Animal Charity Evaluators’ Better for Animals: Evidence-Based Insights for Effective Animal Advocacy resource is an ongoing project in which we distill key research on different animal advocacy interventions to help us evaluate their impact in different contexts. We have made this research publicly available to support informed decision making about how to help the most animals. You may read more about the methodology in our recent announcement.
This is a living document and we want to make it as helpful, accessible, and up to date as possible, so please feel free to reach out with feedback! To keep up to date with ACE’s research and the work of the amazing organizations that we support, be sure to sign up for our mailing list.
To help make this information more accessible to a wide range of audiences, we are spotlighting one intervention each month through a series of social media and blog posts spotlighting one intervention each month. This month—for the 3rd edition—we are focusing on the evidence around protests.
Intervention Spotlight #3: Protests
What is this intervention?
This category refers to protests or demonstrations to support an animal advocacy initiative. Tactics include organizing or participating in protests, demonstrations, or marches to raise awareness about animal welfare issues and advocate for change; engaging in nonviolent direct action campaigns such as sit-ins, blockades, or banner drops; and developing creative and attention-grabbing stunts or performances.
Advocates use protests, often in conjunction with other tactics, to influence public opinion on animals, animal exploitation, and the animal advocacy movement; achieve corporate and policy change; increase the volume of public discourse and media attention on animal welfare issues; and increase the capacity of the animal advocacy movement through increasing resources for animal advocacy groups (e.g., through donations, sign-ups, and activist mobilization).
What is our overall assessment of this intervention? How confident are we in this assessment?
In terms of influencing public opinion, research on the effectiveness of animal advocacy protests shows mixed results, often with negative short-term impacts. Case studies suggest that awareness of protests can initially lead to more negative attitudes toward animals (the measured attitudes included attitudes toward animals, support for changing how we treat animals in society, and willingness to do something about it). The extent of negative attitudes may vary based on how radical the actions are1. While nonviolent tactics are generally associated with greater success than violent tactics, evidence comparing radical nonviolent and moderate nonviolent approaches remains inconclusive. However, one case study suggests that these initial negative effects may fade over time.2 Months after protests, public attitudes toward animals can improve, alongside increases in media coverage, donations, and sign-ups to Animal Rising, the group behind the protests studied.
In terms of achieving corporate and policy change, protests appear to have been part of many successful campaigns for specific welfare or policy changes, such as the cage-free commitments secured by The Humane League and others, and national bans on fur farming in the European Union. The year after Animal Rising disrupted the Grand National horse race, a number of rules changes were introduced by the organizers to protect the welfare of the horses.3
In terms of increasing media attention and public discourse, protests appear effective at raising the profile of animal issues. Research indicates that especially disruptive or seemingly illogical actions can generate significant media coverage, thereby increasing the salience of the topic in public conversation. For instance, following the Grand National disruption, there was a sharp increase in media attention, as well as direct donations and sign-ups for the organizing group. This suggests that protests can successfully mobilize resources and set the agenda, even if the immediate media framing is negative.
Evaluating the impact of protests is challenging for several reasons. First, protests are rarely used in isolation; instead, they are often integrated into broader campaigns to directly or indirectly advance outcomes for animals. We found no empirical research explicitly testing the added effectiveness of protests when combined with other tactics.
However, there are compelling precedents where protests appear to have served as an important lever of pressure to secure corporate or policy commitments, such as the Open Wing Alliance’s global cage-free victories. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to isolate the specific contribution of demonstrations relative to other campaign activities.
Protests can also theoretically support a “radical flank” strategy, where disruptive actions by one faction make the demands of moderate groups appear more reasonable. However, the evidence for this is mixed: While some studies suggest a positive contrast effect that boosts support for moderates, others indicate that perceived extremism can generate backlash or repression that hinders the movement as a whole.
Second, evaluating the success of a protest depends heavily on the underlying theory of change. Protests can pursue distinct strategic mechanisms, and data that appears negative through one lens (e.g., increased public annoyance) may be viewed as a success through another (e.g., increased issue salience or imposed costs on a target). Therefore, we are unable to come up with a blanket verdict on protests. The evidence suggests their effectiveness is highly variable and depends heavily on the specific outcome targeted—and, crucially, whether that outcome ultimately translates into tangible benefits for animals.
