Short Summary
The theory of change for this intervention is clear and concise.
It relies on (good cop) corporate campaigning which is a well-tested and successful approach within the animal movement.
The charity will also provide technical assistance to supermarkets to help them meet their commitments.
This intervention is expected to be extremely cost-effective, averting up to 177 SADs per 2023 USD (modeling a 60:40 by 2040 commitment).
We are encouraged by progress in the Netherlands where 13 supermarkets with a total market share greater than 90% have committed to 60:40 protein sales ratios by 2030.
The Problem
What’s the problem?
Supermarket protein ratios currently greatly favor animal proteins despite their negative climate and animal welfare impacts.
Many supermarkets have targets to reduce emissions in their value chain. They are unlikely to achieve this without addressing meat and dairy consumption, which makes up a significant portion of their environmental impact. We think that plant:animal protein ratio commitments are a win-win to help supermarkets meet these targets.
Why does it matter?
Globally, food systems are responsible for major environmental impacts. Food systems account for 33% of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, use 70% of the world's available fresh water, and use 50% of the world’s habitable land. Animal production is responsible for the majority (roughly 36 to 60%) of the food system's environmental impacts.
Animal production also results in the immense suffering of billions of farm animals annually. Roughly 85.44 billion land animals are slaughtered annually for meat and as many as 78 to 171 billion fish and crustaceans are also killed for human consumption.
Despite success in the Netherlands, early data suggests progress is slow—these retailers increased plant-based shares by just 1.4 percentage points in a year, leaving them off track to meet 2030 targets. We think that the space could benefit from a new, innovative charity that will help supermarkets find and test ways to displace meat sales and meet their commitments.
Neglectedness:
Great work is being done by ProVeg, Green Protein Alliance, Wakker Dier, Madre Brava, Albert Schweitzer Foundation, and WWF across Europe but there are still many countries in Europe not being targeted and approximately no work being done outside of Europe.
The Solution
What’s the proposed solution?
Lobby food retailers to commit to a certain ratio of protein sales by a target year (e.g., 60:40 plant:animal protein sales by 2040) by conducting corporate campaigns and providing technical assistance to supermarkets to encourage consumer purchasing of plant-based protein.
Why do we trust this solution?
We are encouraged by progress in the Netherlands, where 13 supermarkets with a total market share greater than 90% have committed to 60:40 protein sales ratios by 2030. Similar commitments are also starting to be made outside of the Netherlands.
In the first year following their commitment, Dutch supermarkets increased plant-based protein ratios from 40.2 to 41.6% on average.
How robust is the evidence?
The evidence base for this intervention is relatively weak, but promising, relying largely on case studies.
Experimental evidence shows that interventions like price parity, promotions, and changes to the food environment can boost plant-based sales.
The Impact
What impact could this have?
Supermarkets account for a majority (>90%) of food sales in high-income countries. If the market majority of supermarkets in Australia (one of the recommended target countries), achieved a 60:40 plant:animal protein ratio by 2040 this could avert 24 million tonnes of CO2e emissions and spare 490 million animals per year.
Estimated cost-effectiveness:
Achieving 60:40 plant:animal protein sales ratios by 2040 in Australia is expected to avert up to 177 SADs/$ and cost $0.18 per tCO2e averted. This is well above our bar of 8 SADs/$ and $33/tCO2e for this round.
Ideal Founder Profile
Who is best suited to do this? *
We think strong generalists could do well deploying this intervention and don’t expect specialist skills to be a must.
This intervention looks cost-effective in 40+ high- or upper-middle income countries, so we think that the target country could be determined by founder backgrounds. However, particularly promising target countries could be: Australia, Austria, France, Northern European countries (Sweden, Norway, Estonia), and Brazil.
The following backgrounds, skills or profiles would likely be useful for the co-founders or early hires in this organization but are not a necessity:
Familiarity with and/or expertise in food systems, particularly the food retail sector
Corporate engagement experience, especially working on corporate advocacy campaigns related to the environment or animal welfare
Existing network or ability to network with existing nonprofits working to promote plant-based diets
*We think candidates with the following skills will have a comparative advantage/be especially promising for founding this idea, but we would like to still encourage applicants from people who do not match this criteria who are enthusiastic about this idea and believe they may be well-suited for reasons not captured here
