At Anima International, we recognize that the animal advocacy movement has gone through significant changes. Over the last few decades, our successes and failures have shaped the way we engage with our work, how we engage society, and how we collaborate with one another. We have no clear manual for ending animal abuse, so we must continue learning as we go and refining our approach.

To achieve this we must learn from the best—those with significant experience and diverse perspectives. Furthermore, we think that there is enormous value in hearing from such people, no matter whether we agree with them or not. To help animals effectively, the movement has to be able to respectfully and collaboratively disagree.

That’s why we asked ten dedicated advocates, each with unique perspectives, to share what they’ve changed their minds about during their time in the movement. We respect their thinking and dedication to animals, and hope their insights will inspire both new and seasoned advocates to stay open-minded and committed to growth.

Aaron Ross

Senior Vice President of Policy and Strategy, The Humane League

I became active in the movement in 2000, during its most radical and scrappy phase. Back then, at even the largest conferences, activists often wore punk t-shirts and studded belts instead of suits. Activism for a salary was frowned upon; true pride came from self-sacrifice and stoic suffering. We slept on roach-infested motel floors, drove broken-down cars, and lived with negative bank accounts. Our activism consumed our free time, and we used it to shout through bullhorns, smash windows, and liberate animals. The FBI raided our homes, harassed our families, and infiltrated our groups, leading to regular arrests.

By the late 2000s, I felt it was time for a shift towards professionalism and pragmatism. I updated my look, bought my first suit, and adopted more practical interventions in activism. This change proved beneficial; the public took us more seriously, our movement grew, and we won many campaigns. I started to believe that all non-effective altruism work was just feel-good activism.

However, I was mistaken. While the move to professionalism and pragmatism was highly valuable, we have drifted too far from passionate grassroots activism which fostered a global decentralized movement with a life of its own, akin to recent achievements of other social justice movements. Many effective tactics and strategies we use today were forged in those radical environments, and many current leaders of the animal movement entered through the gates of fervor. 

We should continue crafting tractable and publicly appealing campaigns while maintaining a sustainable movement with well-compensated staff. Yet, we must avoid becoming overly professional or allowing our organizations to grow bureaucratic and sluggish. Our main advantage is being nimble, clever, and passionate in a battle where our opponents are much larger. We must never lose sight of this.

Ignacia Uribe

Founder & CEO, Fundación Veg

Over the last few years of my work as a journalist, I have learned that to increase our impact for animals, we need to set aside our private preferences and think carefully about the way in which we communicate with external audiences. I used to be very open in reflecting my strong private views in external communications, but I realized that publicly demanding total animal liberation was pointless.

Since then, I have become much more open to meeting people where they are. In the book I wrote with non-vegans in mind, “How to Be Vegan Today,” I argue that it’s better to be an imperfect vegan than not be vegan at all, for example, to try a plant-based diet some days of the week or even in certain hours of the day if you can’t or are not ready to fully commit to a vegan diet.

I have learned that when I speak to the media or the public, I’m not representing myself as an individual, but rather speaking for the animals, so I should separate my private opinions from the goals I or my organization, Veg Foundation, want to achieve. 

Sometimes because of ego, we want to say things that make us feel like superheroes. But for me, the real heroes are able to put their egos aside and be pragmatic. It’s not easy, but we have to try if we want to save more animals.

Andrea Gunn

Executive Vice President, The Navigation Fund

I used to feel there was a “right” way to run an organization. I thought structure (clear roles, defined processes, and documentation) was essential. Everyone should have SMARTIE goals. All documents (even internal) should be polished. Every work hour should be productive. Managers must adapt to meet the needs of each employee. 

Over the last few years, my views have fundamentally changed. While certain strategies help in certain circumstances, running an organization is highly context-dependent. 

For example, you don’t need a job description when a role is in flux, so long as it’s clear when you’ll check in and ensure alignment. Being able to understand the ideas in a doc matters more than grammar or formatting (I don’t even correct typos in internal docs anymore—I’d barely recognize myself!). While I’m still pro goals, what actually matters is that you’re clear and aligned on the desired outcome. It doesn’t even need to be documented if everyone understands. 

And don’t try to adapt to be something you’re not. Your leadership style and organizational culture won’t work for everyone, and that’s okay. Be upfront about what you can or can't offer (“if you want small talk and happy hours, you won’t find that here”) and let others opt in or out. 

For leaders, output does not equal success. Intangibles like reflection, processing, and learning matter, and it’s OK to take a midday walk to do it. 

Leading an organization well is not about rigid structures or frameworks, what it really comes down to is clear communication and alignment, and adapting to meet the moment.

