The rise of donorcentrism in fundraising often translates into donor-centric ethical thinking based on the idea that fundraising is ethical when it gives priority to donors’ wants, needs, desires, and wishes. However, nonprofit organizations cannot claim to be donor-centric without having a clear idea of donors’ ethical beliefs about fundraising. This study is the first to thoroughly examine individual donors’ ethical perceptions of fundraising practices by nonprofit organizations. More specifically, we develop an in-depth understanding of what drives donors to judge these practices as (un)ethical. Based on 52 in-depth interviews with individual donors, we uncover seven drivers: authenticity, honesty, effectiveness, accountability, efficiency, freedom of choice, and respect. Insight into these drivers allows fundraising professionals to broaden their current frame of reference and inspires a more informed debate on ethics when setting up, implementing, and evaluating fundraising campaigns.
BarbieriS.MaluegD. A. (2014). Increasing fundraising success by decreasing donor choice. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 16(3), 372–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpet.12068
BeatonE. E.LePere-SchloopM.SmithR. (2021). “Whatever it takes”: Sexual harassment in the context of resource dependence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4), 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab005
4.
BennettR. (2020). Nonprofit marketing and fundraising: A research overview. Routledge.
5.
BermanJ. Z.BaraschA.LevineE. E.SmallD. A. (2018). Impediments to effective altruism: The role of subjective preferences in charitable giving. Psychological Science, 29(5), 834–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617747648
BreezeB.DeanJ. (2012). Pictures of me: User views on their representation in homelessness fundraising appeals. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 17(2), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1417
8.
ChapmanC. M.LouisW. R.MasserB. M.ThomasE. F. (2022). Charitable Triad Theory: How donors, beneficiaries, and fundraisers influence charitable giving. Psychology & Marketing, 39(9), 1826–1848. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21701
9.
CherryJ.LeeM.ChienC. S. (2003). A cross-cultural application of a theoretical model of business ethics: Bridging the gap between theory and data. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(4), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023615520293
10.
ConnollyC.HyndmanN.McConvilleD. (2013). UK charity accounting: An exercise in widening stakeholder engagement. The British Accounting Review, 45(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.12.006
11.
DeanJ.WoodR. (2017). “You can try to press different emotional buttons”: The conflicts and strategies of eliciting emotions for fundraisers. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), e1603. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1603
12.
DethierF.DelcourtC.DessartL. (2023). Donor perceptions of nonprofit organizations’ transparency: Conceptualization and operationalization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(5), 1230–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231211212
13.
DiamondW. D.NobleS. M. (2001). Defensive responses to charitable direct mail solicitations. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 2–12.
14.
FarrL. M. (2006). Whose files are they anyway? Privacy issues for the fundraising profession. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 7(4), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.193
HansenR. K. (2023). Applying a stakeholder management approach to ethics in charitable fundraising. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28(4), e1731. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1731
19.
HuntS. D.VitellS. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(Spring), 5–16.
20.
HuntS. D.VitellS. J. (1993). The general theory of marketing ethics: A retrospective and revision. In SmithN. C.QuelchJ. A. (Eds.), Ethics in marketing (pp. 775–784). Irwin Inc.
21.
KellyK. S. (1998). Effective fund-raising management. Routledge.
22.
LeeJ.GeistfeldL. V. (1999). Elderly consumers’ receptiveness to telemarketing fraud. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(2), 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569901800207
MacQuillinI. (2022). Normative fundraising ethics: A review of the field. Journal of Philanthropy and Marketing, 28, e1740. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1740
25.
MacQuillinI.SargeantA. (2019). Fundraising ethics: A rights-balancing approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3872-8
26.
MuditaT.SukK. (2024). Effects of feedback about overhead spending from charitable organizations on overhead aversion. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 36, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2024.2341742
27.
QuH.DanielJ. L. (2021). Is “overhead” a tainted word? A survey experiment exploring framing effects of nonprofit overhead on donor decision. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020959475
28.
RosenM. J. (2005). Doing well by doing right: A fundraiser’s guide to ethical decision-making. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.11
29.
RuehleR. C.EngelenB.ArcherA. (2021). Nudging charitable giving: What (if anything) is wrong with it?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020954266
30.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1996). The international classification of Nonprofit Organizations: ICNPO-Revision 1. Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies
31.
TownsendJ. G.TownsendA. R. (2004). Accountability, motivation and practice: NGOs North and South. Social & Cultural Geography, 5(2), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360410001690259
VenableB. T.WagnerJ. (2005). An exploratory study of ethical values in nonprofit fundraising: Survey of fundraising executives. Psychological Reports, 97(2), 527–537.
35.
VitellS. J.SinghapakdiA.ThomasJ. (2001). Consumer ethics: An application and empirical testing of the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110386018
36.
WilliamsM.MoserT. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review, 15(1), 45–55.
37.
ZaikauskaitėL.ButlerG.HelmiN. F.RobinsonC. L.TreglownL.TsivrikosD.DevlinJ. T. (2022). Hunt–Vitell’s general theory of marketing ethics predicts “attitude-behaviour” gap in pro-environmental domain. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 732661. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.732661
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
