SPEAKER_01 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast with Roger Davis. Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rodri Davis, and this is another one of our episodes in partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy, or Earnop, and this is the eleventh of those partnerships. So these are episodes where I talk to academics whose work has been featured in the most recent release of Earnop Research Notes, which are kind of practitioner-focused short summaries of bits of academic research. So get a chance to chat to all sorts of interesting people from around Europe and occasionally beyond. And this week was no different. So on this episode, we hear about three papers as ever. So first of all, we're going to hear from Maria Jedeker, who was uh formerly at the University of Freiburg and is now actually working in the charity sector in Germany. Um we'll hear about her paper Designing Effective Volunteering Appeals, Results of Choice-Based Conjoint and Latent Class Segmentation Analyses. And don't worry, it will get explained what all of that means, and it's a really interesting paper. Then we're going to hear from uh Georg von Schnurbein from the University of Basel in Switzerland, who's actually a returning guest uh as part of this ERNOP series. And we'll be hearing about a paper that he co-authored with Alice Hengevoss, uh titled All Good Things Come to End: Emerging Strategic Patterns of Sunset Foundations, which, if anyone listened to the previous episode of this podcast, um will be very relevant because that was a conversation all about the different ways in which foundations choose to spend down their assets and why. Uh and then last but not least, we'll hear from Tina De Bock and Tina Fazer, both from Ku Leven in uh Belgium. Uh, and they are talking about their paper, Fundraising Ethics, Towards an In-depth Understanding of Individual Donors' Perceptions. Um, so without further ado, let's hear from all of them. Uh, I'll be back at the end of the episode with the usual bit of housekeeping. So, first, we're going to hear from Maria Jedeker.

SPEAKER_00 2:34

Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Maria Jedeker. Hi there.

SPEAKER_04 2:38

Hi, Rodri. Thank you for having me.

SPEAKER_01 2:40

Oh, thanks very much for finding time to come on the podcast. Um, so yeah, we're here to talk about a paper that you've got featured uh in the latest uh release of Earn Up Research Notes. And the paper itself is called Designing Effective Volunteering Appeals, Results of Choice-Based Conjoint and Latent Class Segmentation Analyses. Um, maybe the best place to start for people listening who maybe don't quite uh understand what that means is just for you to say a bit about what the research is actually all about and what some of the key findings in it are.

SPEAKER_04 3:10

Yes, so the the name is really big uh and really difficult, I understand, but what we did is actually really, really simple. So we looked at some kind of ad for volunteering. So we designed an ad for volunteers to start volunteering, just like a commercial ad with the aspects that you would normally see in a commercial ad. Like a picture, we use pictures that introduce emotions like pride or guilt. Then in a normal ad, you would also see a slogan that wants you to buy the product. In our case, we use the volunteering uh function for the slogans. Um, so we designed the slogans according to the volunteer functions inventory. I think most people know it. There are six different functions that motivate people to volunteer. So we turned those into the slogans, and then we also use like a small accountability seal. You would also see that in in normal ads that would uh sell the product to you as specifically good. And the last um attribute is in a normal ad, you would see the price. And the price for volunteering is the time you have to spend for volunteering. So we also use the price in our ad. And then in our research, we did the conjoint analysis. That's also in the title. And uh in the conjoint analysis, you show the participants the different subjects side by side. So they can see the different ads side by side and say, This one is the one that I like best of those different ads. And every ad has like different aspects from the um different design attributes that I just told you about. So each design attribute has several different levels. Like the most simple one is the emotion level with the picture. We only have pride and guilt there. So a positive emotion and a negative emotion. And the participants can also say, I don't want any of these ads, I don't like them at all. That's the so-called non-choice option. So they click through all of these, and in the end, with the conjoint analysis, we can say not only which of these design attributes is the most important for the participants, but we can also see which one of the different design attribute levels. So, for example, pride or guilt, they like more, they feel better about. So that's what we did with a lot of the participants, and then our result was which design for the whole ad is like the perfect one for everyone. But in the next step, we also did this difficult latent class segmentation. It's also it's just a segmentation where you find different segments of people that are alike in what they like. And these are pretty different to the whole group of participants. So we found different uh segments that have different uh preferences according to the um ad.

SPEAKER_01 6:30

Yeah. It's really interesting. I just there's a there's quite there's a few things I sort of want to pick up on, some of which you've mentioned uh already there, and some that kind of struck me when I was reading the paper. I guess you mentioned there that there's well up front, I guess, there's that question of the the type of emotion that you're trying to elicit, particularly in the sort of use of imagery, and that there's uh a kind of um one that is a negative one sort of guilt-based, and then another one that's more sort of positive. Um it seemed relatively clear from the findings that the the guilt-based appeal is not very effective and that people don't like those. I I guess actually that this brings me to one question, which is if we're asking people, my understanding is here to say which of them they prefer, is is there any uh kind of evidence that that is different from what is effective in terms of driving behavior? Because obviously, in lots of different contexts with research, you if you ask people what they like or would respond to, sometimes that's different to what they would actually respond to. Or is there kind of corroborating evidence that actually people don't tend to respond very well to guilt-based uh imagery?