Wayne Hsiung

Executive Director and General Counsel, The Simple Heart Initiative

I’ve changed my mind about the importance of hierarchy in social movements. I was convinced many years ago, based on research in political science and sociology, that mobilizing large numbers of ordinary people was crucial to change. The “influencer” theory of Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point—that certain special people could trigger massive social change—has been largely discredited by social networks research. Change happens when large numbers of ordinary people connect and mobilize in a social network. The necessary size of the network of ordinary people, moreover, is much lower than most people think: probably anywhere from 3.5–25 percent of a community. Direct Action Everywhere was an attempt to build such a network through the most powerful narrative of animal rights: rescue.

I was, however, wrong in a very important way in how to build such a network: I massively underappreciated the importance of hierarchical leadership. It is difficult to maintain a large network of people without: (a) leaders empowered to make decisions; and (b) mechanisms for building trust in those decisions. Some aspects of this form of leadership are structural—elections are an important way for social movements to scale, for example. (That is, after all, how democracy became the dominant form of political organization on Earth!) However, in the early stages, a significant effort has to be made in recruiting the right types of people, regardless of the organizing architecture. If I could go back in time, I'd do it all over again with a much greater emphasis on leadership structure, recruitment, and development—and a much smaller emphasis on decentralized organizing. 

Ilona Rabizo

Co-founder and Director of Social Change, Anima International

The last major—and in fact, fundamental—shift in my activism relates to the types of indicators we should use when deciding on a new intervention. Until recently, I was strongly convinced that any campaign must inherently lead to the liberation of animals, that this was the primary and most important criterion. Only afterward should we consider how our intervention reduces animal suffering. Merely reducing suffering seemed less significant to me, given that animals would still be confined to farms and would still suffer, just less.

Now, I think that was arrogant, naive, and idealistic of me. We don’t know how or when we will achieve animal liberation. We don’t know if it will happen within our lifetime or what our role in it will be. Making decisions based on such an unclear and highly complex variable seems, in hindsight, to be unwise—especially when considering the ever-growing scale of animal suffering.

If it weren’t for conversations with activists from within and outside our organization, I would still be holding onto my old belief. Evaluating the effectiveness of our campaigns, during which I was confronted with many difficult but valid questions, also played a significant role in changing my perspective. Articles and studies, including Keyvan Mostafavi's blog post suggesting a different approach to quantifying animal suffering and Henry Spira’s 1991 article Hyperactivism: The Phenomenon of Doing Without Achieving, also had a considerable impact.

Interestingly, I haven’t lost faith in animal liberation—not even a bit. In fact, I believe in it even more because I can think more strategically, with a sharper focus on how the system of animal exploitation operates today. As a movement, we can now better assess how we can help animals most effectively, which interventions will have the greatest impact on their current reality, and how we can best reduce their suffering. In the words of Henry Spira, “Rather than day-dreaming about perfect and absolute solutions, activists need to push for the most rapid progress.”

Eva Hamer

Co-founder and Operations Lead, Pax Fauna and Pro-Animal Future

One significant shift in my thinking has been around the “welfarism vs. abolitionism” debate that divided animal advocates for years. As a new activist with DxE, I initially bought into the idea that welfare reforms were counterproductive sellouts that only reinforced the system of animal exploitation. I viewed groups pursuing incremental welfare changes, like cage-free campaigns, with suspicion and even disdain.

However, over time I've come to see this framing as deeply misguided. I now understand that all animal advocacy strategies are inherently incremental—we’re just focused on different increments. The “abolitionist” tactics I favored, like disruptive protests demanding total animal liberation, were no less incremental than corporate campaigns for specific welfare reforms.

More importantly, I’ve realized these different approaches can and should be complementary, not contradictory. We need both “inside game” tactics working within the system and “outside game” tactics pushing from the margins. Groups pursuing welfare reforms aren’t “welfarists” opposed to abolition—they’re ethical vegans using different tactics toward the same ultimate goal of ending animal farming.

This shift came from getting to know advocates on different sides as real people, not caricatures. It also came from looking at empirical evidence, which doesn’t support fears that welfare campaigns reduce opposition to animal farming or create complacency.

I now see the animal advocacy movement as a diverse ecology where different roles and tactics are all necessary. We’re more effective when we understand each other’s approaches and collaborate across strategic differences, rather than falling into unproductive infighting.

Jayasimha Nuggehalli

Co-founder and Chief Operating Officer, Global Food Partners

My outlook on capitalism has changed a lot. Initially, I saw businesses as enemies, whereas at the moment, I consider them the biggest allies to do good. I used to be strongly convinced that having governments introduce laws to improve the situation of animals was the way to go. I was a believer in working with lawmakers to take care of society and the animals.

While I still believe that the state has great power to do good, I realized its capacity is very limited and the law-making process takes a lot of time. Governments are too big and too slow to change. Businesses, on the other hand, are way more agile and can act quickly. And they, too, have enormous power to do good. If animal welfare makes business sense, the incentive for companies to increase it is immense. I believe that as a movement we should tap into that motivation. 

