Many fundraisers – and perhaps more non-fundraisers, such as senior leadership and trustees – might consider that not aligning with their charities’ values is an important consideration in deciding whether to refuse a donation from a “tainted” source.
However, new work form Rogare – The Fundraising Think Tank suggests values alignment may not be the best way to make the most consistent ethical decisions about refusing donations.
Rogare has been working with the Chartered Institute of Fundraising to develop a richer ethics of gift acceptance/refusal, as a companion piece to the CIoF’s guidance on how to construct and write acceptance/refusal policies. The new Rogare paper – Take it or Leave It: The Ethics of Gift Acceptance and Refusal – is now available on the Rogare website.
Claire Stanley, director of policy and communications at Chartered Institute says:
“There is no single solution to the challenges around deciding to refuse a donation, and every organization needs to develop their own approach that will enable them to fulfil their charitable objectives.
“At the Chartered Institute, we have published guidance, co-created with our members, that provides an overview of current regulation and key considerations when creating an acceptance and refusal policy.
“Through our partnership with Rogare, we aim to go one step further and explore the ethical schools of thought that can guide decision-making. Although guidance and policies are incredibly helpful to ensure that charities make consistent decisions and do not inadvertently breach regulations, they cannot account for every scenario or explain why people can have differing opinions on what is the right course of action.
“This companion guidance is essential reading for fundraising ethics novices and experts alike.”
The paper considers the ethical pros and cons of the main reasons for refusing a donation. One is that accepting it would cause harm to the charity, such as loss of further donations, or beneficiaries being less like to use its services. Another is that there is a moral principle why the donation ought to be refused. These are that:
a) There is a blanket prohibition on working with particular types of donor.
b) The donor/donation doesn’t align with a charity’s organizational values.
c) The donation comes from a source the charity considers to be morally unacceptable.
However, whereas a decision based on harm is focused on the evidence about how much harm is likely to result from accepting donation, making the same decision using values requires a fundraiser to make a subjective evaluation of the donors’ values and intent. Any such decision about a donor can be countered by a subjective opinion made by someone else – trustees, the media, regulators or the donor themself – that interprets the donor’s values and intentions differently.
But any decision based on evidence of harm sidesteps these kinds of he said/she said gainsaying arguments.
As Rogare’s director Ian MacQuillin says:
“If a donor/donation is so out of line with a charity’s values, then it is almost certain to result in some kind of harm, such as other donors stopping their giving, or beneficiaries being deterred from seeking help.
“A hypothetical example we use in the new paper is the case of a faith-based charity that is offered a donation from someone associated with sex work. Even though it probably feels totally counter-intuitive not to make the decision based on alignment with the charity’s values, we contend they could make the same decision based on harm. And that would go for most ethical decision making in most cases of tainted money.
“We’re not saying values don’t or ought not play a role in the ethics of gift refusal. But we are asking whether they are really needed in most cases.”
The paper also looks at:
Although the work we have done is in the specific context of the guidance from the Charity Commission as it relates to England and Wales, the ideas we’ve developed in the paper will have relevance and applicability in many other countries.
The paper – Take it or Leave It: The Ethics of Gift Acceptance and Refusal – can be downloaded from the Rogare website in versions optimized for viewing on a desktop or tablet, or for home/office printing. Visit: www.rogare.net/acceptance-refusal.
For more information about Rogare, contact Rogare’s director Ian MacQuillin at ianmacquillin@rogare.net. Rogare is supported in our work by a number of Associate Members – partners to the fundraising sector that share our critical fundraising ethos. Our Associate Members are:
Ask Direct – creative agency (Ireland)
Giving Architects – fundraising consultancy (New Zealand)
GoalBusters – fundraising consultancy (USA)
ST (Stephen Thomas) Ltd – full-service fundraising agency (Canada)
