Refusing donations due to conflict with a charity’s organisational values is not the most consistent way to make ethical decisions around donations, a report suggests.

Decisions about whether to accept donations can be reached by considering the potential harm to the charity, rather than by looking at whether it aligns with the charity’s values, according to the research from the fundraising think tank Rogare, in partnership with the Chartered Institute of Fundraising.

Take It or Leave It – The Ethics of Gift Acceptance and Refusal, which explores different theories on the ethics of refusing charitable donations, has been drawn up to supplement the CIoF’s existing guidance on how to write donation acceptance and refusal policies.

It suggests that basing a donation refusal on its lack of alignment with the charity’s values – which the report describes as a deontology approach – could result in inconsistent decision-making. 

To refuse a donation based on the moral principle that it conflicted with an organisation’s values, fundraisers would first need to “construct robust criteria that demonstrate when a donor/donation falls short of a charity’s values”, the report says.

If able to do so, the fundraiser would then need to be able to apply these principles consistently in all circumstances, which the report says could be a challenge.

The report says that a key problem of grounding the ethics of gift acceptance on values is that the fundraiser is “always required to make a value judgement” about the actions, attitudes or behaviours of donors. 

“Such value judgements by their nature are subjective, and so the judgements may vary, depending on who makes the decision and what factors they think are relevant,” the report says.

It adds that such judgements are also “always open to a subjective counter-argument that uses different factors to draw the threshold for the value at a different point, or weights the same factors differently to arrive at a different conclusion”. 

The report suggests that a consequentialist approach, which bases the refusal or acceptance of a donation based on the reputational risk posed to the charity, eliminates the guesswork and intuition from the decision-making process, and should deliver more robust and consistent decision-making.

Ian MacQuillin, director of Rogare, said: “If a donor or 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.

“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 report also looks at the concept of rejecting donations based on a moral objection, pointing out that the Charity Commission’s and CIoF’s guidance requires that donation refusals must be based on the charity’s objectives rather than personal objections.

It says this guidance, although clear, “doesn’t lessen the sense of personal moral dilemma a fundraiser might find themselves in”.

The report outlines three potential courses of action for a fundraiser faced with this moral dilemma, including: relegating their personal values below their professional ones by accepting the gift; relegating their professional values below their personal ones and refusing the gift, although in this case they must ask if they are acting unethically in doing so; or maintaining their personal values by moving to a charity where their personal and professional values better align.

Claire Stanley, director of policy and communications at the CIoF, said: “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.

“This companion guidance is essential reading for fundraising ethics novices and experts alike.”