Mahi Klosterhalfen

CEO, Albert Schweitzer Foundation 

Since the inception of the European Chicken Commitment (ECC) in 2018, we at the Albert Schweitzer Foundation have been working hard to get German food companies to improve welfare standards for broiler chickens. Initially, we saw commendable progress, but in 2022/2023 our work became more and more challenging. Despite our efforts, new sign-ups from the retail sector stalled, a critical component given that grocery chains are the main buyers of broiler meat. Among the top four German retailers, only ALDI had joined the ECC. This lack of broader retail commitment hindered chicken producers from adopting new production methods, making it difficult for medium-sized and smaller companies to source ECC-compliant meat at reasonable prices.

After more than a year of minimal progress, it became clear that our current approach was ineffective. In Germany, there is an animal welfare labeling system called Haltungsform, adopted by major grocery chains. Retailers pointed out to us that the ECC conflicted with it. Within Haltungsform, ECC's standards are an expensive route to achieve tier 2 (slightly higher welfare standards than the legal minimum) and do not meet the criteria for tier 3 (higher welfare, including access to fresh air).

For years, we advocated for changes to the Haltungsform system but made no headway. Faced with the choice to persist in our current strategy or adapt, I began re-evaluating our options. Should we risk, as a German saying goes, “dying in beauty” (sticking to our principles and failing) or find a way to align with the Haltungsform system? After extensive internal and external discussions, we chose the latter in order to improve the odds of making tangible progress. We started advocating for Haltungsform tier 3 with some of the additional measures that ECC covers and Haltungsform doesn’t (such as stopping the use of electric waterbath stunning).

Just one month after announcing this new approach, REWE Group became the second of the top four retailers (after ALDI) to join our broiler initiative. This success has created a new momentum, increasing the likelihood of widespread adoption of higher welfare standards in broiler production in Germany.

In hindsight, it took me too long to recognize the need for a change in tactics—and then it took me too long to implement this change. I think the main reason is that we, as a movement, agreed on the ECC criteria and at some point, my loyalty towards this agreement was stronger than it should have been. It’s hard to go against the consensus. However, I'm grateful that we ultimately made the decision to do so. Quoting Farnam Street, “One sign you're getting in your own way, is not changing your tactics when you're not getting the result you want.”

Josh Balk

CEO, The Accountability Board

Now more than ever it is good to take risks. But I feel like there is a time and place to keep pushing forward with campaigns we know are effective, and it’s critical to see them through. In my opinion, it’s a big mistake to cut momentum on an issue we assume is completed and move on instead of actually finishing the job.

I made this mistake with companies making commitments on animal welfare issues such as switching to cage-free eggs, gestation crate-free pork, and meat from higher welfare chickens. After securing pledges from them, I shifted focus to a different issue. In reality, they promised to make the switch but hadn’t yet followed through. What I came to learn is that there’s a stark difference between companies promising something and actually doing it. Years later, when the timeframe for fulfilling these commitments was approaching, I realized many didn’t make any changes nor actually had any plans to do so. And, when confronted, the companies complained that they couldn’t change overnight, even though they had years to phase in those changes.

If I had to do it all over again, I would make sure that when we secure a corporate commitment, we set clear benchmarks and steps for the company to take and then keep the pressure on until it’s actually completed. That’s how actual change for animals will happen.

Lucas Alvarenga

Chief Strategy Officer, Mercy for Animals

This might sound positive but it doesn't tell the full story: I used to be incredibly confident in my ability to get things done. As a fresh graduate, I quit my job and launched my own agency, despite having little experience. Though my ventures didn’t turn out as I’d hoped, my self-assurance kept me pushing forward. The flip side of the coin is what I wanna get to: my confidence also blinded me to the bigger picture. I believed I knew best and often dismissed other very important perspectives.

When I transitioned into farmed animal advocacy nearly a decade ago, that mindset carried over. I joined Mercy For Animals, convinced that our strategic approach was the best one, while seeing some grassroots activism as lacking strategy and acting purely out of passion. But over time, I realized how limited my thinking had been. My certainty in "knowing better" stunted my ability to collaborate effectively or recognize the value in different approaches.

I’m still learning to adopt the mindset of a "beginner’s mind." Inspired by Buddhist teachings and books like Seven Practices of a Mindful Leader by Marc Lesser (which I highly recommend), I’ve begun to always question my convictions. This shift has helped me develop deeper empathy for others and to better understand our movement as an interconnected ecosystem, where every person and approach plays a role, despite their different degrees of impact. 

Resources that have been instrumental in this ongoing process include How Change Happens by Leslie R. Crutchfield, This is an Uprising by Mark and Paul Engler, and The Four Roles of Social Activism by Bill Moyer.

I’m coming to see that while strategies may differ, judgment can cloud our understanding. When we judge someone else's strategy, it might be simply because we're missing a very critical perspective.

Acknowledgements:

Anna Bearne, Jakub Stencel, Laura Gough