Director of Communication
Reading Time: 7 min
The short answer is that it is extremely difficult to become one of the world’s most effective charities. This is the result of rigorous strategic processes, a data-driven culture, and prioritisation methods designed to maximise the impact of aid for the greatest number of people. Mieux Donner does not aim to list a large number of charities: only the most effective ones are selected, those where additional funds can have the greatest possible impact. By definition, the vast majority of charities, even those that are serious and well-intentioned, will never be listed on our platform.
Typically, the organisations we recommend aim for a measurable final impact (in DALYs, WELLBYs, tCO₂ etc.), and have chosen to specialise in a single programme, selected from over 50 analysed according to structured criteria: scale of the problem, potential for improvement and neglected status. This initial screening is then supplemented by in-depth analyses of the available data, enabling us to select the programme with the highest expected impact.
Two associations, two sincere missions. One is recommended on Mieux Donner, the other is not.
Why this selection? Is it a question of reputation, network, or personal preference? No. At Mieux Donner, our commitment is clear: to help each person magnify the impact of their actions. This requires a rigorous selection, based not on intention or visibility, but on the real effectiveness of the actions taken.
Every month, we receive requests from associations eager to be featured on our platform. Some are well-known, others perform remarkable fieldwork. Yet, very few are ultimately recommended. Not because the others are useless or ill-intentioned, but because we are looking for something else: a strong, impactful, and reproducible result. In other words, the best possible outcome that goes beyond intuition or feeling.
Our mission is not to judge the moral value of a cause or a commitment. It is to identify, in a world of limited resources, the actions that can save or improve the most lives, transparently and based on the best available data. This requires a clear framework, assumed criteria, and a posture of scientific humility.
Giving is an act of generosity. But it’s also a strategic act. Every euro given is a choice. And this choice can have a very variable impact depending on where it is directed. This understanding guides our approach: in a world where needs are immense, it is legitimate and useful to ask how to direct your donation where it can truly transform the most lives.
Mieux Donner addresses all those who don’t just want to give “somewhere,” but give where it matters most. This is what we call the logic of prioritization. It does not rely on arbitrary preferences, but on a method: comparing the impact of different interventions based on objective data.
Rather than starting from scratch, we chose to rely on the best existing analyses. We work based on research and evaluations already conducted by specialized actors renowned internationally for their rigor. GiveWell, Happier Lives Institute, Giving Green, EA Animal Welfare Fund… These organizations devote considerable resources to analyzing, comparing, and recommending the most effective associations in their respective fields.
These evaluators scrutinize hundreds of associations each year. And in the end, only a handful are recommended. Why? Because proven and reproducible efficiency is rare. But it is precisely this rarity that makes these recommendations so valuable.
We extend their work by making it accessible to people in France. Our ambition: to offer a reliable compass to all individuals who want their money to have the greatest possible impact.
Recommending an association at Mieux Donner isn’t a subjective decision. It’s the culmination of a rigorous process based on several precise criteria. Here are the main ones.
This is often a prevailing factor. What is the cost to achieve a clear, measurable, and desired beneficial effect?
Let’s take a few examples :
These benchmarks allow cross-sectional comparisons. They are not meant to disqualify a cause but to understand where each euro has the most impact. Sometimes, a less publicized intervention may have a cost-effectiveness report 100 times better than another more popular one. Our role is to highlight this.
We do not settle for promises or intuitions. Effectiveness must be demonstrated with solid data.
This may include: :
We value associations that do not try to embellish their results, but strive to objectively understand what works in order to improve.
What we evaluate is not just what an organization does, but what it could do with more resources. This is the notion of “counterfactual”: what would happen if this association received an additional 10,000 euros?
Some structures have already reached their operational ceiling. Others have strong potential for expansion while maintaining high efficiency. It is this potential that we seek to identify, because donating to any organization will not have the same effect as donating to an organization that is ready to grow.
Finally, we pay particular attention to the organization’s stance. Those who acknowledge their limitations, publish their data, welcome criticism, and actively seek to improve are, in our view, more trustworthy.
Impact is not decreed; we believe it is built. And this requires humility, rigor, and a willingness to learn.
Do you think your organization could be recommended? Here are three ways to get a first idea.
This is the most direct path. If your association is already recommended by GiveWell, ACE, HLI, Giving Green or an equivalent structure, it means you have successfully passed a very demanding evaluation. Therefore, you already meet the criteria that we use as well.
In this case, your organization is already included in the list of associations we recommend in our personalized advice. This means that when a donor consults us directly for guidance on where to donate, your organization can be highlighted as a credible, high-impact option.
However, to appear publicly on our online platform, a complementary analysis is necessary. We voluntarily limit the number of organizations listed to avoid overwhelming individuals with choices and to redirect funds to structures capable of absorbing large amounts without becoming quickly saturated.
We also evaluate:
In other words, being recommended by a recognized evaluator is an excellent base. This gives you visibility in our personalized support, but appearing on the platform requires an additional selection linked to Mieux Donner’s impact strategy.
