Self-regulation
Fundraisers should stick to the rules. But are they the right rules, implemented in the right way?
Having rules and sticking to them is a cornerstone of any profession. There also has to be some method of ensuring fundraisers stick to the rules. The preferred method in many countries is through some form of self-regulation.
Self-regulation of fundraising tends to focus on protecting donors and non-donors from the potential harm that fundraisers could cause them (such as being subject to ‘undue’ pressure to give). This creates a possible tension with the theory of professional ethics we have developed at Rogare – Rights Balancing Fundraising Ethics – that requires duties to beneficiaries be balanced against duties to donors.
Ethics and regulation are therefore interlinked. We have worked on three major projects within the self-regulation workstream, each one including this relationship as a major component:
-
A global review of the fundraising self-regulation, for the European Center for Not-for-profit law (2020)
-
Redesigning the Danish fundraising guidelines, with ISOBRO (2025-26)
-
Refashioning fundraising self-regulation in Poland, with Polskie Stowarzyszenie Fundraisingu (2025 to datę).
In addition to these projects, we have also:
-
Delved into the ethics of self-regulation
-
Asked fundraisers how they thought the Fundraising Preference Service would impact their income generation when this was proposed in 2015
-
Responded to various consultations in the UK.
Our next major project will be to develop a typology of fundraising self-regulation, but it is unlikely we will be able to progress with this until 2027 at the earliest.
Self-regulation can seem dry and a bit boring. But from a different perspective, it can be very interesting and exciting. At Rogare we think it’s a bit exciting.
A normative typology of fundraising self-regulation
Our next major project – for which a considerable amount of work has already been done, but is currently on the back burner awaiting space in our research programme – is to develop a normative typology of self-regulatory regimes, with indicators of those that are:
Functioning – provide workable processes for fundraisers and donors
Failing – pose unnecessary restriction on fundraising practice (for example, through an arbitrary upper limit on overhead costs)
Enlightened – those regimes that adhere to recommended ‘Better Regulation’ best principles and practice, and include beneficiaries as a stakeholder in the regulatory framework by considering the impact on beneficiaries of any regulatory decisions. Better regulation principles are:
-
Proportionality – Regulators should intervene only when necessary. Remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed, and costs identified and minimised.
-
Accountability – Regulators should be able to justify decisions and be subject to public scrutiny.
-
Consistency – Rules and standards must be joined up and implemented fairly.
-
Transparency – Regulators should be open, and keep regulations simple and user friendly.
-
Targeting – Regulation should be focused on the problem and minimise side effects.
In saying this is a ‘normative’ typology, we mean that it doesn’t merely describe how self-regulation works, but sets a benchmark about the standard and processes fundraising self-regulation ought to aspire to.
The initial work on this typology was done in 2020-21 before we commenced working with ISOBRO or Polskie Stowarzyszenie Fundraisingu, and before the Fundraising Regulator in the UK revised its code to a principles-based approach. At that point, all the self-regulatory regimes we looked at were either ‘functioning’ or ‘failing’; none could claim membership of the ‘enlightened’ category.
Further reading on the ethics of fundraising regulation
-
How put to beneficiaries first, without throwing donors out with the bathwater.
-
Radically rethinking fundraising regulation to include duties to beneficiaries.
-
Review of fundraising ethics must precede major changes to the code.
-
Fundraising regulation owes more than lip service to the rights of beneficiaries.
-
Read all blogs about regulation of fundraising on the Critical Fundraising site.
The Fundraising Preference Service
The United Kingdom operates an opt-out register for all charity direct marketing by post, phone and email, called the Fundraising Preference Service, which has not been without opposition from within the fundraising sector.
In 2015, we surveyed the views of fundraisers to the FPS and their perceptions of its potential impact on fundraising income.
More information
-
Download the Rogare report on fundraisers' views on the FPS.
-
All articles about the FPS on Critical Fundraising.
Responses to consultations
Rogare has responded to a number of government and sector consultations, all in the UK. You can download these by clicking on the links.
-
Fundraising Regulator (UK): Code of practice, April 2017.
-
House of Lords (UK): Select committee on charities, September 2016.
-
The Fundraising Regulator (UK): Fundraising Preference Service, March 2016.
-
Charity Commission (UK): Revisions to CC20 – fundraising guide for trustees, February 2016.
-
NCVO (UK): Etherington review of self-regulation, July 2015.
