> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy/guidance-to-adjust-research-for-corporate-engagement-interventions.md). # Guidance to adjust research for corporate engagement interventions Contributors: Vicky Cox and Morgan Fairless ### Our evaluation approach should vary according to the type of mechanism being evaluated * Ideas can be characterized by the [primary mechanism](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy) in their theory of change. * Researchers should be mindful of this position when deciding what to front-load and how to approach the research. * This guidance focuses on how to approach ideas that work on corporate engagement. ### Corporate engagement [Industry and provider engagement](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy) means working directly with specific non-beneficiary actors, actor by actor, to change or improve practices that directly affect the target outcome. Two mechanisms sit inside this bucket: ‘corporate engagement’ and ‘producer / provider engagement’. * Corporate engagement—engaging companies to voluntarily change policies, procurement, quality standards, reporting, or practices. * Example AIM-incubated organizations: [Asia Accountability Initiative](https://accountability.asia/) * Other example organizations: [The Humane League](https://thehumaneleague.org/). ### General advice #### Key areas of focus / things to front-load * Prioritize [theory of change (ToC)](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/ambitious-impact-eval/theories-of-change) thinking. Focus on understanding the barriers to change and how many of them the ToC addresses. * [Stakeholder mapping](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/ambitious-impact-eval/stakeholder-mapping) is mandatory. We need to understand who the key stakeholders are and what their motivations are. See a previous example of how this was approached [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/16i2zAlt_yKDIfjTZdgjQlsOMB53qg7NgvFnWWS156wo/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ehb02p7fk5g4). * An understanding of the market's formality, sophistication, and centralization could also be useful, as it tells us whether a firm-by-firm approach can work and how effective it would be. * Markets need to be formal enough for relevant corporate structures to exist in the first place. * Market sophistication determines whether a won commitment actually leads to change: sophisticated firms are better able to enforce and report on commitments, and are more exposed to the reputational and competitive pressure needed to win them. * Market centralization may represent a trade-off between scale and tractability: in a concentrated market a non-profit can change most of the market with fewer commitments, but each target is larger and likely harder to move, with fewer winnable targets to shift first and build momentum. * This stakeholder mapping should focus both on understanding the players in the industry a new non-profit is trying to influence and identify potential allies. * For example, if a new non-profit wants to take a more confrontational approach then there will need to be other organizations taking a collaborative approach. * Talk to people * Ideally, consult experts from the industry being influenced — companies, producers, farmers, facilities, providers, or practitioners. Reaching out on LinkedIn and offering to pay an hourly rate for their time is worth considering. * Talent considerations * Day-to-day work for these non-profits will be more relational and can be confrontational. #### Reporting standards * The theory of change section should include the following sub-sections: * Barriers analysis: State clearly what the problem is and which barriers matter — including the cruxes around how and why the new non-profit will persuade actors to prioritize its asks given an assessment of these barriers. * [Stakeholder mapping](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/ambitious-impact-eval/stakeholder-mapping). * Identified leverage points (i.e., what industry should be targeted first?) and a rationale for why we think they are key to target. * Where the new non-profit will sit on the collaborative vs. confrontational spectrum as this will shape what the ToC activities look like. * Getting corporate commitments is only an outcome of the ToC, not the overall goal. So, the ToC section should always focus on what monitoring/accountability infrastructure is needed to ensure that a commitment is enforced. * Expect case study evidence to be the norm. * [Cost-effectiveness analysis](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/ambitious-impact-eval/cost-effectiveness-modelling) should follow the standard approach (using our [standard CEA template](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NslPH-Yy1VixDz9KpNYZSB4tDakp2gX3AHFSgXyODUc/edit?gid=929255937#gid=929255937)) with three adjustments specific to corporate engagement. We should: * Model expected value across a portfolio of campaigns rather than a single success, because most individual campaigns fail. * Account for enforcement rates in the model, as well as potential for rollback. * Spread costs across the full period of campaigning and enforcement rather than a single year at scale, since the change we are seeking may take many years to materialize. ### Core cruxes to investigate * What are the economics of the industry targeted? * Consider margins, drivers of value, how are the companies organized, etc. * Does the structure (formality / sophistication / centralization) of the target market make firm-by-firm engagement a viable route to changing practice at scale? * Do the changes we are seeking translate into the benefits we want to see materialize? * What is needed to achieve those changes, and what have been the most successful past strategies in this space? * How can we ensure enforcement of corporate commitments? * Why has the change not happened already? * How likely are different tactics and players to achieve those changes? * How counterfactual would those changes be? ### How corporate engagement interventions typically scale We use [The Humane League](https://thehumaneleague.org/) as a case study to learn more about how these interventions scale. First, we should consider target selection and sequencing. Should a new non-profit prioritize scale and target the market leader, or prioritize tractability and target the most winnable target first to establish a track record? For its cage-free corporate campaigns, The Humane League chose the latter. It first targeted foodservice and hospitality companies, then fast-food chains and other restaurants, then food manufacturers, and finally retailers—building credibility and competitive pressure along the way ([Bollard, 2017](https://coefficientgiving.org/research/why-are-the-us-corporate-cage-free-campaigns-succeeding/)). Securing corporate commitments is the beginning of the non-profit's work, not the end. Enforcing a commitment matters as much as winning it. The Humane League illustrated this: it built a grassroots movement to hold corporations to their cage-free pledges and press them to report on progress ([The Humane League, 2023](https://thehumaneleague.org/article/cage-free-accountability-update)). It also published annual cage-free fulfillment reports tracking whether companies met their commitments ([Open Wing Alliance, 2025](https://downloads.ctfassets.net/ww1ie0z745y7/3SwZZ35xGnAFJzbLNER7DW/537b8c84d7ed2cb6ec55182a787dda8a/25-owa-cage-free-egg-fulfillment-report-final-v2.pdf)). Once sufficient progress had been made, The Humane League scaled its work in three different ways: * It started to campaign for a different ask in the same country, targeting the same corporations (e.g., it switched from campaigning on cage-free eggs to the Better Chicken Commitment for broilers). * It started to scale to new geographies to ask new corporations in new geographies to go cage-free (e.g., via the [Open Wing Alliance](http://openwingalliance.org/)). * It shifted to [policy lobbying](https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/beatrices-campaign) to write protections won at the corporate level into legislation. * This influence works both ways: the threat of regulation can be a large driver of voluntary commitments, so corporate and policy engagement can reinforce each other rather than running in sequence. --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy/guidance-to-adjust-research-for-corporate-engagement-interventions.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.