-free, so we are using (and contextualising) the tactics that have worked in the US and Europe in Asia and other places - around 60% of the world's caged hens are in Asia so getting new commitments and building momentum there is a key focus for us. We made some good progress last year with Kewpie, a flagship Asian brand.
Your question on why companies don't highlight their slight moral superiority is interesting. Public reports comparing fulfilled commitments Vs laggards work well, so I do think the avoiding negative publicity pull is strong. I used to work with supermarkets in the UK and the high-end, prestigious one once told me that highlighting that they e.g. don't allow beak trimming in their laying hens would potentially raise questions and anger in consumers - "you USED to trim the ends of hens' beaks off!?". It was why it was hard to get them to move on issues like not culling male chicks, as it wasn't something they particularly wanted to highlight ever doing.
I really enjoyed reading this. I appreciate you advocating for other organizations, and think this team spirit and support ultimately makes us stronger as a movement.
Thanks so much for reading the report!
Every other year, we published the report in May (catching fulfilment data up to April), but this year we prioritised our work on the world's largest egg investigation. Just FYI, if we had taken fulfilment data from April the rate would have been higher than last year's report too. But since we had to push the report launch back, we didn't want to ignore the following months' data. The change was about workload and nothing to do with the numbers (I know you're not insinuating that, but just want to be clear!). Thanks so much again :)
Yep, 20% does feel too high to me. But I think it's hard to define infighting. The RSPCA stuff is an obvious example of it, but depending on how far you broaden the definition I feel some sympathy for the view that a fair amount of energy is wasted on it. I think Melanie Joy has worked with a number of orgs and gotten insight that others might not get in their positions, especially granters.
Things coming to my mind on this are a bit more day-to-day/mundane than your things:
- I think groups competing for funds at a country level, regional level and global level does create resentment in those that get more funds or support, and this can result in groups working together less well or not getting on because they view each other as competitors
- In some campaigns it is not clear who 'won' due to multiple orgs targeting companies, with many wanting the recognition/credit, or to be the first to announce it to supporters/media. It's plausible that this creates tension among orgs, that is not helpful
- Groups disagreeing on theories of change, for example where we should put resources - some might think everything should go on accountability and try and turn others against orgs that disagree with this. Or some might be annoyed that other groups are too nice and won't give up their 'good' relationships with companies, seeing them as threatening important co-campaigns, which can fracture collaboration
- Departmental disagreements within orgs, with corporate engagement teams not wanting campaign teams to go after companies, causing fragile relationships and resentment with teams unable to properly advance their work. In my experience this has happened in non EA style orgs.
I'm not arguing strongly that infighting is a huge problem. But I do think it's plausible that the above scenarios are not very rare, and even if individually some feel insignificant I think they are likely unhelpful collectively
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
On culture, I didn't look into the data but I went to a Melanie Joy talk this year and she estimated we spend a significant amount of movement resources on infighting (I think it was around 20%). I guess this comes in a variety of forms - whether orgs at a country level competing for funds and having different theories of change, or big disagreements on whether Animal Rising should go after the RSPCA. I'd love any real examples of how you've seen people across the spectrum of strategies collaborating in meaningful ways!
No, not at all! Please don't worry, I understood perfectly! Keep us updated with social media and other ways that we can follow and support - we are all in this together :-)
This is exciting. I wish you so much luck with this important work, I've heard a lot that legislative work in Latin America is important. In the OWA we focus on corporate campaigning to secure cage-free commitments, so I really hope you have success in tackling the legislative side of animal suffering.
Caroline highlighted the work of the Open Wing Alliance well (we both work for The Humane League). In Asia for example, a maximum of 2-3% of eggs are likely to be cage-free, so we are using (and contextualising) the tactics that have worked in the US and Europe in Asia and other places - around 60% of the world's caged hens are in Asia so getting new commitments and building momentum there is a key focus for us. We made some good progress last year with Kewpie, a flagship Asian brand.
Your question on why companies don't highlight their slight moral superiority is interesting. Public reports comparing fulfilled commitments Vs laggards work well, so I do think the avoiding negative publicity pull is strong. I used to work with supermarkets in the UK and the high-end, prestigious one once told me that highlighting that they e.g. don't allow beak trimming in their laying hens would potentially raise questions and anger in consumers - "you USED to trim the ends of hens' beaks off!?". It was why it was hard to get them to move on issues like not culling male chicks, as it wasn't something they particularly wanted to highlight ever doing.
Thanks for the interesting post on this topic!
I really enjoyed reading this. I appreciate you advocating for other organizations, and think this team spirit and support ultimately makes us stronger as a movement.
I really admire the work of the Animal Welfare League, Daniel, and all you are contributing to the movement in Africa.