The unbearable hypocrisy: Fundraising in a world of compromised integrity
This piece is written by Maria Rio and was originally published on Community-Centric Fundraising.
Divestment from practices and structures that perpetuate harm is a necessary step towards fostering belonging and ensuring that all employees can thrive.
Being a fundraiser dedicated to aligning money with mission is a relentless battle.
I am tired of organizations claiming to stand for justice while accepting money from those who perpetuate the very injustices we fight against.
These organizations have detailed statements about their values, citing their commitment to social justice in the media, annual reports, and anywhere else they can possibly get attention for it. But when it comes to funding, these principles are easily compromised and often completely abandoned. The dissonance between what we preach and where our funding comes from is not just frustrating—it’s infuriating.
The irony is that while we fight for systemic change, we are often trapped in systems that resist it. We face the same old excuses: “We need the money,” “We can’t afford to be picky,” and “The end justifies the means.” But does it? At what point do we draw the line and say enough is enough?
The mental and emotional labor, the pressure to meet fundraising goals, and the personal cost of fighting for ethical standards cannot be understated. For BIPOC, this burnout is compounded by systemic issues within many organizations: lack of HR support, performative allyship, and tokenism. These ongoing challenges not only affect the immediate work environment but also have long-term implications on the mental wellbeing of BIPOC employees.
This is why divestment is crucial.
By reallocating resources towards creating genuinely supportive, inclusive, and equitable work environments, organizations can help mitigate the mental and emotional toll on BIPOC staff. Divestment from practices and structures that perpetuate harm is a necessary step towards fostering belonging and ensuring that all employees can thrive.
Why We Demand Divestment
When we demand divestment from problematic funders, it’s because we understand what integrity truly means—maintaining consistency between our values and actions, between our organizational persona and our operations. If we expect companies and universities to divest from unethical sources, why should nonprofits be any different?
Here are seven reasons why divestment is crucial:
1. Aligning Money with Mission: Accepting money from sources that contradict our mission of collective liberation is hypocritical, undermines our credibility, and breaches trust. It’s a personal affront to those of us who pour our hearts into this work. It turns fundraisers into performers of empathy rather than genuine activists. Divestment ensures that every dollar supports, rather than contradicts, our mission.
2. Avoiding Complicity: Accepting funds from unethical sources makes organizations complicit in the harm those funders cause. This financial relationship provides these companies with a veneer of respectability and a shield against criticism. Divestment sends a clear message: we will not be used as a tool to launder your reputation.
3. Upholding Values and Integrity: Values must guide actions including financial decisions. Refusing to divest signals that our values are flexible, negotiable, and ultimately for sale. Our integrity should not be for sale to the highest bidder. Divestment stands for unwavering integrity.
4. Building Trust: Donors, volunteers, and service users are paying attention. They want to know if the organizations they support are true to their word. Trust is built on consistency between stated values and actions. Divesting from problematic funders demonstrates a commitment to ethical principles, building deeper trust and stronger community ties.
5. Encouraging Ethical Business Practices: Demanding divestment puts pressure on companies to change their ways. When organizations refuse to accept tainted money, funders are forced to reconsider their practices. This ripple effect can lead to broader industry changes, encouraging more ethical and sustainable business practices.
6. Avoiding Long-Term Repercussions: Short-term financial gains from unethical sources can lead to long-term damage. Organizations that fail to divest risk their reputations and the trust they’ve built with their communities. The costs of such damage far outweigh any immediate financial benefit.
7. Standing in Solidarity: Divestment is a powerful act of solidarity with affected communities. It’s about standing with those harmed by the practices of unethical funders and saying, “We see you, and we will not stand with those who harm you.” This solidarity strengthens the moral fabric of the organization and aligns it more closely with the communities it aims to serve.
Divestment says the quiet part out loud, rejects complicity in harm, and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with affected communities. By aligning every dollar with our collective mission, nonprofits can ensure that their actions reflect stated values, leading to a more profound and authentic impact.
It’s past time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Refuting Common Justifications
Diversifying income streams and finding mission-aligned funding alternatives is not just possible—it’s necessary.
“We need the money.” Yes, fundraising is crucial for any organization. But if the cost is our integrity, then the price is too high. Money that undermines our mission does more harm than good. It’s a short-term fix that leads to long-term damage, eroding trust and credibility.
Consider the fallout from Me to We’s acceptance of funds from Unilever. Amnesty International revealed that Unilever, among other global brands, was profiting from child and forced labor in its palm oil supply chains. This clashed with Me to We’s mission of supporting communities, specifically children, through ethical consumerism and social change. The resulting backlash damaged their reputation and trust among supporters, illustrating the severe consequences of aligning with funders whose practices contradict the organization’s values.
In contrast, Ben & Jerry’s decision to end sales of their ice cream in the Occupied Palestinian Territory demonstrates the power of standing by one’s values. Despite potential financial repercussions or backlash, the company chose to act in accordance with its stated commitment to social justice. This decision displays their integrity, earning respect and admiration. Side note: it always upsets me that an ice cream vendor has a stronger commitment to their morals than most nonprofits.
