Guidelines and Guardrails: Ethical Partnership in the Practice of Philanthropy

This document outlines guidelines and guardrails to govern our engagement with partners and others. We seek to respect the independence of our partners, while also ensuring our partnerships reflect our vision, mission, values and principles.

Discussions around the ethics of philanthropy have been active in the US for many years, but are less prevalent in Canada. There is an inherent power dynamic in the relationship between the funder and recipient of funds that we must remain aware of when communicating and collaborating. An article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy (April 13, 2023) proposed principles to help guide rigorous and respectful discourse among philanthropies. The full text of the article is available at We Disagree on Many Things, but We Speak With One Voice in Support of Philanthropic Pluralism (philanthropy.com). We have modified the principles lightly considering our context as funders in Canada.

The following principles will guide our conduct with partners:

1. We recognize and affirm the right and prerogative of non-profits, charities and foundations to take programmatic or public stances in accordance with their judgment. While it is appropriate for any partner to question or challenge another’s views, we should not question the underlying legitimacy of any nonprofit, charity or foundation holding a particular view.
2. We behave as if the charities, nonprofits, foundations and donors who take stances with which we disagree are also committed to the betterment of society. We assume that those involved in philanthropy have the best intentions, even if they take a different approach.
3. When we challenge another’s views or activities, we focus on substantive arguments and invite response. While disagreements may be profound – even fundamental – we believe public debates should rely on reason and open conversation. We stand firm against practices such as personal or ad hominem attacks because we regard them as counter to productively advancing knowledge within a pluralistic society.
4. We seek to approach disagreements with respect. Respect does not imply acceptance of a view or even commitment to a resolution. It does recognize our common dignity. We take seriously the questions that some might raise about our perspectives, public positions, and programs. We believe critique of what we do is an opportunity for us all to learn.
5. We reject efforts by anyone to circumscribe or proscribe the programmatic prerogatives of charities, nonprofits, foundations and donors, so long as the exercise of those prerogatives conforms with the law.

The right to intervene vs the need not to over-step

The article A Set of Ethical Principles Can Help Philanthropy Regain Public Trust in the Field from The Chronicle of Philanthropy (March 9, 2023) raises an ethical principle for its members: “Respect the dignity, privacy, beliefs, and cultures of our varied constituencies — including the people we serve, our employees, donors, and volunteers.” This underlines the importance of proceeding with caution when intervening regarding public statements. While avoiding overstepping, there are situations in which a response may be warranted. For example, if an institution we support issues a public statement that is offensive or harmful or acts in a way that we consider to be inappropriate.

War and international conflicts often have ripple effects that stir debate and tensions in communities. There have been cases where charities and nonprofits have issued statements in response to global issues, and allegations that donors have pressured institutions to let go of staff that expressed opinions deemed controversial. These situations highlight the need to consider the ethics of funder engagement and dialogue with partners.

Flexibility and dialogue

There should be communication and dialogue before any other steps are taken, with flexibility in determining the response, based on this dialogue. As mentioned above, any time a funder engages with a partner, we must remain sensitive to the power dynamics at play. Engaging in thoughtful discourse that leaves time for proper consideration is crucial to appropriately assess the situation and determine next steps for a fair and reasonable response.

Risk Level and Response Level

When a situation arises in which a partner or collaborating organization acts in a way that goes against our values and principles or violates our guardrails (see below) there are two important questions to ask in determining what steps to take: 1) what is the level of risk posed by the action? And 2) what type of response might be appropriate, beyond communication and information gathering.Situations posing a higher level of risk, and/or meriting a more serious response may require the attention of the Board of Directors for input. Having guidelines in place in advance will ease the process of engaging in potentially difficult conversations.

Guardrails help us determine in advance when a line is crossed, so a fair consideration can be made with partners, rather than going case-by-case in deciding whether and how to intervene.

Situations that would violate McConnell’s guardrails

1. Activities that break the law: In the case of activities that break the law, such as hate speech or violence, existing legal frameworks provide guidance. McConnell can look at these situations and decide whether any public response is needed. In many cases, having a prepared response available if asked for comment would be adequate.
2. Speech that is offensive, harmful or hurtful but falls short of hate speech issued by a) an organization we partner with; b) the leadership of an organization we partner with; or c) by an organization we are members of. This could include Speech singling out one cultural, national or identity defined group for criticism, in a way that falls short of hate speech, but is still harmful and discriminatory. Reflecting on pluralism, a diversity of ideas and opinions is welcome, but we draw the line on intolerance. When there is intolerance, we will proceed with a dialogue-first approach to seek clarification and information to inform our next steps.
3. Unethical behaviour on the part of leadership at a partnering organization. If practiced intentionally, misuse of funds, inappropriate behaviour toward staff, or other activities that are not illegal but contravene values and principles and standard practices within the sector would violate our guardrails.
4. False Statements issued by an organization: In the context of polarization and misinformation, if an organization puts out an untrue statement that is not damaging in the speech but damaging in terms of content, for example false statements about climate change. This would cross the guardrails if done intentionally.

These steps are listed in an escalating order. To begin, the staff member holding the relationship with the organization conducts an initial assessment. The case will then be shared with SLT. The Board Chair must be informed by the CEO when a process is underway. Engagement of the full Board is required as outlined below.

 Risk Levels

Response Levels