In moments of crisis, generosity moves faster than bureaucracy. A viral video, a heartfelt caption, a click—and money is on its way to someone, somewhere, in need. Crowdfunding platforms and online appeals have reshaped how people give during emergencies, offering immediacy and a powerful sense of connection.
But behind the speed and emotion lies a quieter question—one that more and more donors are starting to ask: Where did my donation actually go?
The answer is not always clear.
From disaster zones to conflict-affected regions, countless campaigns promise urgent, tangible impact. People give with the belief that they are helping directly. Yet what happens after the donation is often far more complex—and far less visible.
This isn’t just a question for charities. It’s a challenge for the entire ecosystem of modern giving.
The transparency gap
We’ve seen it time and again—in response to the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the conflict in Sudan, and in countless other emergencies around the world. People feel a deep sense of responsibility to help. They donate not just out of compassion, but out of solidarity with those facing unimaginable circumstances.
Yet in many cases, donations made through online campaigns are legally used for general operational expenses—staff salaries, administrative costs, marketing, or long-term investment projects. These expenditures may be disclosed in annual reports or footnotes, but rarely are they clearly communicated at the moment of giving. This creates a growing gap between donor expectations and organizational practice.
To be clear, this is not about criminal fraud. Most charities operating online are legitimate and doing important work. But in a sector built on trust, legality alone is not enough. When a donor believes their contribution will go directly to food, medicine, or shelter—and instead it is absorbed into less visible costs—something essential is lost.
Not funds. Trust.
Crowdfunding: high emotion, low visibility
Across Denmark and much of Europe, crowdfunding has become an increasingly popular way for individuals to respond to humanitarian crises. It offers speed, accessibility, and a strong sense of personal agency. In moments of urgency, people don’t wait for institutional appeals—they act. And platforms make it easy to do so.
This shift has empowered smaller organizations and brought humanitarian storytelling closer to the public. But it has also narrowed the gap between emotion and transaction. Campaigns often rely on powerful images and urgent language, leaving little space to explain how donations are managed, or what percentage is allocated to immediate relief versus long-term needs.
Unlike institutional grants or traditional philanthropy, crowdfunding rarely comes with built-in safeguards—such as third-party audits, standardized reporting, or performance oversight. In some cases, funds raised for emergency assistance are redirected toward broader programming or held in reserve, often without the donor’s awareness or consent.
These practices may not violate any formal regulations. But they can strain the emotional contract at the heart of charitable giving: the expectation that money given in crisis will meet crisis needs.
Donor intent is not a detail
Whether it’s a large institutional funder, a private foundation, or someone in Denmark giving 100 kroner through a mobile app—every donor deserves clarity. A donor is anyone who gives, and what they give is not only money, but trust.
At the heart of this issue lies a core principle: informed consent. In humanitarian contexts, people give because they believe their contribution will provide tangible, immediate support. If an organization intends to use that contribution for something else—however strategic or well-intentioned—that shift must be clearly communicated from the outset.
Transparency is not a footnote. It is a central ethical commitment, and part of the moral foundation upon which the charitable sector depends.
Visit the donation page of almost any nonprofit, and try this simple exercise: click on “donate” and ask yourself—do you know where your money is going? Is it funding direct program delivery? Covering operational costs or salaries? Will it support logistics in the field, or help pay for refreshments at a stakeholder event in the capital?
A donation made with the intention of supporting urgent needs in a conflict zone should not, by surprise, end up diverted to indirect costs unless that was clearly stated from the start. The issue is not how the money is used—it’s whether the donor was brought into that decision.
When that clarity is missing, even the most effective organizations risk losing the trust that sustains them.
Why this matters in Denmark—and beyond
Denmark is not immune to this trend. Danish donors—especially from the general public—are among the most generous in Europe, and Danish NGOs often lead global humanitarian responses. This positions both civil society and policymakers in a unique role: to advocate for a renewed social contract between the giver and the institution.
Transparency, in this context, is more than a reporting obligation. It is a democratic value—one that mirrors Denmark’s own public ethos.
If Danish-based NGOs and funding platforms take the lead in redefining good practice—through better digital reporting, donation tracking tools, or donor-choice mechanisms—they can help restore confidence not only at home, but globally.
A better way forward
This is not a call to reject overhead. Operational costs are part of running any serious organization, and staff deserve fair, dignified wages. Strategic planning—especially in protracted crises—is not only necessary, it can be lifesaving. But these realities do not justify opaque communication. If donors are trusted to give, they should also be trusted with the full picture.
Organizations can take clear and actionable steps to rebuild and sustain that trust. First, they can offer donors a genuine choice—whether to support direct aid, core operations, or long-term investments—so contributions are aligned with intent. They can also move beyond static, once-a-year reporting and embrace more timely, accessible ways of sharing information, including visual summaries or real-time updates that show how funds are being allocated and why.
Equally important is shifting how we talk about overhead. When coordination, logistics, and staffing are critical to impact, organizations should say so—openly and confidently—instead of hiding these costs behind vague language or ambiguous categories.
Most importantly, financial clarity should not be a footnote at the end of a campaign. It should be part of the story from the start.
None of this requires perfection. But it does require intention. Because transparency is not just about compliance—it’s about respect. Respect for the donor’s intent, for the beneficiary’s dignity, and for the relationship that connects them.
Rebuilding the trust economy
Giving is an act of belief. It is driven by compassion, hope, and often, urgency. But belief is fragile. If people begin to question whether their donations are making a difference—or worse, whether they’re being misused—that belief can fade.
And when belief fades, giving does too.
This is not a warning. It is an invitation. To charities, to donors, to platforms, and to regulators: let us protect the ecosystem of giving by centering trust. Let us design systems that are not only functional but fair. Let us lead with clarity, even when the answers are complex.
Because when transparency and generosity move together, the result is not just better fundraising. It is a stronger, more ethical humanitarian sector. And that’s something Denmark—and the world—should champion.
Ali Al Mokdad is a humanitarian leader, strategist, and governance expert with over 15 years of experience enhancing humanitarian operations across the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. He has held senior leadership roles in INGOs, UN agencies, and donor institutions, spearheading multimillion-dollar programs and optimizing complex operations for greater impact.
