I enjoyed this post (upvoted, but disagree-voted). I think skepticism about animal charities is well-placed for the reasons you outlined - we don't really have robust evidence. But I wanted to quickly comment on your description of corporate outreach. I won't go into details, especially because people like Fai provided more elaborate answers, but I want to provide some anecdata to counter your partner's one.

As a person who have seen corporate work from animal advocacy from inside for the last 10 years. I can tell you just a different tactic can produce outsized difference. In Poland, we have tried different tactics - trained by The Humane League - and in a few months we had enormous wins from the biggest national players. I also saw Open Wing Alliance training groups and after just few weeks of such training they were delivering wins when before that they were stuck sometimes for years. I think the counterfactual impact of groups like The Humane League was vast.

I think it's good to think about corporate work as a coordination problem with multiple agents having their own goals and incentives, especially big companies, so how it works is not as straightforward as you described.

This is not to say that any corporate outreach work is tractable or that you should donate to animal charities. There are other conditions that need to be fulfilled for things to work, etc. But my main point is that we should not simplify or downplay these changes, at least in cage-free cause area.

I decided to move my reply to GeorgeBridgwater to this level of the thread, since I think the reply thread I created there deserves to be on its own and not be crowded out and sidetracked so heavily. But I do find this comment to be somewhat important so I reposted it here.

I want to reply to the point that attribution is fair concern. I worked directly in the animal movement before, and I have witnessed some suspected double/multiple counting of the same impact, and at least a part that is overlapping. 

But here's something important to know: Even if, say, two charities "double count" their contribution to an impact, it doesn't mean one or both of them neccesarily have over reported their counterfactual impact. Why? Consider this toy example (long philosophical discussions):

Scenario A: Two rescue teams, one consisting of 3 rescuers and another consisting of 4, can together save 10 kids in danger. If one of the teams - in fact, one of the 7 members, don't join, the 10 kids cannot be saved and will die. 

Analysis of counterfactual impact: Since either team opting out would mean the kids would all die. So in the case of both (full) teams working together and saved 10 kids, each team's counterfactual impact is 10 kids! In fact, if you break it down, each rescuer's counterfactual impact is saving 10 kids (and can therefore each honestly claim that this is so)

If you are still interested, it could get more interesting here, especially for the donors.

Now consider scenario A': Turns out that all of these rescuers each demand an expensive safety equipment in order to agree to go ahead. Each equipment costs $100. A total of $700 is required to save 10 kids.

Analysis of A': Even though each team's counterfactual impact by deciding to go ahead would have been saving 10 kids. A single donor donating $300 to one team and then $400 to another won't have the counterfactual of saving 20 kids by the $700 donation! Instead, the $700 donation's counterfactual impact is saving 10 kids.

Moral of A': A donor could be donoting to two projects with total counterfactual impact of X+Y, while still possbily have a counterfactual impact from the donation that is smaller than X+Y. In fact, I suspect this might be happening within the cage-free movement space.

It could get even weirder, consider scenario A'': The only two donors who can donate in time, can only donate $300 and $400 respectively (let's say it's only possible for them to draw out these amounts in time). The $300 and $400 donations would each have the counterfactual impact of saving 10 kids. This is not just due to the fact that there are now two decision makers (donors), but also that each donor has a hard constraint that only allows them to donate $300/$400, making the another donation "neccessary" in a different sense than the $300/$400 in A'.

It could even weirder still, but it would basically become useless beyond here (if not earlier), and also useless for EA in general. So I won't go into them.

Thank you for taking the time to engage with ACE's work and for considering animal welfare charities. Since other commenters have contributed a variety of reasons to support corporate outreach, which we agree with, we’d just like to add a few reasons why ACE’s Recommended Charities that work on plant-based advocacy are plausibly competitive on cost-effectiveness:

1. They have a high potential to bring about secondary impacts, such as movement building effects that can lead to improved conditions for future reforms and/or create positive feedback loops for the size/influence of the animal advocacy movement
2. They have a strong multiplier effect to bring in additional funding.

You might have also read elsewhere that we're developing an evidence tracker. At some point we'll likely share this publicly which might provide additional input in your decision making.

If you haven't already read it, this post shows a bit more of our thinking on this topic.

If you have any more questions or uncertainties about the work of specific ACE recommended charities, please feel free to contact our development team. We’d be happy to answer your questions in more detail.

Thank you!

Thanks for posting and for being open to outside perspectives!

The most obvious thing to ask is whether you've engaged with the previous literature on the cost-effectiveness of animal charities. For example, in October 2023, Rethink Priorities estimated that 1,132 DALYs are averted per $1,000 donated to corporate cage-free campaigns using their moral weights, and that 73 DALYs are averted per $1,000 if you assume low moral weights for chickens. They also found that shrimp stunning interventions may avert 38 DALYs per $1,000 donated to them, using their own moral weights. This compared with 19.1 DALYs averted per $1,000 donated to the Against Malaria Foundation. You can also check out their cross-cause cost-effectiveness model and play around with it.

The other question is what you mean when you say "my moral weights clearly go towards the humans here". Does this mean that you're solely incorporating the probability of sentience and the intensity of pleasure and suffering that each species experiences, or are you smuggling in speciesist discounts to your moral weights? Also, what would be your bar for preferring to donate to an animal charity? That should probably be worked out beforehand, otherwise the goalposts could shift.

Finally, I think each charity should be evaluated on its own merits. I don't think The Humane League and Shrimp Welfare Project can be grouped together in the you've done, for instance. They do quite different things!

I understand this feeling, and I myself certainly felt that way previously.

I think the way that I reconciled this was weighing up how important neglectedness of a cause area was to me vs. certainty of impact. And I landed on neglectedness being the most important because it can facilitate and accelerate change not just for one organisation but often have second order effects for the entire cause area.

I think there is an issue cross comparing global health with animal welfare which seems really unfair. Global health and development has orders of magnitude more money but yet we compare it like for like with the animal space but that seems incorrect to me. it’s really easy to underestimate how much the lack of funding can have on the infrastructure of a space and therefore a charities ability to do good. How can they attract the best talent without funding that then drives how effective the organisation is? They often have significantly less staff in their team to do the same amount of good as a well funded charity but also just like how corporate campaign results are a combined victory, many global health and development organisation benefit massively from Givewell, 80,000 hours etc. that historically have helped them to get to the stage they are now.

So I guess my point is what is driving you to want to donate to animals in the first place? Because it might be that just the top recommended charities aren’t the right solution and it also might just help you answer comparing across very different cause areas.

For what is worth, I like the work of Good Food Institute on pushing the science and market of alternative proteins. They also do some policy work though I fear their lobbying might have orders of magnitude less strength than the industry’s.

Also, as far as I know the Shrimp Welfare Initiative is directly buying and giving away the stunners (hopefully to create some standard practice around it). So counterfactually it seems a reasonable bet for the direct impact at least.

But I resonate with the broad concerns with corporate outreach and advocacy. I am particularly wary of bad cop strategies. While I feel they may work, I easily see how companies could set up some public advertising campaign about how their work is good for farmers and the community. I see them doing it all the time, and they are way better financed than charities.