Will reply properly later 

Thanks Vasco – I really appreciate the thoughtful engagement. I think there are a few different things getting a bit mixed together here, so I’d love to tease them apart and explain where I still see things differently.

You mentioned that the key is the difference in impact, not concern about animals. But I’d argue that this concern does in fact translate to impact, especially when we’re thinking in terms of counterfactuals and replaceability. For example, if someone applies for a role at SWP, their counterfactual impact is likely just the difference between them and the next-best candidate—who is almost certainly also deeply concerned about shrimp welfare. But in an EC role, the counterfactual is likely that the position goes to someone who wouldn’t raise animal issues at all. So the marginal impact is potentially much greater, even in junior positions.

We’ve already seen specific examples, particularly in the UK, where junior staff inside government have been able to push for progress on animal welfare that would never have happened through lobbying alone. These aren’t abstract hypotheticals. Another specific i found out yesterday, someone was able to pass something through their local gov that led to 400 million animals being spared that wasn't even on the radar before they entered. It seems extremely unlikely that this kind of leverage and counterfactual would be the case for the best vs. next best candidate in an NGO.

2. Hierarchy matters, but so does initiative, positioning, and timing.

 Yes, the Commission is large and hierarchical. But so is almost every institution with leverage over major policy. What we’ve seen that once someone is in, they can navigate toward departments and roles where they’re better positioned to influence change. That’s part of what this program is about: helping people enter the system with the long game in mind.

It’s not a passive process—it requires individuals to actively find their leverage points and pockets of influence. A lot depends on the individual’s initiative and ability to spot opportunities—but that’s true in any sector, whether in NGOs or in policy. I would say though if that doesnt appeal its a sign working in civil service is not a good fit.

You noted that lobbyists can reach many policymakers, which is true. But that doesn’t mean they’re more impactful than internal actors—it’s highly dependent on context. And critically, lobbyists themselves will tell you (and did on our programme) that what they need most are credible insiders who understand the system, have networks, and can champion ideas from within.

3. External lobbying vs. insider influence is a false binary.

We often hear people argue for becoming a lobbyist instead of going into the system. But I think this skips a vital step: the most effective lobbyists often were insiders first. Without that institutional knowledge, they lack the credibility and relational capital that drives real traction on issues that aren’t already politically salient—like shrimp welfare, for example.

So to me, the idea that someone without any government experience should just jump into policy advocacy seems less plausible than a pathway that starts inside the system, builds knowledge, and later leverages that from a lobbying or NGO position if that’s where personal fit leads.

So overall, I’d say the value of this programme comes not from comparing against some hypothetical “random” NGO role, but from offering people a realistic path into a system that’s historically been quite closed off to animal advocates and an opportunity to build essential career capital to be a more effective advocate in the future. 

Thanks for writing this up, Joris! :)

One of the areas AAC is most excited to further develop is support for individuals who want to pursue impactful careers for animals outside of the nonprofit sector and particularly in policy, an area that seems significantly neglected in animal advocacy career support.

There are three primary reasons for this focus:

1. The number of high-impact nonprofit roles is limited, meaning there aren’t enough opportunities to absorb the existing talent pool.
2. The roles where we see the greatest potential for heavy-tailed impact, such as fundraising, leadership, founding charities, and campaigning, aren’t necessarily the right fit for every talented, mission-aligned individual. Some may have greater potential for impact in roles outside the nonprofit space.
3. Policy change is a critical area that can have the most significant and lasting improvements for animals, and having dedicated advocates working within these structures, if they are a good fit, seems absolutely crucial to accelerating change for animals. Our research also identified it can additionally be hugely beneficial for the non profits working on lobbying for change from the outside.  

That said, we still have a high degree of uncertainty about how to assess the impact of an individual in these adjacent roles compared to nonprofit positions. We feel more confident about policy roles, given past success stories within AAC and the broader EA community, as well as the career capital the roles can build for those working within the system. This year, a key focus for AAC will be deepening our understanding of the impact potential in these adjacent career paths, particularly within policy.

Thanks, Vasco!

I completely agree that for many people, earning more in another sector and donating to the most effective animal welfare organizations could be the most impactful path - especially if they’re comfortable working outside a like-minded community and have the resilience to avoid value drift. That’s no small ask, but for the right person, it can be highly effective.

However, I’d push back on this part:

"The direct (expected counterfactual) impact of working in a random role in Animal Charity Evaluators' (ACE's) recommended charities is larger than that of a random APA, and this is larger than that of a random role in the Commission."

One of the key reasons we ran this program is the very limited number of roles in high-impact nonprofits. Additionally, unless someone is in one of the hardest-to-hire-for positions, such as fundraising, leadership, founding a nonprofit, or campaigning, they are often more replaceable in these roles than they would be in an APA position and their impact is limited only to the difference between their skills and the next best candidate which for many roles is not that much. Additionally, most participants in our program don’t have the specific skill set for those high-impact roles but to to excel in a policy role inside the system, which is a very important consideration.

I suspect the crux of the disagreement might be a skepticism about the potential impact of working within the system, which I'd love to discuss further. But to be fair, I also think the counterfactual impact of working in a "random role" at an ACE-recommended charity is much harder to quantify than you’re assuming.

I disagree quite strongly with this! But I think as discussed during this week it is because you have the need for greater certainty over direct impact and policy in general has a much messier theory of change and over a longer time period. 

I also think this missed the point entirely of personal fit, which as a multiplier for every person's impact should be heavily weighted. It is unlikely that the people who were selected for the programme would get a random role at an ACE recommended charity at this current point, in fact many have tried and not succeeded. 

Therefore offering them opportunities for potential impact and career capital through this programme should be compared against no role in the movement at all, not another hypothetical role at an ACE recommended charity. 

I think it’s important to remember these are Joris’ takeaways for his career path 🙂 I think many others from the programme declared they are excited to work in the European Commission and will follow this  path 

<<Also, I was curious: was there a particular reason you didn’t mention think tank or NGO work (outside influence) as much? Do you see that as less impactful, or were there other reasons for not focusing on it?>> 

Just on this point the recommendation from our research and also from the SMEs were that 1) it was much more neglected and less replaceable to have someone working inside the system than an extra person applying for an NGO or think tank 2) people are much more likely to be more valuable to think tanks and NGOs after being in the system for a few years and building connections and understanding of how the system works 3) most NGOs are looking for people with experience from inside the system for their lobbying roles because of 2)

Of course this depends on relative fit for working inside the system but all else equal it seems one can add more value to the movement working inside first.

<<Same question for potential paths to impact via the Council or member states, any thoughts on those?>> 

There are definitely people from the programme who were sceptical about the value of this before and left feeling much more clear that these paths were their best path to impact in future ☺️

I just want to say thank you for highlighting this Vasco! 

I am a big fan of SMA but my largest concern is their quit your job tag line. Firstly, I can only speak for the animal advocacy space but there are a very limited number of high impact roles for people to pivot into…. secondly, if it’s in the non profit world they are directing them to it will take some time to pivot (so try to not be unemployed first) thirdly, many of these people are in great companies where they could potentially do much more if they were activated or ETG. 
 

Anecdotally I’ve had a handful of people come from them asking for career advise who had quit their job and tbh my first thought is can you get your job back…. 


 

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.

Animal society

The ones I voted for, I thought this showed up in the comments, but obviously not. I voted SWP, EAAWF and THL.