This calculator evaluates the additional impact that welfare research creates in terms of improving animal welfare beyond what would happen without it. By quantifying how credible welfare evidence increases the success rate of reform efforts, we can estimate how much extra animal suffering could be prevented per dollar invested in WFI’s research projects.
The tool reflects the Welfare Footprint Institute’s core theory: measurement is a foundational barrier to welfare progress. When advocates, policymakers, and companies have credible estimates of animal well-being and suffering, they become more effective at implementing meaningful welfare improvements.
Important: This calculator models just one pathway (reform probability uplift) for one specific welfare change (a standard, practice, reform, etc). In reality, welfare estimates create value through multiple simultaneous pathways across many stakeholders, often with compounding effects that persist far beyond the initial study period. Therefore, the true cost-effectiveness is almost certainly substantially higher than these conservative estimates suggest.
Still, by establishing a conservative lower bound of research impact, we can make evidence-based decisions about research priorities and optimize funding toward studies with the highest potential to improve animal welfare.
Animal welfare remains largely invisible to the key decision-makers who could improve it. Consumers express concern but lack clear information to guide purchases. Policymakers struggle to integrate welfare into regulations without objective metrics. Companies can’t compare welfare performance across suppliers. Investors lack data to evaluate welfare-related risks. This invisibility means welfare cannot compete with visible metrics like price, productivity, or environmental impact. Welfare impact estimates increase the probability that higher welfare standards are actually implemented by making animal experiences visible and comparable. This happens through several mechanisms:
The estimates create an “uplift effect”—increasing the effectiveness of all actors capable of driving welfare improvements.
This tool only measures the additional impact from the estimates’ uplift—not the baseline impact that would happen without the research. If there’s a 10% baseline chance that a welfare reform would succeed in the absence of the Welfare Impact estimates, and they increase that to 15%, the calculator only counts the impact from that extra 5% probability increase. This ensures we’re measuring the true value added by the research investment.
Examlple: Research to quantify welfare impacts of adopting slower growing broiler breeds.
Cost-Effectiveness = 140K-280K hours of intense pain averted per research dollar spent
This calculator captures only a fraction of the value that welfare estimates create. The true impact is likely much higher because:
What the calculator DOES count:
What the calculator DOES NOT count:
To estimate the potential uplift in the probability of reform attributable to this evidence and the welfare impacts it reveals, it’s possible to draw on evidence from other sectors.
Chile’s Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels: Chile implemented front-of-package warning labels on foods high in sugar, sodium, and saturated fats. A study published in The Lancet found that these policies were associated with reduced purchases of high-in products, leading to declines in purchased nutrients of concern. The Lancet. Furthermore, a 2024 evaluation indicated that households bought 37% less sugar, 22% less sodium, and 23% fewer total calories from products with warning labels. Global Food Research Program. These results underscore the potential of standardized, credible metrics to drive meaningful changes in consumer behavior.
EU Energy Efficiency Labeling: The European Union’s energy efficiency labeling scheme for appliances has been associated with significant changes in consumer behavior. A study found that the introduction of the energy label increased sales of high-efficiency appliances by 55% at the announcement and by a further 42% when implemented. ScienceDirect. A 2024 Eurobarometer survey indicated that 75% of EU consumers reported that the energy label influenced their choice when purchasing an appliance in the past five years. Energy. These findings indicate that clear, comparable metrics can significantly influence consumer choices.
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting in the United States: Studies have shown that mandatory reporting leads to emissions reductions by increasing transparency and accountability. For instance, facilities covered by the GHGRP have demonstrated significant reductions in emissions, with some reporting a 60% decrease in emissions from coal-fired plants in southwest Indiana. AP News
Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW): The BBFAW assesses the farm animal welfare policies, management systems, reporting, and performance of 150 of the world’s largest food companies. bbfaw.com The 2024 report highlighted that performance impact questions accounted for 55% of the total company score, requiring companies to demonstrate actual improvements in the welfare of animals on the ground. bbfaw.com This emphasis on measurable outcomes has driven companies to enhance their animal welfare practices, suggesting that the introduction of a robust metric like welfare footprint estimates can similarly incentivize improvements in animal welfare standards.
Drawing from these empirical analogues, it is reasonable to estimate that the introduction of the welfare footprint metrics could increase the effectiveness of existing animal welfare reform efforts by 5–30%. This uplift reflects the potential for enhanced transparency, accountability, and consumer influence facilitated by a standardized, credible metric. The exact magnitude of the uplift will depend on factors such as the credibility of the metric, the timing of its introduction, and the extent of its adoption by key stakeholders.
The calculator uses a 3% annual discount rate, which is a standard economic concept that reflects the fact that future benefits are worth less than immediate benefits. This accounts for:
A 3% discount rate means that welfare improvements happening in year 5 are weighted at about 86% of their face value, while improvements in year 10 are weighted at about 74%. This is a conservative assumption to ensure we’re not overvaluing distant future benefits
