The ethics of fundraising imagery

“In response to his project however, several people argued that organisations raising funds by utilising dehumanising images are justified, provided that they use the money effectively.” — Jennifer Lentfer, Creator of How Matters blog and advocate for community-led development

Fundraising organisations face an uncomfortable truth: the most effective images are often the most exploitative. James Nachtwey’s photos of famine in Somalia prompted what was then the Red Cross’s largest operation since World War II [14]. But effectiveness doesn’t equal ethics.

We’ve created a system where human dignity becomes secondary to donor response. I’ve seen how this plays out in campaign after campaign across Africa.

How poverty pictures drive donations

The formula is depressingly simple. Shocking images of starving children generate reliable emotional responses. Flies swarming around faces. Emaciated bodies. Simple slogans demanding immediate action.

“The most respectable excuse for selectively presenting images of starvation is that this is necessary to elicit our charity,” note Rakiya Omaar and Alex de Waal [14]. But is charity worth the cost to human dignity?

Progress is happening, slowly. British charity adverts using “pitiful images” dropped from 34% in 2016 to just 11% by 2021 [15]. Images of children in campaigns fell from 42% in 2013 to 21% in 2021 [15].

You’re getting where this is going, right? The industry recognises the problem. Change remains painfully slow.

The consent problem

Here’s the core ethical dilemma: balancing fundraising effectiveness against human dignity. These images create what scholars call a “politics of pity” rather than a “politics of dignity” [14].

Organisations like Amnesty International and Save the Children now follow ethical guidelines:

• No posing subjects in artificial situations
• No nudity in depictions of suffering
• Consulting subjects about visual representation [14]

But consent becomes problematic when photographing children. They cannot fully understand where photos will appear or who will see them [16]. Even with adult consent, power imbalances create uneven dynamics. Subjects may comply due to the photographer’s privileged position [16].

Context matters

Decontextualised images represent the most insidious problem. Strip away political, economic, and historical context, and poverty appears inevitable rather than circumstantial [17]. These images reinforce misconceptions that “Africa is a country filled with misery and diseases” [18].

This generates “the wrong kind of awareness.” Short-term donations instead of sustained engagement with structural causes [18]. It reinforces the myth that poverty can be “simply fixed with an easy phone call or monthly donation” [18].

The solution? Shift from highlighting “need” to showcasing “solutions” [19]. Show how organisations empower communities rather than presenting them as passive recipients.

Because we know that meaningful change requires understanding context, not just witnessing suffering.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11