SPEAKER_04 7:36

I think that really depends on the context. Um, because in in some behavioral uh research you also find that people like to um relieve this negative state by their action. If they see something negative, they uh behave in a certain way to relieve this negative emotion. And you you would probably uh also think that it that would help in in volunteering, but uh we found here that the pride emotion, you already said it, is uh way, way more liked by participants than uh the the guilt emotion.

SPEAKER_01 8:11

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And and in terms of sort of the the next bit, which were the kind of the types of motivations, you mentioned there that there's there's a sort of existing segmentation of kind of six different ones, which people might be aware of or might not, although I think a lot of them do kind of conform to things that you would intuitively think are the value of volunteering. So some of it's about how much you actually just think the the underlying cause itself uh is worthwhile or important, and then there are others that are more to do with personal enhancement or uh uh improvements to your career opportunities or the ability to socialize. I was interested that you found here, my understanding, that the enhancement motivation was particularly kind of effective. Um I wondered if you could say a bit about that and whether that was kind of expected or surprising.

SPEAKER_04 9:01

Oh, we would definitely not expect this because um, if you look at the research before, they mostly found like the values function to be the most important function. Uh the values function, you explained some of them uh already, thank you for that, uh, because I didn't want to explain all of it before. Uh so the value function uh says mostly that uh you can just put your values into action. So for volunteering, maybe your humanitarian values. Um and most people would probably choose this, but uh the good thing with the conjoint analysis is that we don't really ask for uh the function. But people saw the slogan that was based on this function, which was also uh we did look at it before that they also fit, of course. Um and I can say the the slogan for the enhancement function, I looked that up before, is uh become a superhero for children and grow beyond yourself. And of course, this is enhancement, you feel better, you grow, but it doesn't really say this enhancement um so in the face. Yes. Like probably other other aspects would would um would feel like the items for for the enhancement function are uh volunteering makes me feel important, volunteering makes me feel needed. And that might come across a bit more negative than the slogan would. So uh saying it very negatively is people are more uh truthful in this research because they are not asked for it directly. So I think that's uh that's where the differences come in here. And also it also always depends on the context, probably. So the context that we did this research in definitely has has a lot to do with the outcomes.

SPEAKER_01 10:52

And and on that context, actually, one thing I was interested in is what were the the cause or causes or types of volunteering that that you are asking people to do through the advert? Because I wondered what sort of impact that would have on the types of motivations that appealed as well.

SPEAKER_04 11:08

Uh that would definitely have uh a really, really big impact, and you also have um to keep that in mind by um checking for what what we really found. So this is really, really important. Uh we used two studies and uh the uh the results are pretty similar. So there is a consensus about it, but uh the examples that we used uh were from uh two different um parts. One is the sports and physical activity. There we um asked for people to join as a youth soccer coach, and the other one is from like social services and school, and there we asked uh people to volunteer as a tutor. We chose these ones because uh they are the most important fields in Germany for uh volunteers, like the biggest fields, and the one is uh more female dominated and the other one is more male dominated, so we tried to uh fit in everyone. But we also uh used like female and male participants for both studies.

SPEAKER_01 12:18

Yeah, really interesting. Um just to sort of zoom out a little bit and think about um the the kind of implication of the findings or how they could be used. What's your sense of kind of how the insights that this research could offer for practitioners or policymakers in their work?

SPEAKER_04 12:36

I mean, for practitioners, people are always looking for volunteers right now. Um I think the consensus is that it's really difficult to find volunteers. So it's really good to look at how you can actually motivate them and not just what psychologically motivates them. I think a lot of research looks at their psychological motivations, but we need to find out how we can really get them. And to design like uh an ad that you could use as a poster, and uh, we also use like students here, so you could um put it in a university on a vault wall, you could find um a lot of volunteers there, but you need to target them in the right way. So, for one, we um offer like the whole participant pool uh that has one uh particular preference, and you could use that. This would speak to most of the participants. So if you're able to um to speak to a lot of people, you can do that. But if you're able to put in like a little more money or also a little more research into your target group, because you always need to find out what is my target group in volunteers. So if you're not working with our examples exactly, you should probably feel a little how how um your target group really feels about the motives, the time, and everything. Um but you could design the ads specifically for your target group and then maybe put it only on the walls in the specific department of the university, just imagining like where the ad could go. So I think that's it's a really, really practical subject that we that we did here.