On policy and corporate change: Case history suggests that protests show promise as effective levers for pressure. However, we lack robust empirical data isolating their impact from other tactics, and literature reviews suggest mixed or limited effectiveness, so there is overall insufficient evidence that protests can reliably help secure legislative or corporate wins.
On capacity building and media: Protests show some promise in successfully generating public discourse and media salience, and mobilizing existing supporters, even when broader public sentiment is negative.
On public opinion: Protests seem less promising here. Evidence shows that disruptive protests can cause immediate negative shifts in public attitudes toward animals and the movement. While these effects may be temporary, we have insufficient evidence to conclude that protests reliably drive positive long-term shifts in general public opinion.
We also think that due to the scarcity of rigorous, long-term evidence supporting their effectiveness, apparent conflicting effects, and the potential risks of backlash, protests require rigorous strategic planning: Distinct goals must be defined, risks to the wider movement assessed, and tactics carefully calibrated to the specific context. Below are some of the contextual factors that may make protests more or less likely to succeed.
In terms of public attitudes and public and policy backlash, we think there is strong evidence that protests have better outcomes and are less risky when using nonviolent tactics. Nonviolent protests are consistently linked to greater success, across social movements, than violent tactics.4
Our confidence in this assessment is low to moderate, due to the reliance on case studies and lack of systematic reviews, experimental studies, and long-term observational research. The lack of generalizability across countries and different movements and the sometimes-conflicting evidence further add to our uncertainty. This means our hesitancy about protests should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness. Rather, it reflects a lack of robust data and the difficulty of isolating the specific impact of protests.
Given the apparent success of protests as part of historical campaigns, and the lack of robust data, we think more research would be highly valuable. Priorities for further research include:
Impacts of protests outside the Global North (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, E.U.).
Long-term effects on public opinion, public discourse, policy, and other outcomes.
The conditions that make protests more or less effective, depending on the intended outcome of the protest.
The (counterfactual) effectiveness of protests when combined with other advocacy tactics.
The unique role of animal advocacy protests compared to other causes, given that the affected group (animals) cannot participate, and the significance this may have for protest outcomes.
What does the research say about how effective this intervention is?
Short-term impacts
Most of the available literature focuses on the short-term impact of protests on public opinion. Studies tend to show either mixed or negative short-term effects of protests on public opinion, with some more positive effects for climate protests.
A study by the Social Change Lab5 evaluated the impact of the 2023 Grand National horse race disruption by Animal Rising. Immediately after the protest, respondents’ awareness of the protest was linked with more negative attitudes toward animals examined through questions around the treatment and welfare of animals.
An online experiment6 with British participants measured the responses to three different campaign types (horse race disruptions, open rescues of sheep, KFC drive-through blockades). The researchers also presented three different messaging types: values/norms-led messages, which appeal to people’s love for animals and their desire to do the morally right thing; problem-led messages, which emphasize the harms of animal exploitation to both animals and the environment; and solution-led messages, which present a plant-based system as the solution. Overall, most combinations negatively affected participants’ attitudes toward animals, their support for pro-animal policies, and their willingness to take action for animal rights, with the most negative effects for the KFC drive-through blockade and least negative effects for the horse racing disruption.
An experimental study7 in the U.K. and Australia found that reading about a vegan protest, irrespective of its disruptiveness, led to worse attitudes toward vegans, and greater defense of meat consumption than reading about a control protest.
A longitudinal study8 on opinion changes in a nationally-representative sample (n = 832) around the activities of Extinction Rebellion in the U.K., in conjunction with experimental analysis of the causal effects of media reports (n = 1,441), showed national increases in environmental concern. Activist media increased dissatisfaction with current government action, but did not lead to major growth in collective mobilization or improved environmental policy.
A U.S.-based study including three experiments9 (animal rights, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Trump protests) found that while disruptive tactics such as blocking traffic or damaging property were successful at raising public awareness, they also decreased popular support for the cause. Notably, activists reported using these tactics precisely because they believed they would build public support. This suggests that activists may not be aware of the trade-off of extreme protest tactics.
