Fundraising Ethics: Toward an In-Depth Understanding of Individual Donors’ Perceptions

Abstract

The rise of donorcentrism in fundraising often translates into donor-centric ethical thinking based on the idea that fundraising is ethical when it gives priority to donors’ wants, needs, desires, and wishes. However, nonprofit organizations cannot claim to be donor-centric without having a clear idea of donors’ ethical beliefs about fundraising. This study is the first to thoroughly examine individual donors’ ethical perceptions of fundraising practices by nonprofit organizations. More specifically, we develop an in-depth understanding of what drives donors to judge these practices as (un)ethical. Based on 52 in-depth interviews with individual donors, we uncover seven drivers: authenticity, honesty, effectiveness, accountability, efficiency, freedom of choice, and respect. Insight into these drivers allows fundraising professionals to broaden their current frame of reference and inspires a more informed debate on ethics when setting up, implementing, and evaluating fundraising campaigns.

Keywords

code of ethics donor ethical beliefs fundraising ethics nonprofit marketing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barbieri

Malueg

D. A.

(2014). Increasing fundraising success by decreasing donor choice. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 16(3), 372–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12068

BBB Wise Giving Alliance. (2024). Donor trust special report: Public eye on charity accountability. https://give.org/docs/default-source/donor-trust-library/2024_summer_dtr_report_final.pdf

Beaton

E. E.

LePere-Schloop

Smith

(2021). “Whatever it takes”: Sexual harassment in the context of resource dependence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab005

Bennett

(2020). Nonprofit marketing and fundraising: A research overview. Routledge.

Berman

J. Z.

Barasch

Levine

E. E.

Small

D. A.

(2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29(5), 834–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617747648

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Breeze

Dean

(2012). Pictures of me: User views on their representation in homelessness fundraising appeals. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1417

Chapman

C. M.

Louis

W. R.

Masser

B. M.

Thomas

E. F.

(2022). Charitable Triad Theory: How donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers influence charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 39(9), 1826–1848. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21701

Cherry

Lee

Chien

C. S.

(2003). A cross-cultural application of a theoretical model of business ethics: Bridging the gap between theory and data. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023615520293

10.

Connolly

Hyndman

McConville

(2013). UK charity accounting: An exercise in widening stakeholder engagement. The British Accounting Review, 45(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.12.006

11.

Dean

Wood

(2017). “You can try to press different emotional buttons”: The conflicts and strategies of eliciting emotions for fundraisers. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), e1603. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1603

12.

Dethier

Delcourt

Dessart

. (2023). Donor perceptions of nonprofit organizations’ transparency: Conceptualization and operationalization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(5), 1230–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231211212

13.

Diamond

W. D.

Noble

S. M.

(2001). Defensive responses to charitable direct mail solicitations. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 2–12.

14.

Farr

L. M.

(2006). Whose files are they anyway? Privacy issues for the fundraising profession. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 7(4), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.193

15.

Fundraising Preference Service. (2017). Consultation results in six changes to code of practice. https://www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/Consultation%20-%20Code%20-%20Spring%202017%20-%20Consultation.pdf

16.

Giving USA. (2020). Giving USA 2020: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2019. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

17.

Gneezy

Keenan

E. A.

Gneezy

(2014). Avoiding overhead aversion in charity. Science, 346(6209), 632–635. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253932

18.

Hansen

R. K.

(2023). Applying a stakeholder management approach to ethics in charitable fundraising. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28(4), e1731. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1731

19.

Hunt

S. D.

Vitell

S. J.

(1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(Spring), 5–16.

20.

Hunt

S. D.

Vitell

S. J.

(1993). The general theory of marketing ethics: A retrospective and revision. In Smith

N. C.

Quelch

J. A.

(Eds.), Ethics in marketing (pp. 775–784). Irwin Inc.

21.

Kelly

K. S.

(1998). Effective fund-raising management. Routledge.

22.

Lee

Geistfeld

L. V.

(1999). Elderly consumers’ receptiveness to telemarketing fraud. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(2), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569901800207

23.

MacQuillin

(2019, July 3). The virtuous fundraiser. Presentation at IoF national convention, London, England. https://www.rogare.net/fundraising-ethics-virtue-ethics

24.

MacQuillin

(2022). Normative fundraising ethics: A review of the field. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28, e1740. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1740

25.

MacQuillin

Sargeant

(2019). Fundraising ethics: A rights-balancing approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3872-8

26.

Mudita

Suk

(2024). Effects of feedback about overhead spending from charitable organizations on overhead aversion. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 36, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2024.2341742

27.

Daniel

J. L.

(2021). Is “overhead” a tainted word? A survey experiment exploring framing effects of nonprofit overhead on donor decision. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959475

28.

Rosen

M. J.

(2005). Doing well by doing right: A fundraiser’s guide to ethical decision-making. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.11

29.

Ruehle

R. C.

Engelen

Archer

(2021). Nudging charitable giving: What (if anything) is wrong with it? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020954266

30.

Salamon

L. M.

Anheier

H. K.

(1996). The international classification of Nonprofit Organizations: ICNPO-Revision 1. Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies

31.

Townsend

J. G.

Townsend

A. R.

(2004). Accountability, motivation and practice: NGOs North and South. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(2), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360410001690259

32.

Tufford

Newman

(2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316

33.

Urban Institute. (2021). Nonprofit trends and impacts 2021. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104889/nonprofit-trends-and-impacts-2021_1_0.pdf

34.

Venable

B. T.

Wagner

(2005). An exploratory study of ethical values in nonprofit fundraising: Survey of fundraising executives. Psychological Reports, 97(2), 527–537.

35.

Vitell

S. J.

Singhapakdi

Thomas

(2001). Consumer ethics: An application and empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110386018

36.

Williams

Moser

(2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45–55.

37.

Zaikauskaitė

Butler

Helmi

N. F.

Robinson

C. L.

Treglown

Tsivrikos

Devlin

J. T.

(2022). Hunt–Vitell’s general theory of marketing ethics predicts “attitude-behaviour” gap in pro-environmental domain. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 732661. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.732661

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

8.92 MB

0.03 MB

0.04 MB

0.07 MB