SPEAKER_01 14:26

Yeah, absolutely. And and I guess the bigger question there, which which is also relevant to the this whole kind of Urnot Research Notes series, then is that there's a clear sense in which your work has relevance to practitioners, but also you know is based on on kind of data and knowledge from uh practice as well. Um how what's your kind of experience of those links? Do you think currently that academia around philanthropy does link up well with practice, or do you think you know actually often there's the those linkages could be strengthened in in various ways?

SPEAKER_04 15:00

I feel like they could definitely be strengthened. Um, because I think that our research was like really practical and it was sometimes a bit hard not to be so practical, but to be more academic about it. So I feel like academia needs to be a little bit more open about very practical research. And I would also love for academia to uh be open for practitioners to give input for what they really need and what they really want. But and of course the other way around for a practitioner is to be more open about uh what academia can offer.

SPEAKER_01 15:39

Yeah, absolutely. And and hopefully the the Earn OP series kind of helps with that. But I yeah, I agree. I think there's there's still plenty more work to do. Um and then just finally, I guess, because again, I find a lot of the times I'm speaking to people, the work I'm talking to them about is from a few years ago. Um I'm always sort of interested to know where people have gone since, so what they're working on now, whether they're kind of still working on the same areas or whether they've got other interests.

SPEAKER_04 16:04

Yeah, I'm really trying to put uh academia into practice. So uh I decided to uh leave academia after I finished my PhD in the beginning of the year. Uh and I'm now working with the SS Children's Villages in Munich.

SPEAKER_01 16:20

Okay. And does that do you kind of using your academic uh skills in that? Is it a research-based role?

SPEAKER_04 16:26

No, it's not really a research-based role, but I think that I can use a lot of my research background and put it um yeah, really into practice in helping the organization go forward. And of course, I also learn a lot from from the organization that I would love to go back to in into academia with. Um, yeah, so my my role is not really research-based, but I think that um SOS Kinolfa is really, really open to also include research and is um yeah, really putting it into practice.

SPEAKER_01 17:01

Well, yeah, best of luck with that. And as you say, you know, maybe at some point in the future you'll be able to take what you learned from that and kind of feed it back into academia. Um just remain to say thanks ever so much, Ria, for finding time to come on the podcast. Really great to talk to you. I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find the paper and the research notes, and all the best for the future.

SPEAKER_04 17:21

Thank you, you too.

SPEAKER_01 17:33

Okay, next we're gonna hear from Georg von Schnurbein.

SPEAKER_00 17:37

Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Georg von Schnurbein. Hi there. Hello.

SPEAKER_02 17:41

Hi, Rodri.

SPEAKER_01 17:42

Yeah, good to have you back on the on the podcast, actually, a returning guest for one of these Ernop uh Philanthropisms collaboration episodes, um to talk about a different paper this time. So um the paper this time, a really interesting one, really kind of timely topic, I think, uh, is called All Good Things Come to an End: Emerging Strategic Patterns of Sunset Foundations. Um, so the name probably gives people a clue what this one's about. Um, but maybe you could uh just tell us a bit about the background to the paper, what the focus is, and what some of the key findings are.

SPEAKER_02 18:13

Yeah, actually it's it's quite an interesting story because it's uh one of the few examples where we really got uh um influenced by practice and then took it into research and uh and uh learned from practice and then tried to also um develop a theoretical foundation for it. So um the initial cause for this paper was the the case of the MAVA foundation, um probably some might have heard of uh a foundation that had existed for 30 years, um, but um already the founder at its uh establishment had decided that it should not exist longer than 30 years. So at some point the foundation realized that they have to that they have to finish. And so they started to thinking, what can they do and how does this how do you end a foundation in a good manner? And they really wanted to make a difference in a way that they not just closing their doors, but uh that they create a legacy that goes beyond the existence of the foundation. And uh we were fortunate to participate in this in this final phase of the foundation, and so we thought, well, um perhaps there are other cases and uh perhaps we can find some general patterns and also help other foundations that are probably going into this phase to um to think about some issues more on the on the internal parts out also on what to do as a foundation in order to make a good sunset.

SPEAKER_01 19:42

Yeah, absolutely. And and in terms of the foundations, because you you looked at a sample of foundations, are we talking about those where the decision to to sunset or to kind of spend out or to finish at some point in time had already been taken, either at the outset of the foundation, as in the case that you mentioned there, or at some point in the past there was a switch from existing in perpetuity through to deciding to spend down. And then what we're talking about is what happens when you get to the point where you actually have to do something about that and think about the practicalities of it.