A survey10 of 120 social change experts found that 69% thought that disruptive tactics were effective for issues with high public support, 30% thought they were effective for issues with low public support, and 90% thought that nonviolent climate crisis protests targeting the government are at least somewhat effective overall.
Research is more limited when it comes to the effects of protests on achieving policy wins, influencing corporate behavior, or influencing public discourse, but there are some case studies and literature reviews focusing on the impacts of specific animal advocacy and climate crisis protests, mostly in the U.S., U.K., and other Global North countries.
One case study examined the famous case Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) protests in the U.K. in the late 1990s and early 2000s.11 SHAC was ultimately unsuccessful in their aim to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), a research facility accused of animal rights violations. However, they had some early successes in getting other organizations to terminate their association with HLS. Possibly due to HLS moving their financial center to the U.S., the campaign faced a strong government response; many SHAC activists were prosecuted and new anti-activist policies were passed. This highlights the risk that government crackdowns on protests can have a chilling effect on advocacy. SHAC used diverse tactics, including violent tactics like firebombing employees’ cars. Their activity received a strong negative media response. On the other hand, the violent tactics seemed successful in scaring people and organizations away from associating with HLS.
A 2022 literature review12 highlights some of the positive effects of protests in the U.S. and Western Europe. The review looked at case studies from the civil rights, climate change, and animal advocacy movements and found strong evidence for significant short-term impacts on public opinion, voting, and public discourse. Medium evidence was found for significant impacts on election voting outcomes (1–6%), positively influencing public opinion (<10%), and influencing public discourse in terms of issue salience and media narrative. The researchers found low evidence for influencing policy or policymaker beliefs, and unclear-but-potentially-positive long-term impacts on public opinion and voting behavior.
Another review by the Social Change Lab13 looked at the impact that protests have on three different outcomes: public opinion, policy, and public discourse. The review found with high confidence (60–80%) that protests can lead to a small positive change in public opinion (2–5%), with medium confidence (40–60%) that they can lead to a small net positive change in policy, and with high confidence (60–80%) that protests can lead to a medium net positive change in public discourse. The researchers also looked at the variance among protest movements and found with high confidence (60–80%) that there is a large variance (over 10x) in the effectiveness of protests across different social movements and cause areas. While the policymakers interviewed in this report reported believing that most protests have little impact, they also believed that Extinction Rebellion protests in the climate change movement and anti-live export protests in the animal advocacy movement had direct impacts on the U.K.’s legal commitment to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and live-export ban policies, respectively.
A 2025 study conducted by the Social Change Lab in the U.K., Sweden, and Germany over a two-year period found that in all three countries, climate protests had a modest but measurable positive effect on voting intention for green and more environmentally-conscious parties.14 Specifically, protests were associated with an increase of less than 1% in intention to vote for a pro-climate party in each country (between 0.19 and 0.79 percentage points). However, this dynamic might not translate to animal advocacy, as animal welfare is rarely a primary policy distinction between major parties or a decisive driver of voting intention.
Long-term impacts
The Social Change Lab review15 shows that six months after Animal Rising’s Grand National protest, respondents’ awareness of the protest was no longer linked to their attitudes toward animals. In this case it appears that the immediate negative effects on public opinion did not last. During that time, there also was a sharp increase in media and public attention, direct donations, and sign-ups, and a simple cross-sectional before/after analysis indicated that attitudes toward animals have improved in the U.K. over these six months (although we cannot causally link these shifts to the specific protest).
Cost effectiveness
We were unable to find estimates of the cost effectiveness of vegan and animal rights protests. However, analyses of climate crisis protests suggest that, if taken at face value, protests have the potential to be competitive with other highly-effective movement tactics.
Social Change Lab conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)16 of Extinction Rebellion’s (XR) impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and influencing climate policy, and estimated that their protests were on average seven times more effective than the most effective climate charity in the EA movement (Clean Air Task Force) at the time (2021). The CEA looked at changes in local authorities’ policies on moving climate targets to an earlier date, setting a more ambitious national policy, setting the targets earlier, and increasing government spending. Part of this impact is speculatively estimated to be attributable to XR’s work. According to this estimate, XR could have saved between 1.2–20 metric tonnes of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent)per £ through changing net-zero targets, and £77 (8–387) in government funding redirected to climate change per £ spent.