You have not yet been evaluated by a third party, but you have already laid the groundwork for a real impact strategy?
Start by exploring our guide “What are impactful charities” and our selection process.
These resources will help you check whether your action is measurable, reproducible, and supported by robust data, the pillars of an effective philanthropy approach.
If you already do this, go beyond a simple activity report: apply the best methods available, drawing inspiration in particular from Charity Entrepreneurship’s Guide to Effective NGOs.
You are familiar with prioritization and counterfactual analysis approaches. You collect and compare your data with sectoral benchmarks.
And above all, you seek to compare your results with an external, rigorous, and independent point of view.
This is the most advanced approach, but also the most solid. It involves compiling your results, comparing them to sectoral benchmarks, and having the whole thing reviewed by an independent expert. Some associations fund external evaluations or collaborate with research laboratories. This approach is rare but precious.
It shows organizational maturity, introspection, and a clear desire to objectify impact—three qualities we highly value.
At this stage, it may be useful to provide some orders of magnitude to illustrate the level of expected cost-effectiveness. These benchmarks are not absolute: they always depend on the assumptions made, the context of the intervention, and the quality of the available data.
But they allow situating the minimal methodological expectations:
All these calculations must be made counterfactually, i.e., by estimating what would have happened in the absence of the intervention. We explain this approach in detail here: Making better decisions using counterfactual reasoning
It is also for this reason that we do not settle for traditional impact reports. Too often, these documents highlight activity indicators (number of beneficiaries, workshops, meals distributed…) that do not measure the actual effect produced. Worse still, some associations select only those results that are favorable to them, sometimes knowingly.
This is why we have formulated a broader critique beyond the limits of impact measurement in France, read here:The myth of impact assesment in France: a costly illusion
We do not issue calls for applications, nor do we have a continuously open selection process. However, if you think your organization operates in one of the high-impact areas (global health, climate, mental well-being…), and you have solid evidence proving significant effectiveness, we are interested in learning more about your elements.
We do not have a dedicated evaluation team, and we do not commit to responding to all requests. However, we take the time to examine serious, documented, and transparent approaches, especially if they introduce us to a high-impact intervention that we have not yet identified.
Here are the types of documents that can help us better understand your impact:
We favor organizations that embody a culture of openness, recognize their limits, and actively seek to improve their impact based on data.
This does not guarantee inclusion in our recommendations but contributes to our strategic monitoring and strengthens the mapping of the most effective interventions on an international scale.
We seek, among different causes and with varying chances of success, the hundred most effective associations worldwide. Considering there are more than a million in France alone, the association you have in mind has less than a 0.01% chance of being recommended by Mieux Donner.
Not being recommended does not mean being unhelpful or lacking commitment or professionalism. It simply means not meeting our specific criteria for high impact (at the moment).
We respect every structure that acts sincerely. But our mission is to provide individuals with clear benchmarks to amplify their impact. We embrace this demand because it serves a greater cause: directing money where it can save or improve the most lives.
At this stage, if you are wondering about the possibility of being recommended or recommending an organization, you probably have already identified ways to strengthen your impact. This is an excellent starting point.
Once again, being featured on the Mieux Donner platform should not be an end in itself. Our selection is deliberately very restricted. However, if you wish to act effectively in the causes you care about, seeking maximum impact is a precious approach. Not only does it allow you to do more with the same resources, but it also helps strengthen trust, transparency, and the collective utility of your action.
All these tools are designed to help you progress towards a higher, more structured, and evidence-based impact.
Joining our selection is not a guarantee of popularity. It’s about being part of a select group of organizations whose actions are based on solid data, a clear strategy, and a culture of continuous improvement.
What guides us is not recognition, but the desire to tangibly improve the largest number of well-beings. And for that, every step towards greater effectiveness counts.
Finland, Iceland, Denmark lead the 2026 ranking. Full list of 147 countries, key findings on social media and wellbeing, and how your donations create happiness.
Human life is precious. It is natural to want to mobilise all our resources to save a life, even if it only prolongs a life by a week. But what happens when other people are also in danger, and our resources are not enough to help them all? As a society, we face practical limits that force us to make difficult decisions.
It’s easy to feel discouraged by the dramatic retreat of glaciers in the Alps and the scale of climate change can easily leave us feeling powerless. This article will equip you with the knowledge to take meaningful climate action, in both your personal life and through your charitable donations.
Is deciding from London or Paris who needs help and how a form of colonialism? This article examines what the critique gets right, where it goes wrong, and what effective giving does concretely differently — including its own blind spots.
Scared Straight won an Oscar and increased delinquency. Open Philanthropy invested $130 million in criminal justice reform — then changed course. Romain Barbe examines what the evidence actually says, and where your money can do the most good.
31 confirmed deaths, or nearly a million? Romain Barbe examines what the data actually say about Chernobyl’s human toll — and why the fear it generated may have killed far more than the radiation itself.