SPEAKER_02 20:14

So, in fact, there were three different kinds, so to say. So the we had some that already um were finished and had closed, and so this was all based on uh on existing documentation, but uh we also tried then to connect with the former representatives and uh did interviews with those if possible. Then we had um some which are actually in the situation of closing down, so there we really could ask. So, what are you doing now? What's what is the problem? So where do you uh what do you learn or what do you envision? And we had a few examples of foundations that will close in the future. So they already know that they will close, um, but they were not yet in in the phase or in the starting point of this of this final sunset phase. So um so there were quite some different perspectives in it, and that was interesting to see as well. Um, but it was also interesting to see how difficult, for example, it is if a foundation is closed to really find someone who is still talking about it.

SPEAKER_01 21:18

Yeah. Yeah, I guess that that's it. Almost once they don't exist and have that legal or organizational identity anymore, what what is actually left of them, which I always think is, I mean, we'll come to this in a bit, in terms of how common uh limited life foundations have been throughout history. Sometimes I wonder whether actually because they disappeared and didn't leave much of a record, we sort of assume that there are fewer of them than there actually were, um, and we remember the foundations that are that are still around. Um I I wanted to ask actually whether you sort of looked, you know, there's those organizations that are at those different stages of taking that decision or having taken it. Did you get a sense of what some of the different factors that drive the decision? to uh either to kind of start out with a limited life or to shift towards that kind of model what those what those kinds of drivers were.

SPEAKER_02 22:08

Yeah so we differentiate between uh external and internal causes so the external causes are often are something that that hits the foundation from outside and then they they come to a conclusion that oh perhaps sunsetting is is something that makes sense for us. And these are examples are um economic problems. I mean you you were talking about the the foundations that probably vanish and nobody talks about I mean in fact most foundations at least in Switzerland are somehow sunsetting because they only keep their nominal original funds and through inflation it it loses value. So it sooner or later this this foundation disappears and and we have done other analysis on Swiss foundations and the ones that were deleted in the past uh 20 years we couldn't go beyond no in the past 10 years so we we couldn't go beyond that they lived on average 17 years. So so the the eternal foundation is a total cliche but but uh so economic causes are often uh a reason so we had foundations for example during the subprime crisis in the US that realized okay um in this situation it doesn't make sense to to go on so now so rather we we do now something we help people at the moment and then uh we we are closing um something else is our our urgent uh societal problems so there's uh in the subprime crisis this was a mixture so there were economic consequences due to the um financial market uh crisis but also that they saw that people were in need now and so they decided okay we have to do something now and not we should not just wait and keep on going like we ever did. And finally uh a third reason is the death of the founder. Often founders um I think the most prominent example is is now Bill Gates who also I think they always had this limitation that uh the foundation exists 20 years past his disease. So so um the death of the founder is often also a reason why uh a sunset phase is initiated.

SPEAKER_01 24:18

Yeah so yeah I mean that feels right that there are all of these different decisions. I think that distinction between internal and external because there is some of it that is kind of definitely from the outside and others that's driven by kind of factors that are to do with the organization itself.

SPEAKER_02 24:31

Sorry you had you were going to go on yeah the internal factors that that is that we had cases where there was really a strategy assessment so that uh the board um looked at the foundation and they realized well um in in the setting we are in the the size we have and so on why shouldn't we do a uh a spend down so we have one case um from switzerland where the the board the foundation was set up as an as an foundation on eternity but the foundation board came to the conclusion that um in the best sense of the founder it's probably better to increase donations now and this was without external pressure uh it was just um that they thought that that's better now and they decided to become a uh a sunset foundation um or um yeah sometimes it's also that uh that there is a next generation coming in and they probably are not so much at ease with the existing cause so that probably was something interesting for their parents but not for them and so they are looking of how to probably finish this foundation in order to create something that is more uh following their own interests and um this depends a lot on the on the legal uh situation if you can do something like that and probably that's also something that it has to be mentioned that um our cases that we found were from uh the US from Ireland UK and Switzerland because in many other countries like Germany or um or France it's not so easy to to um close a foundation so it cannot be done deliberately um in in the same way and that's where there probably a limitation is for in many countries uh that the law is not allowing this kind of sunset.

SPEAKER_01 26:20

That's really interesting. So in those cases you you you could close but only almost if it's sort of a natural end result of the assets running out anyway in some sense or yes yes it's very so for example Germany I know quite well um there it's nearly impossible. Right.

SPEAKER_02 26:37

So you rather stay a foundation with only 10,000 euros in your assets uh than being uh closed.

