Written by Björn Ólafsson, commissioned by Te Protejo for Your Cruelty Free Commitment, 2025 edition.

Program & Research Questions:

The program emphasizes that living cruelty-free is a continuous, values-based practice that contributes to broader social and environmental change. The program was launched in August 2025, lasted six months, and targeted Latin American women, and was held entirely in Spanish.

To facilitate this transition, the program provided a set of structured resources and community support: practical guides, webinars, and curated educational materials covering topics such as cruelty-free cosmetics, plant-based nutrition, and ethical fashion. It also includes tools such as updated lists of cruelty-free brands and a digital library with research and articles. In addition, the program fosters a community space where participants can share experiences and receive guidance, reinforcing the idea that collective action strengthens individual impact.

To understand the program’s impact, we designed and distributed three surveys to participants (full text available below). The surveys were designed to learn how their consumption habits were changing throughout the program — keep in mind that this study did not have a control group, so we cannot infer any causation from the results. For more on the study’s limitations, see the Appendix below.

Survey Design and Response Rates:

To understand this program’s impact, we distributed surveys to participants at three points: before the program started, halfway through, and directly after it ended. The survey was hosted on Typeform and distributed via email to participants, who were given a small raffle entry for taking part, to increase participation rates.

539 people took part in Tu Compromiso Cruelty-Free from beginning to end (we defined “taking part in” as individuals who consistently received program materials via WhatsApp or email). 

To clean the data, we excluded duplicate responses, keeping the first submitted instance – we suspect that participants may have forgotten whether they’d filled out the survey or not, and done it twice. We also excluded responses after the start of the program for the first survey (September 9th, 2025). See Table 1 for a breakdown of the response rate. 

To determine whether drop-off rates were statistically significant, we ran chi-squared tests. We found that dropout rates were highest for participants in Mexico, younger participants, and people who were not already buying cruelty-free cosmetic products. However, the participants’ diet did not predict dropout rates. For more details, see the Appendix section below. 

Participant Demographics:

Based on the demographic sampling in the pre-survey (which had the highest participation rate), the average age of participants was 34.7, and the median age was 34. Chile and Mexico had the highest participation rates, with the majority of the rest of the sample in other LATAM countries and a handful of Latine individuals based in other continents taking part as well.

To examine the intersection of a Cruelty-Free lifestyle (defined as never buying any cosmetic product that tests on animals) and diet, we created a cross-tab of the two categories using data from the pre-survey. Examination of the cross-tabulation shows that individuals already following a cruelty-free lifestyle were more likely to report a plant-based diet than those not following one. The relationship was statistically significant, χ²(3, N = 284) = 22.24, p < .001, indicating that people who buy cruelty-free products are more likely to follow a vegan diet, an unsurprising finding given the overlap in motivations between the two lifestyle choices.

Cruelty-Free Cosmetics:

Over the course of the program, participants were more likely to look for a Cruelty-Free label when shopping, and this trend was statistically significant. Throughout the program, participants also self-reported buying fewer products from non-CF brands (statistically significant). In both instances, the biggest jump was from pre-program to mid-program, with no statistically significant change from month 3 to month 6. 

Animal Product Consumption:

We found that, over the course of the program, participants significantly reduced their consumption of animal products, with several flexitarians and vegetarians becoming fully vegan by the end of the six months.

Instead of asking participants if they identified as vegan, vegetarian, or meat-eaters, we asked how often they ate certain categories of food, including plant-based and animal-based foods. We then re-coded these answers into four categories: vegan (if they never eat any animal-based food), vegetarian (if they never eat meat), flexitarian (if they eat all animal products 3 or fewer times a week), and meat-eating (if they eat any animal product 4 or more times a week). We can then see how these categories change throughout the course of the program. 

The participants did move toward greater veganism, though the shift was from primarily flexitarians and vegetarians, not meat-eaters. In all animal-based food categories we measured, overall animal product consumption decreased throughout the program, except for one: dairy products.

