The Humane League

See THL’s theory of change table for a detailed account of their activities, intended outcomes, and impact. Below, we highlight the key paths to impact that we believe are the most influential drivers of their theory of change.

THL’s key paths to impact

Figure 1: Simplified diagrammatic representation of how THL creates change for animals. Note: The key paths discussed below correspond to the numbered paths in the diagram above.

Key paths 1 and 2—Global Cage-Free Eggs (direct corporate engagement and public pressure)

Using a combination of direct dialogue and public pressure, THL persuades companies globally to report their progress toward their cage-free commitments for hens’ welfare to ensure they are fulfilling them. They also pressure companies that have taken down their commitments to republish them, and encourage companies (where possible) to meet their cage-free goals ahead of schedule. By ensuring that commitments are visible, credible, and time bound, THL works to help prevent backsliding and keep cage-free commitments on track to become the industry standard worldwide.

Overall assessment

Many millions of chickens are already living cage free because of global companies’ welfare commitments, and there is strong evidence that cage-free systems significantly improve hens’ wellbeing.¹⁴ Over 2,700 companies have committed to going cage free, and most of these commitments have already been implemented.¹⁵ With the majority of remaining commitments due to be implemented in 2025 and 2026, and with early signs of corporate backtracking, accountability work now appears particularly critical to protect both the animals and the credibility of future welfare campaigns.¹⁶ THL has a strong record here, engaging 123 companies in 2024, with persistent and productive engagement, including some that had dropped or stopped reporting commitments. Progress appears slower and more challenging in regions facing barriers such as weaker market concentration and restrictions on protests, but THL has demonstrated that significant wins are still possible in such regions, particularly with the support of the Open Wing Alliance (see section below).¹⁷

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are fully convinced that persuading global companies to report progress on their cage-free commitments—by engaging them in direct dialogue and leading public pressure campaigns—can reliably lead to global companies fulfilling their commitments and millions of hens living cage free. Our uncertainty in this verdict is low-to-moderate; while there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of corporate welfare outreach and THL has an impressive track record of success, there are still uncertainties around the effectiveness of such campaigns in emerging markets.

Key paths 3 and 4—Open Wing Alliance (coordination and grantmaking)

The Open Wing Alliance (OWA) is a global coalition of 80+ organizations across 70+ countries working to end the abuse of chickens worldwide. THL provides dedicated staff support in every region, helping member groups adapt global strategies to local contexts through regional calls, sub-regional coordination, and one-on-one guidance. The OWA grant program funds member organizations—particularly newer or underfunded groups—to launch or expand institutional campaigns for egg-laying hens and chickens used for meat. This model seeks to empower organizations globally to win major commitments while building knowledge, coordination, and momentum across the movement, improving the welfare of millions of chickens per year.

Overall assessment

Feedback from OWA members indicates the alliance provides substantial added value through access to resources, expert connections, coordination opportunities, and the credibility of the OWA brand.¹⁸ In 2024 alone, member groups secured 140 cage-free commitments for egg-laying hens (72 of which have already been implemented, largely formalizing existing practices and strengthening advocacy skills). OWA appears to be guided by robust decision making in its grantmaking, with processes that reward strategic and impactful campaigns. While we are less certain about the applicability of OWA’s tactics in regions where industrial agriculture is still nascent (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa), overall, the OWA appears to be a well-run, high-potential program that strengthens the global movement and increases the likelihood of sustained corporate welfare progress.

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are fully convinced that empowering member organizations and disbursing grants, as part of THL’s Open Wing Alliance program, can reliably lead to these groups securing large welfare commitments around the world, improving the welfare of millions of chickens each year. Our uncertainty in this verdict is moderate: Given the OWA’s focus on building global momentum, we expect most of the benefits to materialize in the medium term (say, the next 10–25 years), which is harder to measure, and we have uncertainties around the effectiveness of corporate campaigns in some emerging markets.

Key paths 5 and 6—U.S. Cage-Free Accountability (direct corporate engagement and public pressure)

THL works to ensure that companies in the U.S. follow through on their cage-free commitments for egg-laying hens. This includes persuading companies to regularly report progress, pressuring those that have removed commitments to reinstate them, and encouraging companies (where possible) to meet their goals ahead of schedule. Alongside direct dialogue with corporate leaders, THL mobilizes volunteers and consumers to apply public pressure through actions such as petitions, social media campaigns, and protests. These combined strategies seek to help keep companies on track to fulfill their pledges, annually resulting in millions of hens in the U.S. moving out of cages and cage free becoming the national standard.

