Editor’s Note: The below submission has been edited to ensure anonymity.

---

Dear Ethicist,

What are the ethics of having a 100% participation goal for an internal fundraising staff giving campaign? Should staff feel obligated to give? Are they a bad team player if they don’t? Is a 100% goal a strategic way to encourage staff giving or an unethical practice that creates undue pressure, even in a positive work culture? 

Sincerely,

100% Confused

 

Dear 100% Confused,

Your concerns are totally valid. Let’s look at the question in two parts: we’ll start with the ethical implications, then get into some suggestions of ways you can advocate for yourself and your colleagues while establishing reachable participation goals. 

Ethical Implications

There are many reasons this approach is unethical. Even if leadership says participation is voluntary, setting a 100% staff giving goal can create pressure and raise ethical issues, especially in today’s economic climate. Here’s why:

• Staff already contribute beyond their salaries. Most nonprofit employees give to their organizations every day — through their time, expertise, in-kind contributions and, crucially, often below-market wages. Expecting them to donate financially overlooks these contributions. 

• Privacy concerns and culture impact. Employees with access to donor databases may see who gives and how much, which means even anonymous gifts aren’t private. 

• Culture impact. This visibility can also risk damaging workplace morale if gift amounts are compared — especially if staff are being asked to report on it. How would an hourly employee feel knowing they donated more than the CEO?

• Fear of repercussions. Even if giving is technically optional, employees may worry that not donating could affect their job security or career advancement. 

• Undue financial burden. Not all employees can afford to give, and some may have financial constraints they don’t feel safe disclosing. These expectations disproportionately impact staff in marginalized communities. 

• A nonprofit should not rely on staff donations as a financial management tool. If employee giving is needed to fill a budget gap, that raises deeper concerns about the organization’s financial stability and/or leadership’s fundraising practices.

Suggestions for Advocating to Leadership

The above concerns are valid, but we understand that the line between setting a goal and creating an implicit requirement isn’t always clear. Some development professionals believe that 100% staff giving is meaningful to donors, while others argue that employment at the organization itself demonstrates commitment to the mission.

If you’d like to encourage leadership to take a more ethical approach, here are some strategies to consider:

• Share the ethical concerns outlined above with leadership and donors, emphasizing that staff already contribute significantly through their work. 

• Offer other ways to show staff commitment like a staff testimonial campaign, or a staff impact report quantifying total hours contributed, in-kind contributions and expertise leveraged toward the mission. Consider the —  Five Ts: Time, Talent, Treasure, Ties and Testimony — to create an inclusive approach that doesn’t pressure employees to donate financially.

• Frame it as a culture-building opportunity, as recognizing all contributions boosts morale, strengthens trust and supports inclusion, equity and belonging.

• Point out that some staff won’t be able to give beyond their daily work. Work with them to find goals that will be even more meaningful because they’re unique to your team and your organization.

By shifting the focus from financial giving to holistic staff engagement, your organization can create a more ethical and supportive workplace culture.

100% Yours,

The Ethicist

This question was submitted anonymously to the Apra Ethics and Compliance Committee (ECC) inbox. If you’d like to ask a question, contact us at ethics@aprahome.org.