Is fundraising really under attack? Mark Flannagan says the sector is big and diverse enough to take honest criticism, and be better.

‘Charity bashing.’ ‘Our sector under attack.’ ‘Politically driven agenda to undermine our good work.’ These are all words I have heard used in the charity sector recently to describe recent coverage of and comments about charity fundraising and other issues.

The ‘attacks’ on the work that we do and on some charities is certainly very hard to take. We are proud of what we do and not ashamed of working in a sector that overwhelmingly makes a real difference for millions of individuals. But, the response in some cases has been to shoot the messenger, blame tabloid hype, and to say that those producing such stories have a prejudice against charities.

Some have gone so far as to say the stories are a blatant and a politically motivated attempt to undermine the charity sector as a whole and this will end the great work that we do. Our shared frustration at what are perceived as unfair accusations can become an accusation that the other side isn’t playing by the rules and refusing to listen to common sense.

There was a similar reaction to the recent proposals arising out of Sir Stuart Etherington’s review (to which I contributed). Within hours some fundraising commentators were rubbishing the proposals as not just something with which they disagree, but the end of fundraising as we know it and not being based on an understanding of how fundraising works.

Feeling like you are under attack can lead to a focus on the motives of the attacker rather than on the substance of the accusation. But, I don’t believe there is evidence of a concerted attack on either the charity sector or fundraising as a whole.

I do believe there are some valid concerns that need to be addressed in the context of a sector that overwhelmingly does great work and behaves totally ethically.

There has been evidence that, in some cases, some in our sector have engaged in practices that are pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. Data about donors has been shared when it should not have been. The closure of Kids Company did reveal appalling governance practices that should worry us.

The public don’t like what has been going on in these instances. Their reaction is the same as when one part of the NHS spectacularly fails. They don’t lose faith in the institution as a whole but they do want someone held to account, hear someone say sorry and take action to stop it happening again.

Our charity sector is big enough, diverse enough and strong enough to take honest criticism, particularly when directed at a few that have behaved badly. Such criticism should be accepted as a critique of what we should do better. We should not panic and think the whole house will come crashing down because of it. We should listen to the many voices in our sector who actually agree with the criticism, who welcome it as highlighting issues that have concerned them for some time.

Our charity sector has a strong campaigning purpose. We often exist to fight injustice. In so doing we take a tough line on institutions that cry foul when put under the spotlight. We, rightly, call on them to take responsibility and address the real problems rather than engaging in spin. Well, we are under the spotlight. It is our time to be honest. We need to react as we wish others would. We are, after all, better than they are. Aren’t we?

We should take a mature approach that results in better practice. I am guessing that this will be uncomfortable for some. As I have already said, it is often easier to oppose than to admit you might be wrong. But surely a better approach is to accept our need to change and do better in future.

Mark Flannagan is chief executive of Beating Bowel Cancer.