# FRSB proposal to limit comms shows we need a new theory of fundraising ethics

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/06/10/frsb-comms-limit-shows-need-for-new-theory-of-fundraising-ethics/
- Published: 2015-06-10T12:19:00+01:00
- Author: Ian MacQuillin

**This time next year there could be an upper limit on the number of times a charity
may communicate with one of its donors. That’s one of the recommendations made by
the Fundraising Standards Board in its [interim report](http://www.frsb.org.uk/interim-investigation-report-published/)
into whether Olive Cooke was ‘overwhelmed’ by the volume of fundraising communications
she received.**

It will now be up to the Institute of Fundraising to decide first whether it accepts
this ridiculous recommendation ­– and since the IoF’s standards committee will now
have an ‘independent’ chair, it must be likely that it will – and second, if it 
does accept it, how it will it be implemented.

Will this limit apply to all donors or just those below or above a certain value?
Will it apply equally to patrons of a charity giving, say, £10,000 a year and donors
on £2 a month recruited via a loss-leading DRTV ad? Will it just apply to solicitations,
or will it also apply to thank you calls and emails? Will the automatic STOP code
that goes with an SMS donation be count towards the limit?

## Advertisement

 [⌊Posthub advert. You create the campaign. We'll handle the postal journey. Get started at post-hub.co.uk.⌉](https://fundraising.co.uk/ads/posthub-20261007-300x250/)

The limit of course must be set at a level that would stop those donors likely to
feel overwhelmed actually being overwhelmed.

One major gifts expert recommends thanking major donors 10 times. Sounds a lot. 
But by the time they get an informal note, a telephone follow-up, a formal letter
from the fundraiser, a formal letter from the chief executive, a call from the chair
of the board, an invitation to a recognition event…

All that could easily take the charity over its prescribed limit for the year.

And will the limit apply to a calendar year or the 12 months immediately after first
contact – database people, get working on this now!

No doubt the consultation process around the implementation of this recommendation
will sort everything out and it will run completely smoothly and deliver a workable
outcome that satisfies everybody.
 

## Why we need a new theory of fundraising ethics

But my point in this blog is not to rant about this one recommendation. It’s to 
ask how it even got to be made in the first place.

This proposed solution – imposing a restriction on the number of times a charity
can contact someone – is not proportionate to the scale of the problem. I wrote 
last week on the _[Critical Fundraising](http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/criticalfundraising/2015/06/01/opinion-how-the-olive-cooke-tragedy-affects-fundraising-ethics-and-self-regualtion/)_
blog that using Olive Cooke and people such as her as a benchmark for reforming 
fundraising practice would lead to extreme measures because Mrs Cooke was not a 
typical donor.

But the FRSB proposals are blanket recommendations that cover all donors, not just
those who are likely to feel ‘overwhelmed’.

At the heart of the issue here is that the fundraising profession is attempting 
to modify its applied ethical codes without having much of an idea of the normative
ethics that lie behind them.

The Code of Fundraising Practice and the Fundraising Promise tell fundraisers _what_
they must and must not do, but they don’t tell them _why_ the must or must not do
those things.

Is it to protect public trust? Is it to improve and maintain donor relationship?
Is it to provide meaningful philanthropy for donors? Is it to do these things because
doing so results in higher lifetime value (LTV) of supporters or because it’s the
right thing to do in and of itself?

We just don’t know. Whenever we encounter ethical grey areas of current practice(
such as whether to knock on doors bearing a ‘no cold calling’ sticker) or totally
new ethical dilemmas, we’re not sure how to respond. Because fundraising has no 
ethical theory to guide it, this sector literally makes up its professional ethics
as it goes along, often in response to a politician, journalist, or someone else
outside of the fundraising profession, shouting very loudly that we need to change.