SPEAKER_01 26:46

Oh that's fascinating I didn't I wasn't actually aware of that and I guess from a kind of global point of view if there is something of a shift towards you know seeing limited life uh as the more as a kind of preferable norm for foundations if that's actually practically very difficult in some case in some countries that's really interesting to note. I guess the the other bit of it is that that's sort of the factors that drive the decision to to close down and then the the question of well how do you actually go about that so what did you find in terms of the the strategies or the strategic approaches that that organizations are actually taking to that process?

SPEAKER_02 27:20

Yeah we we differentiated in again in two different logics so to say one was uh a needs assessment so that the foundation looked into their fields of activity thought okay where can we still make a difference or where can we do something with the money with the time left and the other approach was was more a resource focused approach so you look into your bank account and you see okay there is a million left and then you think okay what can I do with this million so these are often they are somehow combined or intertwined but but there was more like that's why we called it a dominant logic so rather you you were looking at the needs of the uh beneficiaries or uh more on your resources that were still available.

SPEAKER_01 28:06

Yeah and it's maybe hard to say with the sample available did you get any sense of whether the decision to spend down tends to result in more money going to existing grantees or the kind of existing cause area of the organizer of the funder or whether actually having taken that decision they then look to do something different or to kind of be more focused in what they're doing.

SPEAKER_02 28:31

Well this depends a little bit on on the combination of the two things we were discussing now.

SPEAKER_01 28:36

So if uh what is the dominant logic and on the other hand what are the causes and uh so we we got a um two by two matrix and um if they if they are more focused based on need assessment then in tendency I would say uh they are open to to also look for new um beneficiaries and to really think about where um can we make a difference or where is this money put in a better way um if it's more resource based then it's rather more okay we spend it out in in a way that it's uh uh equal upon all all our beneficiaries or that we that we find a good end with them something like that so there's um it depends a little bit really on the on the so on the personal perspective uh of the of the board members but also um on your understanding of what you can do as in this in this final phase and what we are kind of uh um pointing out in a way is that that uh it it would be better to to go for this more need assessment approach yeah absolutely and i i just wanted to come back to that the I touched on it before but that's sort of bigger picture question what's your sense of whether there is something genuinely happening in terms of a shift towards the idea of kind of limited life foundations and whether that's driven by you know the shift towards the next gen of philanthropists or something else or is it just that we're kind of paying more attention to it now but it's always been there I think it there is a shift definitely uh and this has to do with uh the situation of our society that um uh many things are just at the moment not working well and so there is a need to to spend out more now and not to wait uh until it's getting better again. So that sort of sense of urgency that's driving. Exactly I think this is this is really very uh very common or prevalent at the moment um and also I think in a way the the idea that uh foundations created now are for the society now we don't preserve the money of the foundations for the next generations they they can create their own uh foundations and I think this is this is probably less European and more American in a way in an understanding so here we we still believe in dynasties and in the in the US they don't and they really have more much more this idea of well um what you have you spend now and and the next generation can uh again has the opportunity to to build the fortune and I think this is kind of being taken over or adopted now in probably in a in a kind of European way but um but uh generally there is more talk about and more um uh thinking about uh uh a shorter lifespan it's not necessarily that it has to be a spend down or a sunset it can also be that you um go into more direct giving like uh uh in giving circles donor advised funds uh all these kinds of of new instruments are uh more or less an alternative to the Eternal Foundation yeah absolutely and I think this this paper is you know it's really interesting because this is an area to say where there's um a growing amount of focus but actually putting a bit of structure around well what does it you know what are the the the different factors that can be driving the decision and how can you go about kind of implementing that decision I think it's really interesting to see that.

SPEAKER_02 32:15

What's your sense of you know what we still need to know if you were kind of continuing this research and you may well be doing that um kind of what what are the next things that we we sort of um don't know at the moment that would be useful to know in this area well in this paper we were um trying to gasp grasp a little bit the the the more the the managerial aspects of the sunset phase so what do you have to take care about uh if you want to create a a sunset phase that is going beyond just closing the foundation and and this I I think you could enlarge in in more um in a better understanding of strategic perspectives on it uh connecting it to more also impact related um understanding uh so and probably then also go on into a um long-term analysis uh because now what we realize is that most of these foundations they they close with some kind of legacy web page and and this is a very static uh um final so um and I think here thinking about what can you do in order to to uh go beyond your own lifespan and um have something that is going on continuing um that would be interesting to to find different solutions and and options for these kind of foundations because I believe there will be more of these kind of foundations in the future.

SPEAKER_01 33:44

Yeah I think that's that's certainly seems to be the case.

