Hey @huw! Thanks for the question. My answer below should be read as guidance from a GWWC team member on how to interpret the 10% Pledge, but not as a formal or final position on what it means to stick to it.
We often hear from high-impact non-profit founders or employees (particularly those connected to AIM) that they are excited about effective giving and would love to take the đ¸10% Pledge, but havenât done this (yet) mainly because they are already taking a lower salary at their organisation, and arenât currently in a position to donate 10% of their remaining income.
In many cases, the above conclusion is based on misunderstandings about the 10% Pledge which are resulting in opportunities for impact being missed by people like yourself not pledging. For example, pledging would allow you to more effectively and authentically advocate for effective giving and the 10% Pledge among your peers. People founding /â working at high-impact non-profits are often in a particularly valuable position to advocate, as their personal stories make them examples for others trying to live up to effective altruism principles and âpractising what they preachâ.
To help clarify some of these misunderstandings, letâs walk through a few options that could be worth considering for people like yourself founding or working at high-impact organisations:
Salary sacrificing: We think salary sacrificing can be perfectly in line with the spirit of the 10% Pledge if the following two conditions are both met:
You think your sacrificed money is best spent on the non-profit you are working for
I.e. you think you have at least as much impact by salary sacrificing as by taking the salary and then donating to any other non-profit (taking into account tax benefits and any other logistical considerations). Some considerations here:
This is a different question than asking whether your organisation is the highest-impact place to work for you.
E.g. most people would agree GiveDirectly is a high-impact organisation and for many employees it may be the highest-impact place to work, but they may still think that their marginal dollar is better spent donated to Malaria Consortium.
If your organisation is not currently as funding constrained as some others, your money may have a larger impact elsewhere (itâs worth thinking about funging in this case).
From a communications/âadvocacy perspective (for instance, âputting your money where your mouth isâ) it may sometimes be higher-impact donating (at least some money) to another organisation than your own (or vice versa).
You would have received the sacrificed money for the job you are currently doing, if you hadnât explicitly decided to sacrifice it, and are able to receive it at any point in the future if you wish.
For example, this condition is met when:
As an employee, you have it listed in your contract or in your organisationâs internal accounts that your salary is X, but then instruct your employer to only pay out 90% of X to you. At any point in the future, you could instruct your employer to start paying you X instead and they would do so.
As a founder, you have the explicit ability to pay yourself X (e.g. your co-founder, board and funders approve of you doing this), but then decide to only pay yourself 90% of X. At any point in the future, you are able to pay yourself X if you wish.
For example, this condition is not met when:
Youâve founded or taken a job at a high-impact non-profit, knowing that you could have instead taken a higher-paying job elsewhere.
Youâre confident you could have negotiated a higher salary with your employer, or paid yourself more as a founder, but havenât formally checked or arranged this in any way.
Donating less now but still taking the 10% Pledge: A common misconception about the 10% Pledge is that it would oblige you to give 10% every year. Instead, it is a lifetime pledge, so itâs fine if you donate a bit less in some years and more in others to make up for that.
We obviously only recommend doing this if youâre confident you can and want to make the 10% lifetime commitment, and where feasible we still generally recommend people to give at least 10% yearly as a useful rule of thumb. This holds you accountable, embeds a pattern of giving in your life and avoids you getting so far behind on your pledge that it becomes daunting or unachievable. But we think there are cases, e.g. for some very early stage non-profit founders and/âor when youâre having a particularly challenging year financially, where it may be worth diverging from this rule of thumb.
Taking a đšTrial Pledge: If youâre not ready to take a 10% Pledge but are excited to start giving effectively, consider taking a đšTrial Pledge (1-10% pledge for 6 months to 5 years), which still allows you to lead by example and additionally can serve as a helpful reminder to reconsider taking the 10% Pledge (or another Trial Pledge) at a later date.
I am a bit confused by 2b. I would argue that the spirit of the 10% pledge is to donate part of your possible income. So if you have offers by $2X but instead take a direct impact job that you deem highly impactful for just $X, then you are donating close to $X already? In fact, the condition
and are able to receive it at any point in the future if you wish.
may be looked the other way round. If you can take the $2X job now, but you may not in the future (say, because you are changing fields), you may be donating more than just $X this year.
Thanks for this follow-up! In my view the key distinction is between:
Taking a lower-paying job for impact (opportunity cost)
Explicitly sacrificing part of your available salary (active sacrifice)
While both involve financial sacrifice for impact, only the second case counts towards the pledge. This is because pledge is specifically about donating a portion of the income you actually receive or could immediately receive in your current role. Itâs not about the opportunity cost of career choices or hypothetical alternative salaries you could earn elsewhere.
So in your exampleâif someone has offers for $2X but takes a $X job for impact, this opportunity cost doesnât count towards their pledge amount. The pledge would be calculated based on the $X they actually earn.
There are a few reasons for this approach:
Clarity and consistency in pledge calculations across different situations
Avoiding complex counterfactuals about alternative career paths
Maintaining the pledge as an active commitment to give from current income
Preserving the behavioural and advocacy benefits of regular giving
What are your thoughts on this distinction? Iâm curious to hear your perspective on how we might better support people making career changes for impact while maintaining the integrity and clarity of the pledge.
Thanks Luke! It makes sense what you mention. It is true that it would become significantly more messy to track, even when the spirit of the 10% pledge would suggest accounting for it. Just a random idea: perhaps you could offer the option of âpausingâ the pledge temporarily so it does not become a blocker for people aiming to do direct work that they deem to be particularly impactful.
Edit: upon reflection I think this idea may not be that useful. Since the 10% pledge is for the entire career, not each year, that flexibility is already incorporated. And a pause could produce some attrition.