“We can’t afford to be picky.” This is a false dichotomy. We can and should be selective about our funding sources. Diversifying income streams and finding mission-aligned funding alternatives is not just possible—it’s necessary. It may require more effort and creativity, but it’s worth it to maintain our integrity.
While working in the food banking space, I have seen organizations that refuse to take food or funds from predatory payday loan businesses, police forces, nuclear plants, and more. We also turned down nonsense gifts (like 50 single mismatched socks) that did not align with the values of dignified service provision.
Alternatively, I have also seen organizations heavily rely on food and funds from businesses not aligned with their stated values, such as Amazon and Walmart. In the end, these organizations put their brand on the line, and their staff feel misaligned with the funding sources.
Recently, nonprofits have been debating whether to accept funds from grantors with anti-advocacy clauses. “If anyone on your team posts publicly about supporting Palestine…if these funds are used to benefit a specific racial group…”
If nonprofits take all gifts with little to no intentionality, our collective mission of social justice is compromised. We can’t afford not to be picky.
“The end justifies the means.” This is the most dangerous fallacy. When we accept money from sources that contradict our values, we compromise the very principles we stand for. True change cannot be achieved through hypocrisy. We must embody the change we advocate for, starting with our funding sources.
The part that irks me most about this argument is that usually, the funds were generated by white people off of the backs of BIPOC communities. These funds are then given to white-led organizations that tell themselves, “Well, at least I can use the funds to help BIPOC people—it all works out!”
However, if that is the case, why not direct the funder to a BIPOC-led organization for it to decide if that is the best use of funds? If the intention is to bolster the community of service users, it is nonsensical to take the agency of choice away from them and their communities.
It is paternalistic as hell for a white-led organization to operate this way. You don’t decide what justifies the means because you don’t decide what health and wealth look like for our communities.
“All money is dirty anyway.” The argument that “all money is dirty” implies that because every dollar has, in some way, been tainted by unethical practices, it is acceptable to take funding from any source. This view dismisses the importance of ethical considerations in fundraising and is completely antithetical to the principles of CCF.
While it is true that money circulates through various channels and may have (in)direct links to unethical practices, actively choosing to accept funds from known harmful sources is a different matter altogether.
Let me give you an example. Let’s say you have a good friend who you set up with someone who turns out to be an abuser—not your fault. But if you set up that good friend with someone you know is an abuser, even if they have other “redeeming” qualities (like wealth, connections, access to opportunities, etc)—definitely your fault. In this case, the community is your good friend, and you are the gatekeeper deciding who gets closer (physically and metaphorically) to the community. You play a large role in deciding who gets invited into the community, and must responsibly balance raising funds with the best interests, safety, and will of those most impacted by injustice.
Look, I am not 100% against taking dirty money, but I am 100% against doing so without any donor education, talks of reparations, or significant action by the injuring party. I am also against it when the organization, its governance, and its operations are not reflective of the impacted community.
A Call to Action
Demanding divestment is a bold stand for integrity, accountability, and true change. It’s a call to ensure that every dollar supports the mission, that values are upheld without compromise, and that organizations build lasting trust with their community.
Here are ways to get started:
Conduct a Funding Audit:
Review all current funding sources and identify any that conflict with your organization’s mission and values.
Evaluate the ethical implications of each funding source, considering their origins and the business practices of the donors.
Engage the Community:
Involve staff, board members, partners, service users, and volunteers in discussions about ethical fundraising.
Gather input and build consensus on what ethical funding means for your organization.
Communicate your commitment to ethical funding to your donors.
Provide donors with information about why certain funds are being rejected and the importance of mission-aligned donations.
Develop a Gift Acceptance Policy:
Create a clear policy outlining the types of donations your organization will and will not accept.
Ensure the policy reflects your organization’s values and is communicated to all stakeholders.
Seek Alternative Funding Sources:
Diversify your funding streams to reduce reliance on any single source, especially those with ethical concerns.
Explore grants, individual donations, corporate partnerships, and fundraising events that align with your values.
Focus on Ethical Partnerships:
Collaborate with organizations and businesses that share your commitment to ethical practices.
Build partnerships that reinforce your mission and enhance your impact.
Join or form coalitions with other nonprofits committed to ethical fundraising.
Advocate for industry-wide standards and practices that promote integrity and accountability.
Lead by Example:
Set a standard for ethical fundraising in the nonprofit sector.
Share your experiences and best practices with other organizations to inspire widespread change.
Continuously monitor the ethical implications of your funding sources.
Regularly evaluate the effectiveness of your gift acceptance policy and make adjustments as needed.
Real change starts with the courage to say “no” to compromised integrity and “yes” to ethical, mission-aligned funding.
If we expect it from companies and universities, we must demand it from nonprofits, too. If we ask donors to put their money where their mouth is, we should, too. Only then can we truly make a difference and inspire genuine, lasting change.