Overall Assessment

As in the global case, millions of hens are already living cage free because of U.S. corporate commitments, but many deadlines fall in 2025–2026, creating risk of backtracking. THL engaged 129 companies in 2024, with productive outcomes: 55 entered dialogue and 22 began reporting progress, including companies that had previously lapsed. Spot checks suggest engagement is persistent and effective. The benefits of cage-free campaigns are expected to extend beyond individual commitments, helping to establish social norms and laying the groundwork for legislative change, an area THL is pursuing through its Animal Policy Alliance. However, current U.S. politics and avian flu disruptions may increase the risk of rollbacks, making accountability work both more urgent and more difficult.¹⁹

Based on our evaluation of the logical reasoning, evidence, and assumptions, we are fully convinced that persuading companies to report progress on their cage-free commitments, by engaging them in direct dialogue and leading public pressure campaigns, can reliably lead to U.S. companies fulfilling their commitments and millions more hens living cage free each year. Our uncertainty in this verdict is low-to-moderate: While there is strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of corporate welfare outreach and THL has an impressive track record of success, there are still some uncertainties given the unpredictability of corporate behavior in the current U.S. political climate.

Additional considerations

Key overarching assumptions and risks

• While we focused predominantly on THL’s cage-free eggs work, given this is currently where they spend most of their funding, THL also conducts outreach focused on the welfare of chickens killed for meat, primarily through the Open Wing Alliance and their corporate and policy outreach in the U.K. While their U.K. team appears to be making promising progress in this area, we expect that such work will be particularly challenging in emerging markets, where bottlenecks such as limited supply of slow-growing breeds are likely to be particularly acute.
• Regarding the long-term impacts of THL’s corporate welfare outreach programs:
  • A central question for corporate welfare outreach is whether its long-term effects are positive. In the short term, these campaigns can secure meaningful reforms, but the deeper issue is whether they ultimately help dismantle factory farming or risk entrenching it.
  • On the positive side, corporate commitments can shift industry norms by making higher-welfare standards expected of major retailers and producers. Over time, this “ratchet effect” helps close the gap between what the industry is already doing and what policymakers are willing to legislate, making stronger laws more likely. Cage-free state legislation in the U.S. and the E.U.’s previous proposed legislation banning cages have been cited as specific examples of this, both in the evidence we reviewed and in discussions with external experts.^{20, 21, 22}
  • Evidence (albeit limited) and companies’ own resistance to welfare reforms suggest that these reforms tend to impose costs on producers (e.g., through housing conversions or the purchase of slower-growing breeds), which may reduce the appeal of intensive farming and limit its future growth.²³
  • Campaigns also sustain public and media attention on animal welfare, equipping the movement with skills, relationships, and momentum that carry over into the next wave of reforms.²⁴
  • One main counterargument is the risk of complacency. If consumers believe “humane” labels mean problems are solved, this could reduce pressure for more ambitious change. Similarly, companies sometimes exploit reforms for positive PR while only partially improving conditions. However, concerns about complacency seem likely to be overstated—especially given how high current levels of consumer complacency already are. We consider it more plausible that reforms slightly reduce complacency by drawing attention to welfare problems rather than reinforcing them. This is also supported by the limited empirical evidence on this topic.²⁵
  • In addition, there are real risks of backsliding even after reforms are implemented. Economic downturns or supply shocks could push companies to cut corners; worsening environmental pressures could fuel arguments for cheaper, lower-welfare systems; bankruptcies, acquisitions, or leadership changes could weaken commitments; farmers may resist higher costs and reduce supply; and industry lobbying could trigger political rollbacks. Without sustained advocacy, monitoring, and pressure, both companies and governments are more likely to let standards slip. However, we view this as emphasizing the importance of accountability work and ongoing movement pressure, rather than undermining the case for corporate reforms themselves.
  • Overall, we think that the evidence and reasoning indicate corporate outreach efforts are more likely to help end the worst factory farming practices, rather than maintain them. However, their impact varies depending on the context and the organizations, and we think that it would be useful and informative for THL to explicitly highlight these risks and assumptions in their theory of change.

