Advocacy and campaigning: Can charities hold their nerve in a hostile environment? 

There’s no doubt it’s going to be another challenging year. More people are in need of our help and our services are at risk of being overwhelmed.  

The public contracts many of us rely on are shrinking as government spending cuts force more local councils towards bankruptcy. There’s increased pressure on household budgets which continues to impact on charitable giving, and volunteer levels are in decline. 

As we fight for our own survival, our independence is also under threat. Increased competition for grants and contracts is shackling our freedom of speech and action. And with the culture war weaponising public debate and increasing scrutiny on the sector, it’s no wonder many charities are choosing to reject our long established role of advocacy, campaigning and holding the government to account. 

The culture war 

Charities have a legitimate role in public debate. But with hostile ‘culture wars’ raging over so-called woke issues such as race, immigration and the climate crisis, more of us are becoming wary of speaking out. 

The language of culture wars was first popularised by the sociologist James Davison Hunter in the early 1990s. It describes a sense of conflict between views on what is “fundamentally right and wrong about the world we live in.” 

No issue is safe from being considered contentious or divisive and a number of charities have found themselves on the frontline of the debate. 

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) was accused of straying into politics after tweeting in response to a government proposal to amend the habitat regulations. Its social media post – which called Rishi Sunak and two other ministers ‘liars’ – led to an outcry with Conservative MPs calling for the RSPB to be stripped of its charitable status. 

The National Trust also faced attacks for its report about the slave trade links of some of its historical properties. The charity was accused of focusing on issues outside of its mission, and it was investigated by the Charity Commission for breaching charity laws.

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations identifies culture war as one of the trends likely to impact charities’ future. In its latest Road Ahead Report it says the voluntary sector should not shy away from raising our voices, but urges caution: ‘Consider the potential risks of engaging in campaign or advocacy work – particularly where an issue may be likely to cause disagreement’.  

The Charity Commission has made it clear that campaigning is a legitimate activity for charities as long as we operate within the legal framework. But in these difficult times, is getting out of step with key stakeholders a risk we’re prepared to take? 

The future of trust  

While the UK public tend to agree that charities should be able to campaign for social change, many disagree with this. The Charity Commission’s annual research on public trust in charities found that 30% of participants were dubious about charities having a role in campaigning for social change, questioning how it relates to their remit. 

The UK faces particular challenges in terms of trust. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, which is one of the world’s largest surveys of institutional trust, reveals that Britain is among the least trusting of all 28 countries surveyed, tied with Argentina and Japan.  

Overall trust in NGOs or non-profit organisations (47%) is higher than trust in government (30%) which has fallen to its lowest since 2012. But business remains the most trusted institution for the fourth year running. People have more faith in businesses than they do in NGOs, government or the media. 

The civic society alliance CIVICUS attributes the ‘explosion of disinformation’ from anti-rights groups who oppose social justice and human rights as most likely contributing to the decline in trust in NGOs. 

High profile cases including the 2018 Oxfam sexual exploitation scandal have also played a part, rightly prompting calls for greater accountability from big international NGOs.  

Rebuilding broken trust in charities will take time, but it can be done – by proving our value and communicating in ways that truly resonate with our audiences. And that means finding the courage to speak out. 

Speaking truth to power 

Charities rely on the integrity of our messages to make an impact. Our data, evidence and insight can raise awareness, influence decision-making and help drive change.  

But if we take on public sector services, we enter a territory ruled by contract law, where speaking out can lead to retribution from funders.  

There can be pressure to keep our information or observations private even when those insights might help improve the experiences of local communities and individuals, and inform wider public policy. 

In 2019, councils were accused of hiding the scale of the homelessness crisis by changing the way they compiled rough sleeper figures. They said they were advised to do so by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government after receiving extra funding through the government’s rough sleeping initiative. 

In 2018, a number of charities were identified as being ‘gagged’ by a £380 million contract to deliver probation services in the Midlands. An article in The Times said the charities had not issued any statements on the probation crisis after being forced to agree that they must not “attract adverse publicity” to Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary at the time. 

The government denied that the contracts were attempting to stifle debate and said it would consider ways of clarifying future contracts and grant agreements. 

But last year, Citizens Advice came under fire for signing a £21 million contract which included a clause that prevented it bringing the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) unfairly into disrepute. 

Disabled activists described it as tragedy for claimants, saying the clause will muffle the charity and its ability to “confront and challenge the government’s policies that make life unbearable for so many.” 

With almost a third of all voluntary sector income coming from the government, charities are embedded in public service delivery. But Paul Streets, the chief executive of the Lloyds Bank Foundation, says we’ve become too dependent. “We’re so in league with the state that actually we’re unable to call it to account.” 

