Charities have a mission to make the world a better place. But whether they succeed in doing so is not only determined by their activities. It mainly depends on what is said about them online. Hibou analyzed 48,000 Dutch-language online posts about charitable organizations. And what turns out to be the case? Trust, transparency, and cash flows determine their image, and thus public support.
Distrust is a constant factor, community is key
Online, we mainly see a lot of discussion about a lack of transparency, high salaries, and concerns about donation flows. Large NGOs without a direct supporter base, in particular, come under fire. Not because of what they do, but because of the way they communicate about it.
Small, community-driven organizations such as the ALS Foundation, Alzheimer Nederland, and the ParkinsonFonds come out relatively well. They mobilize their supporter base with personal stories, tangible goals, and visible successes. That builds trust.
Visibility is a double-edged sword
Unicef and Amnesty International are by far the most discussed online, especially in relation to the conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and Yemen. The tone is often either concerned or extremely critical. The organizations are seen as news sources, but they are also regularly the targets of political framing.
KWF and the Dutch Heart Foundation also score high on visibility thanks to fundraising collections, campaigns, and events. Personal stories often receive support, but at the same time, their campaigns also raise questions about how funds are spent. High salaries and marketing budgets remain sensitive issues.
WWF receives a lot of attention on themes such as deforestation and plastic pollution. The fund is seen as an authority, but at the same time is an easy target in discussions about climate subsidies and the 'climate industry'.
Innovation helps, provided it is credible
On the positive side, we find organizations such as the ALS Foundation and Alzheimer Nederland, which succeed in activating an engaged community. There is relatively little negativity and all the more relatability. The ParkinsonFonds also shows how innovation—such as digital tools—is positively received by the public.
The 5 key insights from our analysis
Be transparent about money and choices. Publish how resources are spent, who you collaborate with, and why certain choices are made.
Have a crisis communication plan in place. Actively monitor coverage and respond quickly and carefully, especially in politically sensitive contexts.
Invest in the relationship with your supporter base. Organizations with an engaged community are more resilient against criticism and in times of crisis.
Showcase innovation. Demonstrate what innovations you are implementing within the organization and make their results visible.
Be clear about quality marks and audits. Explain how certification works, who conducts checks, and how often. Avoid any appearance of greenwashing.
The conclusion is clear: trust and loyalty must be earned, each and every day. Charities operate in a public arena where perception often carries more weight than facts. By remaining critical and actively learning from each other, the sector strengthens its legitimacy.
Curious about the relevant insights for your organization? Contact us.