Risk assessment strategy

• THL described a range of risks including: ill-conceived welfare interventions leading to increased egg consumption, particularly in regions where the egg industry is not yet industrialized; pushback from consumers if reforms are perceived to increase prices; pushback if advocacy tactics are considered extreme; lawsuits led by targeted corporations; internal conflict and burnout; and authorities harming staff or volunteers participating in protests.
• THL outlined a robust risk management strategy for dealing with such risks, including specific risk training for staff, a crisis communication plan (which itself includes annual ‘crisis management’ simulation training for Senior Leadership), an annually updated internal risk register, training and resources for staff participating in protests, and a guidance document specifically dealing with high-priority legal risks.
• THL also reports collaborating with relevant third parties, including animal welfare experts (to ensure that the welfare improvements sought are proven to reduce suffering), OWA member organizations (to ensure messaging is suitably tailored to the relevant region), and advisory bodies such as the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project (to receive legal support).
• While we think that some risks remain—including the potential implications of avian flu outbreaks and the Trump administration’s regressive animal welfare policies for their U.S. accountability work—we think that THL is dealing with these in a sensible and proportionate way.
• Overall, we have no concerns about THL’s risk management strategy.

Use of empirical evidence in decision making

• THL’s programmatic teams recently researched the circumstances in their respective regions to identify important trends, which informed the five-year objectives of THL’s departments.
• THL employs animal welfare scientists and researchers who review relevant literature to ensure that THL’s animal welfare asks, and their understanding of emerging issues like avian flu, are in line with scientific research. They have conducted literature reviews, commissioned external reports, and crowdsourced data about retail outlets from volunteers to inform their programs. They also attend industry events and monitor trade publications to identify opportunities for their work.
• Based on the numerous examples that THL shared with us of the research they had conducted, commissioned, and used, we are confident that their decision making is based on sound empirical evidence.

Use of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) data to inform decisions

• THL keeps a comprehensive record of the companies they’ve engaged with, the commitments they’ve secured, and the estimated number of animals impacted. They review their strategic prioritization on a quarterly basis by assessing programs against the metrics in their three-year strategic plan and annual OKRs. They conduct annual feedback surveys of OWA member organizations and have developed a training program to help OWA member organizations quantitatively estimate the impact of their own work.
• We were impressed by THL’s internal evidence gathering and record keeping, and by their commitment to using this evidence to set goals, measure impact achieved, and adapt their strategies as needed.

Strategic selection of programs to complement and support each other

• THL secures global corporate commitments by combining their influence over multinational companies with the pressure applied by OWA member groups on the companies’ local branches. The different strands of the OWA program also complement one another: The trainings help ensure that the OWA member organizations carry out effective work, and the grants enable organizations to fully implement that work and scale it up.
• External experts we consulted found this strategy of engaging companies on multiple fronts to be logical and well founded. The dual training-funding approach of the OWA also aligns with our understanding of best practice for active grantmaking.
• In the U.S. and the U.K, THL complements their corporate welfare work with legislative work to help ensure that corporate practices translate into legislative welfare improvements, thereby reducing the risk of future backsliding. The risk of backsliding is likely to be higher for welfare improvements that do not entail major infrastructure changes; e.g., it is likely to be higher for broiler chickens’ welfare improvements than for cage-free transitions for egg-laying hens.

Contribution of programs to the wider animal advocacy movement

• THL’s main contribution to the wider animal advocacy movement is through the OWA, which seeks to empower its 80+ member organizations to become more effective, well coordinated, and self sufficient. THL also assesses OWA member organizations’ contribution to the broader movement when making their grant decisions. Based on internal feedback surveys that THL shared with us, as well as our own private conversations with several OWA member organizations, the OWA seems to bring considerable value to its members.
• While we did not assess their Animal Policy Alliance in detail, our brief assessment indicates this is likely to be a valuable contribution to the broader animal advocacy movement as well.

See THL’s cost effectiveness spreadsheet for a detailed account of the data and calculations that went into our cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).

