Over 70% of the world’s farmed animals are raised in the Global South, yet less than 20% of movement funding goes to these regions. At the same time, meat, poultry, dairy, and fish production are expanding rapidly across many lower- and middle-income countries, meaning decisions made in these regions over the coming decades may shape the welfare conditions of billions of animals.

A major focus of our work is halal food systems — food systems shaped by Islamic dietary rules that influence how animals are raised, handled, transported, and slaughtered for nearly two billion Muslim consumers worldwide. The halal sector is already one of the largest and fastest-growing parts of the global food economy, projected to grow from over $7 trillion today to around $10 trillion by 2030.

Despite this scale, Muslim-majority contexts and halal systems remain significantly underrepresented in animal advocacy research. Without locally grounded evidence, organizations risk relying on strategies developed in very different cultural and institutional environments. We aim to help close this gap by producing decision-relevant research that organizations can use to improve advocacy, policy engagement, and welfare outcomes in these high-impact contexts.

We focus on helping organizations make better decisions in some of the most overlooked but high-impact areas in animal advocacy.

• Neglected, high-impact focus. We specialize in Global South and halal food systems — areas still largely overlooked in animal advocacy.

• Filling a key gap. Few organizations combine economic rigor with deep regional and cultural expertise in these contexts.

• Strong methodological expertise. Our team includes PhD economists from Muslim-majority countries with backgrounds in causal inference, behavioral research, and impact evaluation.

• Implementation-first approach. We design research for real-world advocacy use — not just publication.

• Validated by demand. Organizations across regions actively seek out and apply our work.

A major problem in animal advocacy is that research often gets published but never meaningfully applied. We try to address this by designing projects around real strategic needs from the beginning, rather than producing research in isolation.

Much of our work is developed directly with advocacy organizations facing concrete questions related to campaigns, policy, messaging, or institutional change. We also stay involved after publication — helping partners translate findings into advocacy strategy, stakeholder communication, workshops, and implementation planning.

Our goal is not simply to produce reports, but to generate evidence that organizations can realistically use to make better decisions in practice.

Animal advocacy operates under limited time, funding, and organizational capacity, which makes prioritization especially important. Economics and impact evaluation help us understand which interventions are most likely to create meaningful change for animals, which strategies are cost-effective, and where limited resources can have the greatest impact.

A key part of this work is distinguishing correlation from causation. For example, if public attitudes appear to change after a campaign, we want to understand whether the campaign actually caused that change or whether other factors were responsible. Methods such as experiments, behavioral research, and impact evaluation help organizations make more informed decisions based on evidence rather than assumptions alone.

Our approach is based on understanding the local context. What works in London or New York can fail — or even backfire — in places like Istanbul or Jakarta, as behavior is shaped by different cultural, religious, and institutional realities. Advocacy strategies that work well in one setting do not automatically translate to another. Behavior is shaped by different cultural norms, religious values, political environments, economic realities, and sources of trust. For example, highly confrontational campaigns or messaging centered around individual identity may resonate in some Western contexts but create resistance in places where religious legitimacy, social harmony, or community reputation play a larger role in decision-making.

Institutional structures also differ significantly across regions. In many Muslim-majority contexts, actors such as halal certification bodies, religious scholars, and local community leaders can strongly influence public attitudes and policy discussions in ways that have no direct equivalent in many Western advocacy environments. Without locally grounded evidence, organizations risk relying on strategies that are ineffective, poorly targeted, or perceived as culturally disconnected, making meaningful engagement and long-term change more difficult.