Remunerating fundraisers by a percentage of the money they bring in (‘commission’) is almost universally accepted to be unethical practice, and is banned by many codes of practice around the world.

 

Because of this, those in the profession who argue against commission can point to the fact that it is prohibited, but rarely need to mount an ethical defence of this prohibition. As we say in our new green paper: “Ethical arguments against commission have been the moral icing on the regulatory cake. But it is the regulation that has done the heavy lifting.”

​

But now the regulatory prohibition has been removed from the codes in Australia (in 2021) and the UK (2025) – meaning fundraisers in those countries can receive commission payments – are those ethical arguments against commission up to the job?

 

In our green (discussion) paper Playing the percentages: Re-evaluating the ethics of paying fundraisers by commission, we conclude that those arguments need to be strengthened if they are to successfully argue against commission in places where it is not covered by a code.

 

A strong argument against commission – that has not previously been made – is that it could harm fundraisers’ psychological wellbeing. 

 

We propose 12 safeguards that should be in place to protect fundraisers and other stakeholders before commission-based pay is put in place.