Embedding ethics into the Danish fundraising guidelines
Separating ethics from regulated best practice
Many fundraising codes of practice contain both regulated best practice (things fundraisers MUST or MUST NOT do), and ethical issues (the grey areas where there might be a moral imperative about what they OUGHT or OUGHT NOT do, but no clear and rigid prescriptions).
This can often lead to confusion about what a fundraiser really ought to do when confronted with such ethical dilemmas, because coded often imply a particular course of action without giving guidance about how to follow it.
For example, many codes of fundraising practice proscribe putting donors under ‘undue’, ‘unreasonable’ or ‘inappropriate’ pressure, without providing guidance on when pressure might become unreasonable and how to determine that.
The Danish fundraising guidelines also contained this mix of MUSTs and OUGHTs. At the end of 2024, the Danish fundraising association ISOBRO engaged Rogare to work with them on redesigning these guidelines not just to separate these, but also embed guidance on how to resolve ethical dilemmas. We believe this is the first fundraising code of practice to do this.
The new guidelines were adopted at the ISOBRO General Assembly in May 2026.
In the new code, all the regulated best practice is contained in the new Part A. Inevitably there are gaps, ambiguities and grey areas in Part A (just as there are in every professional code of practice). These are considered in the new Part B to the guidelines.
Guidance on ethical grey areas
Drawing on Rogare’s work on fundraising ethics, Part B of the new ISOBRO guidelines contains guidance on how to navigate the ethical issues in Part A, covering, among other things:
-
How to decide when the line has been crossed into excessive, unreasonable or inappropriate pressure?
-
What constitutes coercive, threatening or bullying behaviour (and what doesn’t – pointing out that no legitimate form of fundraising can be considered these things, and only become so when done badly).
-
When to voluntarily disclose information about fundraising costs when not required by law (and when and why such voluntary disclosure may not be required).
-
The rationale behind resisting inappropriate demands from donors (donor dominance), particularly to protect fundraisers’ wellbeing (sometimes from inappropriate behaviour by donors).
-
Vulnerability
-
The so-called ‘zero overheads’ message – claiming that all of a donation will be spent on the cause.
-
Framing and portrayal of beneficiaries in fundraising materials, and the justification for ‘shocking’ images.
-
Gaining the consent of people depicted in fundraising materials
PART C
There’s also a Part C to the code, which contains guidance on the internal policies nonprofit organisations must have.
Each section in Part B contains a 2x2 box showing the potential good and harmful outcomes of following either horn of the dilemma. The illustration shows this box for the case of (in)appropriate pressure.
When faced with an ethical dilemma, if fundraisers follow the guidance in Part B, this should allow them to make a decision that they can defend in the event of a complaint or accusation that they behaved unethically.
A Danish-specific lens of donorcentrist ethics
The guidelines are built around three core principles:
-
Respect donors’ integrity and freedom of action.
-
Communicate in an honest and credible manner, particularly regarding the purposes of fundraising and the use of the funds raised.
-
Be open and transparent regarding the organization’s purpose, leadership, and finances.
These mirror and align with the Danish Statutory Regulation on Fundraising Activities.
By drawing on the the first of these principles, we have devised a variant of the donorcentrism lens of fundraising ethics that is specific to fundraising in Denmark:
Fundraising is ethical when it protects donor integrity, and protects and facilitates donor freedom of choice…
…and unethical when it undermines or hinders donor integrity and freedom of choice.
Though this is just one part of the ethical toolkit recommended to Danish fundraisers, and the guidance in Part B recommends using this alongside Rights-Balancing Fundraising Ethics.
We are particularly grateful to ISOBRO for engaging us on this work to embed ethical guidance within codes of practice and look forward to working further with them on developing the field of professional fundraising ethics, for professions all round the world, not just in Denmark.