Another Social Change Lab CEA17 on the impacts of Insulate Britain estimates that 0.25 and 1.26 tonnes of CO2 were saved per £, putting their cost effectiveness on a par with that of Clean Air Task Force, evaluated as being the most effective climate charity, able to reduce between 0.31 and 3.88 tonnes of CO2/£.18
Strength of evidence
Researching protests comes with inherent methodological limitations that are less prevalent in some other animal advocacy interventions. Unlike individual-level interventions (such as diet change studies) where randomized controlled trials can isolate variables, or corporate outreach, where specific “wins” can be tracked against specific demands, protests usually operate in a noisy, uncontrolled environment.
We often have to rely on case studies, which tend to focus on particularly noteworthy, large, or successful cases, and likely do not represent the average protest. It is also rarely possible to isolate the specific impact of the protest from the broader political context or other campaign efforts.
There are also difficulties in measuring the outcomes of protests. Success in social movements is often diffuse: changing a “cultural vibe,” shifting the Overton window, or inspiring a future generation of activists, which are challenging to quantify.
Most studies do not include a longer evaluation period to determine the duration of the effects of the protests. This limits the generalizability of the effects. Except for the literature review19 by Ozden and Glover, most studies do not measure long-term effects of protests on public opinion or policy.
Research into protests outside of the U.S. and Western Europe is very limited, and due to the large differences in cultures and political systems, it’s challenging to generalize findings to other countries. For example, protests outside of liberal democracies are also likely to come with greater risks to activists and more tools for suppression.
Where experimental studies do exist, they tend to measure attitude changes in reaction to information about a protest in laboratory conditions, which might not be able to replicate the emotional responses to the disruption of real-world protests. Observational studies include many confounding factors which make it difficult to determine causality.
How do protests support other interventions?
In many cases, protests support the specific asks of other interventions, such as corporate or government outreach, rather than being a standalone intervention. While robust empirical evidence for the effectiveness of protests as part of a broader strategy is lacking, there are non-peer reviewed case studies with examples of positive outcomes for corporate campaigns.
A Coefficient Giving (formerly Open Philanthropy) report20 describes how the protests organized by the Open Wing Alliance (OWA) helped millions of chickens out of cages. The Humane League engages the OWA as a “bad cop”, once it is clear that a retailer will not improve their welfare standards through positive engagement. They threaten to launch a campaign with many on-the-ground protests to inform the public about the low-welfare standards and thus pressure the retailer. The OWA has over 100 member organizations that can be mobilized for this type of pressure campaign. In the best case scenario, the retailer agrees to a commitment before a campaign is launched just after a discussion with THL or OWA. There have been major wins in many countries, including non-Western countries like Türkiye.
In their blog post titled, “The moment we knew cages were over,”21 The Humane League U.K. describes their journey to achieving an 80% cage-free egg market in the U.K., an increase from the former 50%. After launching in 2016, they first focused on securing brand commitments, and after a number of successes they pivoted to retailers and secured a commitment from Noble Foods, the U.K.’s largest egg producer, in 2018. These campaigns apply pressure through various means—protests, negotiation, petitions, leafleting, alliance building, social media and other media pressure. The full success cannot be attributed to the protests, but they do seem to play a major role in the corporate campaign strategy.
In October 2024, Romanian lawmakers voted to ban fur farming from 2027, becoming the 22nd E.U. country to do so.22 The win came after campaigns and undercover investigations from animal activists. Humane Society International/Europe lobbied the National Liberal Party who then submitted a bill to Parliament to ban fur farming, together with HSI’s submission of investigation evidence to the Prime Minister with a formal request for the government to introduce a national fur farming ban, which was successful. However, the fur industry has been declining for a long time, with COVID-19 accelerating its drop after the virus was found on mink farms. Compared to animal agriculture, the counter lobby is likely smaller and the campaign successes come at a point where the numbers of animals farmed for fur are lower than ever, so the generalizability of these wins might not extend to animals farmed for food.
