Ian Allsop talks to CAF's chief executive Stephen Ainger.

Using energy to make a difference was already a key component of Stephen Ainger's career before he joined the voluntary sector as CAF chief executive two years ago. He says that what interested him about his roles for BP, British Gas and the Lattice Group, was they were businesses operating at a significant level, trying to do deals in various countries, and had an impact upon people's lives. "It was very enjoyable� he muses, "but when I was approached about the CAF role it seemed a logical next step to take my business experience into the not-for-profit world."

He was aware of CAF and describes the opportunity as a great challenge and great honour. His previous exposure to the sector was as business adviser to Arts and Business, and with the Almeida Theatre.

He feels he has now settled into the role. "I don't get daily surprises, I understand the sector more, and feel we are making progress. We have refocused what we do, and how we communicate that." He says that CAF's new strapline "Committed to effective giving" is at the heart of what the organisation is about.

"CAF is about positioning giving as a part of everyday life, not just a one-off, and providing the financial services to enable that to happen. We measure our impact by increased giving by individuals and corporates, and by better returns and lower charges for charities through our bank."

He feels that there is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the sector now in terms of fostering a better giving culture in the UK. He points to a good tax system. "It might need tweaking a little bit at the margins, but is essentially steady as you go and yielding real benefit." He also highlights a record level of government funding and the fact that the UK is increasingly recognised as a sound financial home for international giving.

He says that the £250 million raisedafter the tsunami demonstrated that people will give. "If there is the emotional link to show people they can make a difference, giving can be as important as voting." However, he says that the level of giving is flat, communities continue to decline, and the rich aren't giving enough. "What are we going to do about it? It is time the sector stopped saying we need this and we need that, and started saying we�re going to do this and we're going to do that. It's about infrastructure, about encouraging giving, and getting people engaged in communities to make a difference. There is no simple answer, we can't say this and that is missing."

He recognises that sector has done a fantastic job in turning round a decline in individual giving, but it is still only at the levels of 12 years ago. "How do we engage people emotionally? How do we engage people to release the undoubted energy and passion that the public have to support the sector?"

He points out that the UK gives 0.9 per of GDP, compared to 2 per cent in the US. "We have got to ask ourselves, does the US give more because it has no social system, so 0.9 per cent is something we have to accept, or can it really go up?. I think it can go up. But how can we unlock that, particularly the better off in society, the 3.5 million higher rate tax payers. They have got to treat giving as a commodity product that they get something out of. There has to be a tipping point where the better off feel that there is a two way process, and they are not just doing it out of guilt, but as part of one's behaviour."

He sees the debate about how charities demonstrate impact as fundamentally crucial. "Yes it is difficult and hard to measure, but we have to do it. We spend over £7 billion of individuals' money every year and we owe it to them to demonstrate what we achieve in a measurable way in order to give them the confidence to give more."

He argues that it is critical to demonstrate what has happened to tsunami money. "No one is going to come and ask us, it is up to us as a sector to actually deliver and make sure we can demonstrate impact. Towards the end of the tsunami media coverage I felt that the sector was vulnerable in managing the perception on our impact."

He is unsure about what the long term effect of the tsunami appeals on donations generally will be and suggests that although £250 million is a small part of the £7.4 billion given annually in the UK, there is some evidence that some of the money is redirected giving. Encouragingly, he says that some CAF account holders have topped up their accounts, and some payroll givers have put in extra money.

He has some strong views on corporate social responsibility (CSR), something that BP was recognised as a pioneer in when he worked there. "I see a step change in CSR or certainly the potential for it. It's a theme moving up the corporate agenda. Ten years ago, it was seen as something you had to do, but not of strategic importance. Companies are realising its potential and the need to take it more seriously." He is adamant that this doesn't mean giving more money, but looking at ways of working with communities and employees to mutual benefit. "Why should a business be forced to give a certain amount? They are there to create healthy business. However, companies need to differentiate themselves, and getting an emotional attachment to their products might be achieved through a more enlightened CSR agenda."

Another area where companies can make a difference is in payroll giving. "They like it because it is cause neutral. I feel payroll giving is reaching a cusp. It has tripled in the last four years, 550,000 people give, and 5 million employees work for companies who provide access to it. People spend 40 per cent of waking time at work, so it's a real opportunity and the sector needs to capitalise upon it."

He also feels it is important that the sector continues to capitalise on the tax effective giving system and is encouraged by the rise in tax effective giving as charities invest in systems to take advantage. When asked why the majority of giving is still not done tax effectively he argues that it takes time for people to get used to it. "Its about changing attitudes and mindsets of a lot of people. However, 33 per cent of giving is now done tax effectively. That should be celebrated and we don't need to reinvent the system."

He feels strongly that it should remain a system people opt in to. "We have got to recognise the tax break. It's not another grant from government, but about engaging people. If we take the opt-out route, it's another example of going to government and saying please help us. It's about time we said that we are in control, we have a good system, let's take advantage. If it ends up as a grant it can be taken away. It is in our hands, and it is up to us to get more out of it."