• We focused our analysis on several programs combined into two cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs): (i) Cage-Free Accountability (U.S., global, and U.K., for commitments for egg-laying hens) and (ii) Better Chicken Commitment Accountability (U.K. and E.U., regarding broiler chickens’ welfare). We chose these programs because they collectively make up a large proportion of THL’s expenditures, and because THL had a large amount of information on these programs that we thought would help yield informative results. However, notably, attempts to quantify the counterfactual impact of corporate accountability campaigns are subject to various significant assumptions and shortcomings that limit their reliability.
• Programs 1–3: Cage-Free Accountability (U.S., Global, and U.K., for commitments for egg-laying hens)
  • Our CEA indicates that this work is likely to help 11 egg-laying hens per dollar through driving a transition to cage-free systems, equating to 88 Suffering-Adjusted Days (SADs) averted per dollar (range: 17–351).
  • As there is limited evidence available, very rough estimates were used for the number of years it will take companies to implement their commitments, compared to when they would have done so if not for THL’s accountability campaigning.
• Program 4: Better Chicken Commitment Accountability (U.K. and E.U., regarding broiler chickens’ welfare)
  • Our CEA indicates that this work is likely to help 46 broiler chickens per dollar through driving a transition to farming systems compliant with the Better Chicken Commitment, equating to 30 SADs averted per dollar (range: 2–89).
  • As above, very rough estimates were used for the number of years it will take companies to implement their commitments, compared to when they would have done so if not for THL’s accountability campaigning.

Rapid back-of-the-envelope calculation

In addition to our cost-effectiveness analyses, we also quickly modelled THL’s Open Wing Alliance program to estimate the scale of their impact under simplified, rough assumptions compared to the detailed modelling of our CEAs. Based on this, we think the OWA is likely to help in the region of two animals (averting around 14 SADs averted) per dollar.

This was a quick assessment based on highly speculative assumptions, so we put very little credence in the resulting SADs averted per dollar, but it gave us a degree of additional confidence in the impact of this program.

A more detailed summary of their future plans, strategic prioritization, and funding capacity, as well as the reasoning behind our assessments for each, can be found in the “Future Plans” tab of their Financials and Future Plans spreadsheet.

Future plans

If THL were to receive additional revenue to expand their organization, they would prioritize using the money to (i) expand their Open Wing Alliance teams and (ii) expand and strengthen their U.S. teams working on cage-free accountability. We rated 100% of their projected spending plans as effective. Their most promising plans include:

• Hiring additional corporate engagement roles focused on leveraging global commitments from global companies headquartered in Asia
• Hiring additional roles in OWA teams to meet the growing needs of an expanding and global alliance, responding to varying challenges and opportunities across the globe
• Hiring additional organizers and campaigners for their U.S. cage-free accountability work to capitalize on a broader range of ad-hoc opportunities across the U.S. and employ different campaigning tactics to complement their standard public campaigning strategy

Funding capacity

Based on our assessment of THL’s future plans, we are confident that they could effectively spend up to a total annual revenue of $28.7 million, which we refer to as their funding capacity.

The chart below shows THL’s revenues from 2022–2025 and their funding capacity for 2026 and 2027.

THL Revenue (2022–2025) and Funding Capacity (2026/2027)

Strategic prioritization

Based on how THL decides which programs to start, stop, scale up, or scale down, we have no concerns about their strategic decision making and believe that they will continue to make cost-effective decisions.

THL’s Senior Leadership Team meets four times a year to track how each program is performing against the goals in their three-year strategic plan and annual Objectives and Key Results (OKRs), placing particular emphasis on clear, measurable reductions in animal suffering. They also consider new proposals throughout the year, provided the ideas fit with the organization’s priorities and budget. When a program is not meeting expectations, the team looks at whether this is due to outside factors, weaknesses in execution, or overly-ambitious targets. If there is no realistic way forward, the program is reduced or closed, and its resources are redirected to areas with greater potential for impact. High-performing programs are reviewed for opportunities to scale up; for example, funding from the closure of the Mexico organization and strategic separation of the Japan office was used to expand the OWA team. New projects are pursued when they either build on approaches that have worked well elsewhere, or are both a high priority and supported by expert advice, such as the 2022 launch of the Animal Policy Alliance to help local groups run legislative campaigns for farmed animals. THL U.K. uses a similar approach, recently increasing work on the Better Chicken Commitment and cage-free accountability ahead of 2025/2026 deadlines while reducing cage-free legislation efforts that were deemed unlikely to succeed under the current U.K. government.

People, policies, and processes

The policies that THL reported having in place are listed in the table below—policies in bold are those that Scarlet Spark²⁷ recommend as highest priority.