Getting into bed with business 

It’s not just government contracts that can threaten our independence. Corporate sponsors and commercial partners might boost our finances and our profile, but an unsuccessful relationship where stakeholders perceive the charity to have ‘sold out’ can seriously damage our income and profile. 

The Science Museum was widely criticised for its decision to accept sponsorship from Shell International and Norweigan oil and gas company Equinor. It signed a ‘non-disparagement’ clause, agreeing to take care not to say anything that could damage either firm’s reputation.  

Despite its assurance that it retains editorial control of all content within its exhibitions and galleries, the museum was accused of ‘greenwashing’ by environmental groups, and losing its credibility as a scientific institution. 

The issue of ethics in sponsorship is a challenging one, but support from business is growing in importance. The C&E Corporate-Non-Profit Partnerships Barometer which offers insight into corporate-non profit partnerships found that 86% of corporates and 84% of non-profits believe that partnerships will become more, or much more, important over the next three years. 

Being a critical friend 

It’s not surprising charities feel conflicted. Financial pressures are growing, the operating environment feels increasingly complex and hostile, and the relationships we depend on to keep our services going are restricting our ability to advocate and campaign. 

But it is possible to stay true to our purpose, to challenge our funders to do better – and have open public conversations – without risking funding or our integrity. 

It’s about being a ‘critical friend’. The term, introduced by Andrew Hutchinson in 1998, is defined as ‘a trusted person who asks provocative questions and provides an alternate lens’.  

As critical friends we can provide value through constructive challenge and support decision-makers to do their work better. Together, we can amplify the voice and concerns of the people and communities we stand for, and create a bigger impact. 

Anti-Slavery International has acted as fashion giant ASOS’ ‘critical friend’ since 2017, providing advice, guidance and critique on ethical trade and tackling modern slavery. Together, they are using best practice and learnings from the partnership to push for a fairer, more sustainable fashion industry that no longer relies on forced labour.  

According to one corporate foundation, success like this relies on a shift towards a more balanced, trusting relationship.  

“We recognise that where one party holds greater financial power it can make open conversations particularly difficult,” says Lauren O’Shaughnessy, global director of impact at the Macquarie Group Foundation.  

That’s why the Foundation commits to multi-year partnerships, so people on both sides of the relationship get to know each other over a period of time. 

Like the award-winning partnership between Tesco, Cancer Research UK, British Heart Foundation, and Diabetes UK which has been helping to tackle some of the UK’s biggest health challenges for the past 10 years. 

Tesco knows it can’t afford to pursue profit without consideration for people and the planet. It has drawn on the charities’ health expertise and taken their advice, even reformulating some of its products including reducing sugar in its own brand soft drinks. 

Banking giant HSBC is also working with charities to make a more meaningful impact. As part of a multi-year partnership with Shelter, it’s helping people to break the vicious cycle of homelessness by providing better access to banking for people with no fixed address. 

Shelter is a great example of how to get critical friendship right. In its strategic plan 2022-25, the charity proudly references the activism at its heart and its ‘bold, determined spirit’. Many of its services are funded by the state, but the charity never shrinks away from speaking out and holding the government to account. 

But as a critical friend it also uses its research, experience and evidence to prompt fresh insights into the housing emergency and the action that’s needed to end it. Its ambition to secure political commitment to social housing has been achieved in Scotland, and the charity has pledged to build partnerships with businesses, opinion-formers and funders to show the UK government that building the new homes we need is possible. 

Critical friendship is not about opposition for opposition’s sake. It’s about applying what we know – our expertise and experience – and offering support and advice to encourage decision-makers to do better. 

The landscape will continue to shift around us, so charities must be brave and remind ourselves that at a time of division and uncertainty, we have what’s needed to tackle problems, grasp opportunities and bring people and communities together. 

Rachel reflects on her studies for the CIPR Professional PR Diploma

What do you see as the key benefits of having the PR Diploma qualification?

I’ve worked in communications for charities and non- profit organisations for years and have lots of experience, but no formal qualifications. The course has helped me build my professional skills and knowledge and given me more confidence to provide strategic guidance at a senior level.

What has been your favourite part of the CIPR Professional PR Diploma course so far?

I’ve found the course challenging, especially on top of a full-time job. It’s hard! I’ve most enjoyed writing this thought leadership article, presenting my argument and supporting it with research. It was helpful to reflect on the process and on my existing ideas and assumptions, but also to think about my preferred learning style and how I can adapt it to improve my learning experience.

Have you been able to apply any of the learning, and if so, how?

Like many busy PR managers, I can rely too heavily on instinct and experience, rushing onto tactics without taking the time to fully understand the problem. By applying the learning from the assignment on PR strategy and planning to my own work, I’ve changed the way I approach comms projects. I’m still able to think creatively about solutions whilst always keeping the business goals in mind.

Read our complete guide to CIPR Qualifications