SPEAKER_02 33:47

And sort of as well as as this work and what are the other things that are kind of occupying your interest at the moment because I know you're always working on all kinds of different things to do with blunt basically actually one uh thing that is um very very Swiss perspective now um uh here we had a lot of talk recently about um different sorts of social impact investing so um especially for foundations and here we we are currently working on a set of uh case studies in order to present uh ways of how foundations can do um this kind of social impact investing so be it uh on a market rate or below market rate or as a donation um because I have the feeling that um there's a lot of talking about it but uh a lot of unsecurity how to do it um because uh here often the the legal setting is very important uh so you cannot just transfer from the UK or from the US uh models uh because the the legal setting is probably different and uh and this hinders foundations to to move on and so my idea is that we create case studies that show how foundations in Switzerland are doing this uh also showing the probably the the pitfalls and the challenges but also how they dealt for example with legal authorities and by this helping foundations to take the first step.

SPEAKER_01 35:16

Yeah yeah that sounds really useful um and and in a way I guess it just sort of strikes me as a final thought that it's kind of not unrelated to the question of spend down as well because it always sort of strikes me that the the question of whether foundations are spending down is tied to the question of you know at what rate they're paying out but it's also related to the question of how they're using their endowed assets. So actually they're separate topics but they're definitely linked. So no they are definitely they are linked because um if you manage to do more impact investing you are uh accelerating the the impact of your assets in also um in great well thanks ever so much Georg for coming on the podcast it's great to have a chance to hear about this big work and uh I would guess this won't be the last time that we'll hear from you given it well thank you for the invitation it's a pleasure as usual and thank you for your work okay and now in the final section we're gonna hear from Tina De Bock and Tina Fazer. Okay great well I'm here with Tina Fazer and Tina De Bock. Hi to both of you. Hi there. Hi great to have you on the podcast and and so yeah the paper that we're talking about that has been turned into one of the uh most recent uh Earn up research notes is called Fundraising Ethics Towards an in-depth understanding of individual donors' perceptions which um I read in detail it's really really fascinating I think kind of loads in there to dig into um so maybe the best place to start is just for you to tell everyone what the research is all about and what some of the key findings in this paper are.

SPEAKER_05 36:51

Okay thank you well well actually the the idea for this paper um really came from noticing a gap in how people talk about fundraising ethics. Most of the debates whether that's in practice or in academia is actually shaped by by fundraisers themselves or by the codes of conduct written for them. So in a lot of conversations we had with fundraisers we we notice that they do reflect on what it means to raise funds ethically how to treat donors in an ethical way but it's mostly those beliefs so their beliefs that translate into ethical guidelines and that actually allow them to say that they're being donor-centric. So a little bit in a nutshell you could say that a lot of the codes of conduct are developed by and for fundraisers and what is really missing in this debate is the fact that we don't really understand how donors think about fundraising ethics. And by means of this paper we really wanted to kind of bring their voice to the table and bring their voice into the discussion on fundraising ethics and that that's a little bit about the background of this this particular project.

SPEAKER_06 38:02

Yes and let me uh give you some key findings of our uh project so we conducted uh 52 in-depth interviews with individual donors and what we found is that their judgments about what counts as ethical or unethical fundraising are really shaped by seven main drivers and let me very briefly go over these seven uh drivers the first driver is authenticity donors wantraising fundraisers to be uh true to their mission and to the identity of their organization as a nonprofit organization so if fundraisers or if fundraising feels uh too commercial or too money driven or when the fundraiser does not come across as sincere or as sincerely involved with the cause they quickly perceive it as inauthentic and therefore unethical a second driver is honesty people expect fundraisers to tell the truth and to do so in an honest way without for example too much exaggeration or telling half truths fundraisers should not make promises that they cannot live up to and they should always walk their talk then a third driver is effectiveness. Many donors want fundraisers to use those techniques that bring in the most money and they want to feel that their gift has real impact. So if donors perceive that their money doesn't seem to solve problems or make a difference they consider that as unethical and it's not just about impacts it's also about efficiency about using resources wisely and about a good return on investment. So donors really dislike seeing waste like expensive mailings gifts or unnecessary overheads when cheaper options could also work just as well then a fifth driver is accountability. So transparency really matters to donors donors want clear and accessible information about what the organization is about how funds are raised how they are spent and what impact is achieved with their funds. Then we go to the sixth driver freedom of choice donors want to give on their own terms so they want to decide whether when how and how much they donate if they feel pressured or manipulated or when they are not given enough opportunities to make a well considered decision they see that as crossing a line an ethical line and then finally we have respect respect is also central to donors and it's not just about respect for the donors it's also about respect for beneficiaries for staff and even the environment so here privacy is for example very important but also donors don't want to be treated as cash machines they don't want beneficiaries to be portrayed in degrading or exploitative ways and fundraisers should not be exploited neither so we found that these seven factors really drive donors ethical judgment of fundraising practices.