Has policy

Partial / informal policy

No policy

COMPENSATION
Paid time off
Paid sick days
Paid medical leave
Paid family and caregiver leave
Compensation strategy (i.e., a policy detailing how an organization determines staff’s pay and benefits in a standardized manner)
WORKPLACE SAFETY
A simple and transparent written procedure for filing complaints
An anti-retaliation policy protecting whistleblowers and those who report grievances
A clearly written workplace code of ethics or conduct
A written statement that the organization does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other irrelevant characteristics
Mandatory reporting of harassment and discrimination through all levels, up to and including the board of directors
Explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment or discrimination
Documentation of all reported instances of harassment or discrimination, along with the outcomes of each case
Conflict of interest policy
Training on topics of harassment and discrimination in the workplace
CLARITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND BIAS MITIGATION
Clearly defined responsibilities for all positions, preferably with written job descriptions
Clear organizational goals and/or priorities communicated to all employees
New hire onboarding or orientation process
Structured hiring, assessing all candidates using the same process
Standardized process for employment termination decisions
Process to evaluate leadership performance
Performance evaluation process based on predefined objectives and expectations
Two or more decision-makers for all hiring, promotion, and termination decisions
Process to attract a diverse candidate pool
ORGANIZATIONAL STABILITY AND PROGRESS
Documentation of all key knowledge and information necessary to fulfill the needs of the organization
Board meeting minutes
Records retention and destruction policy
Systems in place for continuously learning from the past (e.g., feedback norms, retrospectives)
Recurring (e.g., weekly or every two weeks) 1-on-1s focused on alignment and development
ASSESSMENTS
Annual (or more frequent) performance evaluations for all paid roles
Annual (or more frequent) process to measure employee engagement or satisfaction
A process in place to support performance improvement in instances of underperformance

Transparency

All of the information we required for our evaluation—list of board members; list of key staff members; information about the organization’s key accomplishments; the organization’s mission, vision, and/or theory of change; a privacy policy disclosing how the organization collects, uses, and shares third-party information; an IRS Form 990 or equivalent tax form; and financial statements—is made available on THL’s website. They do not make board meeting minutes public, but make them available to auditors and others as required.

THL is transparent with their own staff and shares all policies with them.

Leadership and board governance

• Chief Executive Officer (CEO): Dan Shannon, involved in the organization for one year
• Managing Director of The Humane League U.K.: Sean Gifford, involved in the organization for three years
• Number of board members: seven (THL) and five (THL U.K.)

THL had a transition in their Executive Director in the last year. Vicky Bond was previously the President of THL (April 2022 through January 2025). In December 2024, Mark Middleton, a THL board member, stepped into the Interim President role to provide leadership support and stability during the search for a new CEO. Dan Shannon joined THL as the new CEO in May 2025.

We found that THL’s board mostly aligned with our understanding of best practice, though board meeting minutes are not made public.

About 88% of staff respondents to our engagement survey indicated that they have confidence in THL’s leadership.

Financial health

Reserves

With more than their target of nine months’ of average operating costs held in reserves (as reported by THL for 2024), we believe that they hold a sufficient amount of reserves.

Recurring revenue

Fifty percent of THL’s revenue is recurring (e.g., from recurring donors or ongoing long-term grant commitments). Based on an external consultation with Scarlet Spark, we find this to be a high proportion of recurring revenue (the ideal being 25% or higher); however, the 25% target is dependent on the context for each charity, so while we have noted this information here, it did not influence our recommendation decision.

Liabilities-to-assets ratio

THL’s liabilities-to-assets ratio does not exceed 50%.

Staff engagement and satisfaction

THL has 139 staff members (full time, part time, and contractors). A total of 111 staff members responded to our staff engagement survey, yielding a response rate of 80%. We did not have their CEO take the survey.

THL has 36 volunteers working at least five hours per week. One volunteer responded to our survey.

THL has a formal compensation plan to determine staff salaries. Of the staff who responded to our survey, 94% reported that they are satisfied with their wage. THL offers a flexible, unlimited paid-time-off policy, annual sick leave, and healthcare coverage. About 97% report that they are satisfied with the benefits provided.

The average score among our staff engagement survey questions was 4.63 (on a 1–5 scale), suggesting that, on average, staff exhibit very high engagement.

Harassment and discrimination

ACE has a separate process for receiving serious claims about harassment and discrimination, and all THL staff were made aware of this option. If staff or any party external to the organization have claims of this nature, we encourage them to read ACE’s Third-Party Whistleblower Policy and fill out our claimant form. We have received no such claims regarding The Humane League.