Under what conditions is this intervention more or less effective?
The literature overall suggests that nonviolent tactics are associated with more successful protest outcomes than violent tactics.23 Weaker evidence also suggests that having a nonviolent but radical flank in the movement may lead to more impact for the movement overall than not having a more radical flank, or having a violent radical flank.24 However, this research was mostly from social movements outside of the animal advocacy space.
Existing radical flank research from climate protests shows that its effects can be positive or negative. Extreme actions by fringe groups within a movement can provoke public backlash, discrediting the broader cause and providing justification for the repression of even moderate forms of dissent.25 Conversely, in the analysis of the Insulate Britain campaign,26 several stakeholders working on insulation noted that their work benefited from the heightened public attention on the issue triggered by Insulate Britain’s disruptive tactics. The Social Change Lab’s polling on the disruptive climate group Just Stop Oil found their protests were associated with enhanced public support for Friends of the Earth, a moderate climate organization.27 Several other studies show a positive radical flank effect, leading to more public support for more moderate groups within the same movement.28, 29 A 2025 study suggests that positive radical flank effects are more likely when the moderate group is viewed as markedly distinct from the radical group,30 indicating that moderates may benefit from explicitly distancing themselves from more radical groups to present themselves as a more palatable alternative. It is not clear to which extent the findings from climate change protests can be applied to animal advocacy protests, on which the research is still lacking.
Most case studies focused specifically on protests by animal activists found that nonviolent extreme actions (open rescue, blockades, disruptions) had a negative effect on attitudes toward animals and the movement.31 In one case,32 more moderate tactics by animal activists (marching) led to higher willingness to support the movement compared to extreme tactics (open rescue). Whether nonviolent tactics are more effective if they are radical vs more moderate is currently not clear. A more significant limitation is that most studies only measure the immediate change in attitudes, and there is limited evidence for how long these potentially negative effects last.33
Other factors that were found to be connected to successful protests were large numbers of protesters and external context (having luck and having political allies).34 To a lesser extent, there is some evidence for the radical flank effect, diversity within the movement, and intra-organizational factors like experience of organizers and culture.
According to a The Social Change lab study,35 there is a positive correlation between how “illogical” a protest action is and the increase in donations that follows the protest. This is likely due to a higher media coverage of more illogical protest actions. An example of a protest action that is perceived as logical is protesting in front of an oil company’s headquarters, while throwing soup at a painting is perceived as illogical. The animal advocacy movement is funding constrained, fundraising is a high priority.
There are potentially high risks associated with this intervention due. Several case studies show negative immediate effects on public attitudes shown.36 There is also a risk of authority backlash, such as harsher anti-protest laws that could stifle future advocacy efforts.
Our priorities for improving this evidence review
For future editions, we’d like to ground this evidence review more explicitly in the different theories of change protests can be a part of.37 This involves more consistently organizing the review by outcome, and articulating and examining the causal pathways between these “early” outcomes often measured in research—such as media coverage, public opinion, or fundraising—and actual outcomes for animals.
We would like to integrate more insights from broader social movement theory to supplement the limited direct evidence. This also involves reviewing more research on other movements (e.g., civil rights) and assessing how transferable key mechanisms may be to the unique context of animal advocacy.
We may also expand our search for evidence beyond academic databases, e.g., by conducting interviews with organizers and strategists at animal advocacy groups.
Last updated November 20, 2025
We would like to thank Sam Nadel for his helpful feedback as peer reviewer.
The campaign also garnered an average of 31 mentions per day in U.K. national newspapers and dozens of TV interviews, with predominantly negative coverage. The issue of home insulation, already popular with the public, became much more prominent in public discourse. Media mentions went from close to zero before the campaign to hundreds of mentions per day, including a significant increase in mentions in both Houses of Parliament.
See Ostarek et al. (2024b), Glover, S. (2022), and Feinberg et al. (2017).
See Ostarek et al. (2024a), Ostarek et al. (2024b), Glover, S. (2022), Feinberg et al. (2017), and Menzies et al. (2023).
An example of a framework that explores the outcomes in the context of the climate movement can be found in Thomas-Walters et al. (2025).
Leave a comment
