- This contention is made in new paper produced by Rogare with the Chartered Institute of Fundraising
- Posits that most decisions based on alignment with a charity’s values can also be made by considering the harm that would result from accepting the donation
- The Rogare paper is a companion to CIoF’s guidance on creating gift acceptance/refusal policies.
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 from Rogare – The Fundraising Think Tank – produced in collaboration with the Chartered Institute of Fundraising and published in the new paper: Take it or Leave It: The Ethics of Gift Acceptance and Refusal– argues that values alignment may not be the best way to make the most consistent ethical decisions about refusing donations.
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 organisation 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 organisational 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:
- How relevant fundraisers’ person moral convictions are in deciding to refuse a donation
- The ethics of returning donations, which are not the same as those of refusal
- What new thinking is needed to facilitate sound decision making about sources of donations – such as the climate emergency – that might harm society as a whole, even if accepting the donation would be in the best interest of the recipient charity.
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 optimised for viewing on a desktop or tablet, or for home/office printing. Visit: www.rogare.net/acceptance-refusal.