For the past two months, my fundraising think tank Rogare has been working on developing
a new theory that aims to put the beneficiary at the centre of fundraising ethics.
Fundraisers owe a duty to their beneficiaries that is at least equal to – if not
greater than – the duty they owe to their donors. That’s the duty to ensure that
nonprofit organisation have sufficient income to provide services. This is what 
grounds fundraisers’ duty to ask for support.

In a nutshell, the core of the theory we are developing is:

> Ethical fundraising balances the duty of fundraisers to ask for support, with 
> the rights of other stakeholders not to be put under ‘undue’ pressure to donate.

(‘Undue pressure’ is the term used it the FRSB’s Fundraising Promise.)

You can [read our initial ideas and thinking](http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/criticalfundraising/2015/06/10/opinion-the-gaping-hole-at-the-centre-of-fundraising-ethics/)
in this post on Rogare’s _Critical Fundraising_ blog.
 

## The decisions we make now will affect fundraising for 10 years – they must be the right ones

I’m a supporter of the regulatory regime we have in place. That the body that investigates
breaches of the rules (FRSB) is independent of the body that makes the rules (IoF)
is a huge strength of the system. I also think most of the adjudications the FRSB
has made have been considered and proportionate.
But the problem is that the FRSB’s
ethics are focused on donor protection. It sees itself as a donor protection agency
that needs to protect donors’ interests against excessive fundraising – something
I wrote about in two _UK Fundraising_ blogs way back in 2007 ([here ](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/2007/02/14/beneficiary-v-donor-who-most-important/)
and [here](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/2007/04/05/three-magic-number/)) shortly
after the FSB (as it then was) was set up.

For example, the FRSB [points out that it received 384 complaints](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/2015/06/10/frsb-publishes-interim-report-into-fundraising-practices-following-olive-cooke-allegations/)
specifically in response to its Olive Cooke investigation, 161 of which were about
the frequency of approaches. The FRSB considers this is a significant indication
of public disquiet about fundraising. Considering that these 161 complaints were
not spontaneous but actually prompted by the investigation and the events surrounding
it, and that upwards of 48,000 people complained about all types of fundraising 
in 2013 (about half of which were about DM and telephone combined), I’d be a little
more cautious in interpreting what they actually indicate.

So what we have is a recommendation that the IoF should impose a restriction on 
the number of times a charity may communicate with any donor (not just those who
are likely to feel ‘overwhelmed’), based on 161 complaints and the media and political
furore ignited by Mrs Cooke’s death. That’s because it’s the role of the FRSB is
to act on those complaints.

It seems quite likely to me that using the ethical theory we are proposing, the 
FRSB’s recommendation would not strike the appropriate balance between fundraisers’
duties to their donors _and_ their beneficiaries.

The decisions the fundraising sector takes today will impact on charities’ abilities
to raise the money they need to provide services for their beneficiaries for the
next decade.

For that reason, the fundraising profession has an ethical duty to ensure that any
reforms enacted in response to the objections of certain stakeholders are appropriately
balanced with the long-term interests of the beneficiaries of voluntary organisations.

The fundraising profession needs to adopt a consistent foundational theory of normative
ethics to inform its applied ethical decisions.

It cannot continue changing its professional ethics on the hoof every time someone
outside the profession disagrees with it.

_Ian MacQuillin is director of [Rogare](https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/schools/plymouth-business-school/rogare),
the fundraising think tank at Plymouth University’s Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy._

 * **[BBC’s The One Show offers ‘don’t contact me’ letter to charities for download](https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/06/19/bbcs-the-one-show-offers-dont-contact-me-letter-to-charities-for-download/)**(
   19 June 2015)
 * **[Andrew Hind appointed as new Chair of the Fundraising Standards Board](https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/07/22/andrew-hind-appointed-as-new-chair-of-the-fundraising-standards-board/)**(
   22 July 2015)
 * **[Review of fundraising self-regulation opens for evidence](https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/07/30/review-of-fundraising-self-regulation-opens-for-evidence/)**(
   30 July 2015)