SPEAKER_01 41:34

Yeah it's really fascinating I think really kind of breaks it down it's just um there's a couple of I mean there's loads of things I I would like to pick up on but there's just a couple I thought would be really interesting to pick out one one when I was reading the paper I was really struck that you note a few times that the relationship between trust which often gets talked about in in the context of fundraising and and the work of nonprofits and this idea of sort of what an ethical approach to fundraising is is is quite complex. And I I wondered what your sense was of what that relationship looks like. Is it that you know ethical fundraising leads to greater trust as we're sometimes told or is it you know that organizations make trust the goal when they're deciding how they want to fundraise or is I I note in one place in the paper that I thought was fascinating you you mentioned that in some cases where a donor has a greater degree of trust in an organization they might actually allow them more latitude to do things that are less ethical in a way because they already have that degree of trust maybe you could say just a bit more about how we should think about that relationship between trust and fundraising ethics yeah I think uh when we when we when we um asked about the relation between trust and ethics it's it's all three things that you mentioned for some it's really that um the idea that when they trust an organization an organization can really do a lot and they will not easily cross an ethical line for these kind of donors because these donors have made their decision this is the the organization I donate to I trust them so they can do whatever they want with my money.

SPEAKER_06 43:14

On the other hand there are also donors that uh that mention that whenever uh something happens um that they don't like it will harm their trust in the organization.

SPEAKER_05 43:29

So trust can be seen as an antecedent of uh ethical or unethical uh fundraising uh perceptions but it can also be the consequence uh or it can also be influenced by unethical behavior for example if I can add to that I I think we really need more empirical research on this that really taps into the relationship between ethics and trust especially in the longer run uh because of course trust is something that you build over time and an ethical breach is not something that necessarily happens Um, all at once. So I think we really, really need more empirical research on this because there are a lot of claims, but we actually don't know right now. And I think it's it's really fascinating topic.

SPEAKER_01 44:11

Yeah, I absolutely agree. I think it is really interesting and and would definitely benefit from more research. And one of the other things that I wanted to ask about, I was struck that in some of the cases, for instance, where we're talking about perceptions of uh efficiency or effectiveness as being part of the way that donors think about um ethical approaches to fundraising? Um, is there a particular challenge there? Because sometimes donor expectations or views, for instance, that organizations should seek to minimize the amount that they're spending on fundraising, actually sort of comes into conflict with the reality of what's required to do fundraising well. And in those cases, should the response of fundraisers be to accept that that is how donors think and try to accommodate it, or should they seek to educate them in some way? And is that actually something that you can do effectively?

SPEAKER_05 45:04

I think that's a really, really interesting question. Um, and we also talk about it a little bit in our paper because there is of course the claim that we don't want to make by means of this paper is that the donor is always right. The claim that we want to make is if you have the idea of you want to be more donor-centric, then of course you need to understand the donor. You cannot claim to be donor-centric without investigating them. But we definitely don't want to claim like the donor is always right. And what we tackle in our paper is that there is to some extent um information symmetry. Um, of course, donors sometimes uh say, well, there should not be overhead at all in an ideal world, but that's of course not how the cookie crumbles. Um, so and that is something that we really want to investigate in more depth. What if we take away the information symmetry? I, of course, I don't know how we have to do that, but will that change the ethical beliefs? Um, will that turn it around? And will donors look differently at efficiency and effectiveness? Because of course we don't want nonprofits to end up in the in a kind of starvation cycle where they keep on decreasing uh overhead because of course then they can no longer scale. Um so I think that's that's a good question. I don't have a final answer to this, but I think it will definitely trigger a lot of uh a lot of debate.

SPEAKER_06 46:15

Yeah, to give one example, uh many donors mentioned that they would like to see that all fundraising uh happens or is done by by volunteers, but of course that's not how it works. Um uh, for example, face-to-face fundraising is something that donors would really like to be done by by uh volunteers, but that's not how it works in reality. So donors are often very idealistic in how they look at fundraising uh costs and and practices. Uh so education is here, I think, a very important uh thing, communication, uh being honest about certain costs and explain donors why these costs are necessary for the organization indeed to survive and to grow.

SPEAKER_01 47:05

And I just wanted to ask, because you mentioned in the paper, um what your what your hope is in terms of some of the practical insights that that people working in nonprofits or fundraising can take from the paper. I mean, what what does the paper have to tell them about how they should be thinking about doing their fundraising?