Dairy was the one exception to this trend — consumption held steady across the program even as all other animal product categories declined. This is not entirely surprising. Research on the psychology of dairy consumption suggests it occupies a uniquely stubborn place in people's diets, even among those who are otherwise ethically motivated. 

Despite the increase in dairy consumption, the total number of animals consumed decreased over the course of the study. Assuming the dietary trends remain consistent over time, and that our participant sample is representative of the entire program, this program represents saving the lives of 65 pigs, 163 chickens, and 78 fish, and one-half of a cow annually (assuming dietary trends remain consistent, rounded up). For details on this estimate, see the appendix.

Other Results:

Averaging the changes, we can see that, over the program, participants bought 54 fewer pieces of leather and 18 fewer pieces of wool annually. Calculating clothing purchases was tricky, given how infrequent these purchases are compared to food and cosmetics, so we believe this data point should be treated with more caution than others. Review the full data table of clothing purchases in the Appendix below.

In the mid-program and post-program surveys, we asked participants what could have made their success in the program better, or what would have made it even better. Importantly, only a minority of respondents indicated that nothing could have benefited them at all (18% and 12% at the mid- and post-surveys, respectively), suggesting that more resources may lead to more pro-animal behaviors in future editions of the program.

Overall, the majority of participants found the program a success. On a scale from 1 to 7, participants rated the program a 6 and 6.1 in the mid- and post-surveys, respectively. 90% and 87% of participants indicated they thought it was at least somewhat successful in those surveys as well.

Factors predicting success:

To better understand what drives success in the commitment, we examined whether demographic factors — specifically age and country of origin — and participants' stated objectives and beliefs about cruelty-free products predicted two outcomes: overall success scores and likelihood of being vegan by the end of the program.

The short answer: none of these factors meaningfully predicted success. Across multiple analyses, neither age nor country of origin explained participants' success scores or their likelihood of adopting a vegan diet. Similarly, participants' reasons for joining the commitment — whether to change their habits, learn more about cruelty-free products, or contribute to the cause — did not significantly predict their performance. The same held true for their beliefs about cruelty-free products.

This is actually an encouraging finding. It suggests that success in the commitment is not determined by who someone is or where they come from — participants across different countries, ages, and motivations performed similarly. 

We also found that participants who entered the program already buying cruelty-free cosmetics exclusively were more than twice as likely to be vegan by the end of the program (45.2% vs. 21.7%). This likely reflects the well-documented overlap between cruelty-free purchasing and plant-based diets — people who arrive CF are also more likely to arrive already vegetarian or vegan. Statistically, once we account for the starting diet, the CF effect disappears (p = 0.282), so we cannot claim that CF purchasing causes dietary change. What we can say is that people who are already cruelty-free make strong candidates for diet-focused interventions, because they tend to arrive with aligned values and more advanced baseline habits.

Limitations:

Like any study of this kind, our findings come with important caveats.

First, this program did not include a control group — that is, a comparable group of people who did not participate. Without one, we cannot say with confidence that the changes we observed were caused by the program itself, rather than by other factors (seasonal shifts in food availability, broader cultural trends, or the simple fact that people who sign up for a cruelty-free program are already motivated to change).

Second, dropout was high and non-random. Only about 16% of participants completed the final survey, and attrition was concentrated among younger participants, those based in Mexico, and those who were not already living cruelty-free. This means our post-program data likely overrepresents more committed participants, which could inflate our estimates of behavior change.

Third, all outcomes are self-reported. To mitigate social desirability bias and improve overall accuracy, we made sure to include food frequency questions, cosmetic purchases frequency questions instead of simply asking participants if they are vegan and/or cruelty-free. Still, we were unable to verify this information with a food diary or purchase records. 

Finally, our animal welfare impact estimates are approximations based on averages and assumptions (described in more detail in the Appendix), and should be interpreted with appropriate caution.

Appendix

Here are more details on the study, mostly written for a more technical audience.

For any further questions, feel free to reach out Te Protejo.