Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by High Impact Professionals
3 min read 12

30

Effective givingDonation matchingFundraisingHigh Impact Professionals (organization)
Frontpage

TL;DR

  • Donation matching is an excellent way to boost your impact during the giving season.
  • Some companies have very generous donation matching programs, as highlighted in the list below. (Big shoutout to Dan Wahl and Soon Khen Ow Yong for helping to put the list together!)
  • Take advantage of those donation-boosting opportunities yourself and encourage your colleges and network to do the same.
  • An effective way to encourage your colleagues is through a fundraising campaign; High Impact Professionals (HIP) can provide support and resources to help there, starting with this short overview video.
  • An additional way is to reach out to people in your network (e.g., on Linkedin) who work at donation matching companies and encourage them to donate. Dan Wahl created a tool that leverages LinkedIn's search functionality to do just this.

Intro

End-of-year giving season is quickly approaching. An excellent way to multiply your impact during is to take advantage of the donation matching offered by your company, especially if you work at an organization with a particularly generous matching program. Below we compiled a list of companies with the most generous donation matching.

Regardless of where you work, but especially if you work at one of these organizations, encouraging your colleagues to make effective donations is a powerful way to multiply the impact of donation matching. Please book a time or email us to explore how we can support organizing a fundraising campaign at your organization.

Companies with the largest donation matching

The graph above shows the 30 companies with the largest donation matching. The amounts are in thousand USD and are per-employee and per-year. The color coding indicates the match ratio—e.g., blue is a 1:1 ratio, red is 2:1 ratio, and so forth. For example, Intermec Foundation (IF) has a maximum donation match of 150,000 USD and has a 5:1 match ratio; so, if an IF employee donates 30,000 USD, IF matches up to 150,000 USD. Note, the source data is not always 100% exact and can sometimes come with caveats (e.g., it’s accessible only to some employees, the company/matching program will only support certain charities, etc.). However, this information is a good starting point to identify opportunities to scale your impact.

Well-known companies with generous donation matching

Many of the companies with the most generous donation matching shown in the graph above are not very well known. So, below is a list of larger, more well-known companies with generous donation matching programs. To compile this list, we multiplied each company’s donation matching amount times its total number of employees. The results are presented in billion USD and are again color coded for the corresponding multiplier.[1]

What you can do about it

Now that you have this information, what can you do about it? A few things actually.

If you’re working at one of those companies, take advantage of the donation matching yourself by making donations.

Also, and very importantly, encourage your colleges to do the same. Again, a good way to do that is to organize a fundraising campaign at your company. We’ve found running a campaign is a highly effective way to multiply your impact, particularly when coupled with donation matching and other key factors. We even put together a short overview video about it.

Finally, if you’re not working at one of those companies but know someone who is, you can reach out to them. Ask them to donate through their company’s donation matching program and encourage them to get their colleagues to do the same, ideally through a fundraising campaign.

Dan Wahl created a LinkedIn tool that can show you which of your connections work in companies with generous donation matching programs. With that information, you can then send those connections a message like: “Hi, I noticed you work for a company with a generous donation matching program. Please consider donating to effective charities like [insert links to effective charity/-ies of your choice].”

Reach out to Dan Wahl to learn more about the LinkedIn tool. Contact HIP for everything related to how to have an impact as an EA in the private sector—in particular, HIP is currently supporting people in organizing workplace fundraising campaigns, so please book a time or email us if you want to know more.

  1. ^

    We are not suggesting that those companies would allocate the full amount to donation matching, as it is sometimes a relevant fraction of their net income. But, we believe it is a useful indicator that combines the size of the company with its donation matching amount.

30

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in

More posts like this

Comments12


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Larks4
1
0

Thanks for this!

FYI I think the chart might be improved if you sorted by, and had the x-axis as representing, the total possible match (match ratio * matched base), since this is probably the most decision relevant number. A company offering a 5x match on $1 is basically the same as a 1x match on $5 for someone who expects to donate a lot (enough to clear the match thresholds).

Reply
Federico Speziali2
0
0

Hi Larks, thanks for your comment. Indeed the amounts shown are the total possible match, and the color coding is to add an additional layer of information. So e.g. if the amount shown is 100'000 USD with a ratio of 2:1, it means that if you donate 50'000 USD, the company matches 50'000 USD x 2 = 100'000 USD for a total of 150'000 USD (donation + matching). This is how it generally works, I hope this can help clarify things a bit.

Reply
Larks2
0
0

Great, thanks for explaining!

Reply
Pat Myron 🔸3
2
0

Also color coding could be slightly more legible if it was a gradient

Reply
Federico Speziali0
0
0

Hi Pat, thanks for your feedback, we will keep that in mind for future posts. ;)

Reply
Pat Myron 🔸3
0
0

Noting that LinkedIn Search worked on desktop but not mobile for me

Reply
Dan Wahl1
0
0

Hey Pat, thanks for the heads up. You're right that, despite working on desktop and via the LinkedIn mobile app, the search link doesn't seem to work on mobile browsers.

One quick workaround is to request the desktop site on the mobile browser, which seems to load properly on my side.

Reply
Federico Speziali1
0
0

Thanks Pat, I will notify the developer (although I am not sure the tool was designed to work on mobile)

Reply
david_reinstein2
0
0

Thanks for this. Fwiw, a slightly outdated and incomplete-ish guide for FTSE-100 companies here, highlighting the value of this benefit that could be used for effective charities.

Reply
Federico Speziali3
0
0

Hi David, thanks for sharing, indeed not all companies match donations to all charities. This means that in some cases EA orgs might not be included in the list of  charities that are eligible for matching.

Reply
MariellaVee1
0
0

Thank you for sharing! I currently work for Apple and organize charity-based art events, and have been trying to find the best way to maximize my matching and impact (both for volunteered time and financial donations). As such, it’s both interesting and helpful to see how they stack up/get suggestions for how to make the most of this!

I wonder how many of these organizations use Benevity as their matching platform, and if it isn’t possible to get more intermediate groups like GiveWell (that aren’t exactly charities but are working to fund them) listed so that donors don’t have to granularity pick efforts to fund/match themselves?

Reply
Federico Speziali1
0
0

Hi Mariella, thanks for your comment. Indeed a lot of organizations use Benevity as donation matching provider. In some cases, we saw regranting orgs as GiveWell inclued in the list of companies eligible for donation matching. But if it is not the case, it might be possible to ask the company to add orgs to the list.

Reply
More from High Impact Professionals
47
High Impact Professionals: Enabling Working Professionals to Maximize Their Positive Impact
High Impact Professionals
· · 3m read
2
2
38
Impact Accelerator Program for EA Professionals
High Impact Professionals
· · 3m read
3
3
94
Fundraising Campaigns at Your Organization: A Reliable Path to Counterfactual Impact
High Impact Professionals
· · 5m read
10
10
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Effective giving
145
Projects I'd like to see in the GHW meta space
Melanie Basnak🔸
· · 8m read
3
3
93
Updates on Open Philanthropy’s Effective Giving and Careers program
2 authors
· · 6m read
0
0
19
GiveWell is hiring a Talent Acquisition Specialist
GiveWell
· · 1m read
0
0
View more