Hey @huw! Thanks for the question. My answer below should be read as guidance from a GWWC team member on how to interpret the 10% Pledge, but not as a formal or final position on what it means to stick to it.
We often hear from high-impact non-profit founders or employees (particularly those connected to AIM) that they are excited about effective giving and would love to take the đ¸10% Pledge, but havenât done this (yet) mainly because they are already taking a lower salary at their organisation, and arenât currently in a position to donate 10% of their remaining income.
In many cases, the above conclusion is based on misunderstandings about the 10% Pledge which are resulting in opportunities for impact being missed by people like yourself not pledging. For example, pledging would allow you to more effectively and authentically advocate for effective giving and the 10% Pledge among your peers. People founding /â working at high-impact non-profits are often in a particularly valuable position to advocate, as their personal stories make them examples for others trying to live up to effective altruism principles and âpractising what they preachâ.
To help clarify some of these misunderstandings, letâs walk through a few options that could be worth considering for people like yourself founding or working at high-impact organisations:
Salary sacrificing: We think salary sacrificing can be perfectly in line with the spirit of the 10% Pledge if the following two conditions are both met:
You think your sacrificed money is best spent on the non-profit you are working for
I.e. you think you have at least as much impact by salary sacrificing as by taking the salary and then donating to any other non-profit (taking into account tax benefits and any other logistical considerations).
Some considerations here:
This is a different question than asking whether your organisation is the highest-impact place to work for you.
E.g. most people would agree GiveDirectly is a high-impact organisation and for many employees it may be the highest-impact place to work, but they may still think that their marginal dollar is better spent donated to Malaria Consortium.
If your organisation is not currently as funding constrained as some others, your money may have a larger impact elsewhere (itâs worth thinking about funging in this case).
From a communications/âadvocacy perspective (for instance, âputting your money where your mouth isâ) it may sometimes be higher-impact donating (at least some money) to another organisation than your own (or vice versa).
You would have received the sacrificed money for the job you are currently doing, if you hadnât explicitly decided to sacrifice it, and are able to receive it at any point in the future if you wish.
For example, this condition is met when:
As an employee, you have it listed in your contract or in your organisationâs internal accounts that your salary is X, but then instruct your employer to only pay out 90% of X to you. At any point in the future, you could instruct your employer to start paying you X instead and they would do so.
As a founder, you have the explicit ability to pay yourself X (e.g. your co-founder, board and funders approve of you doing this), but then decide to only pay yourself 90% of X. At any point in the future, you are able to pay yourself X if you wish.
For example, this condition is not met when:
Youâve founded or taken a job at a high-impact non-profit, knowing that you could have instead taken a higher-paying job elsewhere.
Youâre confident you could have negotiated a higher salary with your employer, or paid yourself more as a founder, but havenât formally checked or arranged this in any way.
Donating less now but still taking the 10% Pledge: A common misconception about the 10% Pledge is that it would oblige you to give 10% every year. Instead, it is a lifetime pledge, so itâs fine if you donate a bit less in some years and more in others to make up for that.
We obviously only recommend doing this if youâre confident you can and want to make the 10% lifetime commitment, and where feasible we still generally recommend people to give at least 10% yearly as a useful rule of thumb. This holds you accountable, embeds a pattern of giving in your life and avoids you getting so far behind on your pledge that it becomes daunting or unachievable. But we think there are cases, e.g. for some very early stage non-profit founders and/âor when youâre having a particularly challenging year financially, where it may be worth diverging from this rule of thumb.
Taking a đšTrial Pledge: If youâre not ready to take a 10% Pledge but are excited to start giving effectively, consider taking a đšTrial Pledge (1-10% pledge for 6 months to 5 years), which still allows you to lead by example and additionally can serve as a helpful reminder to reconsider taking the 10% Pledge (or another Trial Pledge) at a later date.
Thank youâthatâs very helpful to have all spelled out like that! Once I get my finances in order you may see me pledge ;)
I am a bit confused by 2b. I would argue that the spirit of the 10% pledge is to donate part of your possible income. So if you have offers by $2X but instead take a direct impact job that you deem highly impactful for just $X, then you are donating close to $X already? In fact, the condition
may be looked the other way round. If you can take the $2X job now, but you may not in the future (say, because you are changing fields), you may be donating more than just $X this year.
Thanks for this follow-up! In my view the key distinction is between:
Taking a lower-paying job for impact (opportunity cost)
Explicitly sacrificing part of your available salary (active sacrifice)
While both involve financial sacrifice for impact, only the second case counts towards the pledge. This is because pledge is specifically about donating a portion of the income you actually receive or could immediately receive in your current role. Itâs not about the opportunity cost of career choices or hypothetical alternative salaries you could earn elsewhere.
So in your exampleâif someone has offers for $2X but takes a $X job for impact, this opportunity cost doesnât count towards their pledge amount. The pledge would be calculated based on the $X they actually earn.
There are a few reasons for this approach:
Clarity and consistency in pledge calculations across different situations
Avoiding complex counterfactuals about alternative career paths
Maintaining the pledge as an active commitment to give from current income
Preserving the behavioural and advocacy benefits of regular giving
What are your thoughts on this distinction? Iâm curious to hear your perspective on how we might better support people making career changes for impact while maintaining the integrity and clarity of the pledge.
Thanks Luke! It makes sense what you mention. It is true that it would become significantly more messy to track, even when the spirit of the 10% pledge would suggest accounting for it. Just a random idea: perhaps you could offer the option of âpausingâ the pledge temporarily so it does not become a blocker for people aiming to do direct work that they deem to be particularly impactful.
Edit: upon reflection I think this idea may not be that useful. Since the 10% pledge is for the entire career, not each year, that flexibility is already incorporated. And a pause could produce some attrition.