SPEAKER_05 47:22

Yeah, I think unfortunately there is not a list like this is what you can do and this is what you cannot do, because of course there is not something like the donor. I think what we try to do with this paper is, and I think it's also interesting for the for the listener or good to know, is that we also developed a checklist. And for each and every driver and subdriver, we developed questions that can really spark the debate. Um, so questions that represent the seven drivers or dimensions that are driving donors' ethical beliefs. I think that's an important uh takeaway, but of course it's it's complex because the same fundraising practice can be judged very differently depending on which of the drivers applies. For instance, let me give you an example. If you think about chucking images, some donors might think of it as okay since it brings in the most money, and that's effectiveness, while other donors say, well, I don't like it, it's disrespectful with respect to the beneficiaries. So this really shows the complexity nonprofits are dealing with. And what we try to do is by means of the study spark the debate, inspire the debate. And I think, or I hope that we can do that by means of the checklist. And it's also part of that paper with a lot of questions that you can use when you develop fund tracing practices, when you implement them, when you evaluate them, when you monitor them. So hopefully that uh pushes the debate a little bit.

SPEAKER_01 48:41

Yeah, absolutely. And I think just getting some of those, giving some structure to those thoughts and getting those conversations going is really uh valuable. And I just finally wanted to ask you, because obviously the backdrop to this podcast series is the Earnop research notes, and part of their aim is to try and foster better links between academics and practitioners around philanthropy. What's your experience so far of trying to connect academia and practice? Um, have you found it uh kind of uh easy enough to work with practitioners, both in terms of finding information for your research and disseminating the findings, or are there still challenges there?

SPEAKER_06 49:18

Uh I think for us as researchers, it's it's extremely important uh to conduct research that is relevant for practice. So for us, it's a starting point. We we will not uh conduct research when we have not discussed it uh with practitioners, um, or when when we are not sure that what we do is relevant or will provide relevant insights for practitioners. Um so we had a lot of uh conversations with fundraisers but also with donors or other stakeholders. Um for us, yeah, we have uh build up kind of new network. Um for now mainly a Belgian network, because we are from Belgium. Uh but we do join uh practitioner conferences, for example, where we can talk a lot with uh with practitioners and when we hear a lot of uh stories uh and challenges uh that inspires our our research. Um yeah, we really, really believe that that researchers and practitioners can mutually strengthen uh and complement each other. For example, one thing that we often notice in our conversations is that practitioners have often uh have to work under time pressure, they have limited resources, and therefore we notice that decisions are often made very intuitively. So there we really think that um our insights that we that we give them through our research are really uh helpful for them to make more thoughtful and well-founded uh decisions.

SPEAKER_05 50:54

Yeah, and if I can add to that, on the other hand, um as researchers, we also sometimes lack uh a clear understanding of how fundraising is is implemented in practice and and of all the contextual factors that are at play. So, and and of course, practitioners also have access to a wealth of data that is, of course, enormously valuable for our research. So, actually working with real donation data, for instance, allows us to go beyond surveys, to go beyond experiments that often ask about um donors' intentions.

SPEAKER_06 51:26

Um and and yeah, that's the reason why we really war warmly welcome all kinds of initiatives um like the Earn-Up conference, uh like practitioner conferences, where we are also welcome as researchers, where practitioners and researchers can come together to discuss relevant issues in the in the domain of fundraising and the broader domain of philanthropy.

SPEAKER_01 51:49

Yeah, absolutely. It's certainly room for a lot more, but some some great initiatives already happening. Um just remains to say thanks ever too much uh to both of you for finding time to come on the podcast. Great to hear about this paper. Um, I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find the research note and the paper itself, which I'd highly recommend reading. There's lots of really fascinating stuff in there. Um and I wish you all the best with all of your work in the future.

SPEAKER_06 52:12

Thank you very much. Thank you so much.

SPEAKER_01 52:24

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Maria, to Georg, and to Tina and Tina uh for coming on the podcast. Really interesting to hear about all of those bits of research. Um, as ever, I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can find the papers in question and also the Urnaut research notes that relate to them. Um I'll also put links in the show notes to places where you can find a bit more information about anything that you might find interesting and relevant. If you're interested in thoughts and writings about philanthropy and civil society, do check out the website at why philanthropymatters.com. You can find lots of articles, news updates, short guides to all kinds of topics there, as well as all of the back issues of this podcast. If you want to follow me on social media, you can do that at LinkedIn at the moment, currently, and a little bit on Blue Sky. And also you could sign up for my newsletter if you want. You can find details on the Why Philanthropy Matters website, and I do a kind of once-a-month roundup of interesting stories from around the world that are related to philanthropy in some way and all sorts of other interesting nuggets that I come across in my uh in my studies. Um, so yeah, do check that out. Um, and other than that, it just remains to say like, subscribe, please do follow the podcast. If you've got time, uh leave us a nice review wherever you get your podcasts, because that really helps bump us up the ratings. And I will see you next time. Okay, bye.