The digital future of the charity sector

Help us develop the 2025 Code

 

Since launching in 2018, Charity Digital Code of Practice (Code) has empowered charity leaders to embrace digital strategies and enact short- and long-term changes. Led by Zoe Amar and working with a cross-sector group, the Code combines practical guidance with insightful resources, valuable case studies, and benchmarks for the sector. The initial version of the Code, in 2018, sought to offer help charities of all shapes and sizes make responsible digital decisions, ensure long-term sustainability, increase their reach, and broadly increase their impact.

 

But the digital world moves fast. Since 2018, we’ve seen a shift to remote working, cloud computing, and digital payment procession. NFTs came, then went, but blockchain and cryptocurrency stuck around. We’ve seen moves towards green tech, greater emphasis on accessibility and digital inclusion, and a focus on cyber security. The world of tech evolves quickly, and the Code needs to match its evolution, needs to evolve alongside the digital world.

 

So we decided to update the Code, to make it fit for purpose in 2025. The 2025 update, which will be released in the coming months, depended on extensive user research, including in-depth interviews with charity leaders, a survey completed by 62 leaders from across the sector, and extensive market research conducted by Charity Digital. The results proved insightful. More insightful, in fact, than we could have imagined. So we wanted to share that research with the sector, so others can see the digital challenges and opportunities on the horizon.

 

Skip to: Rationale for the user research

Skip to: Methodology of the user research

Skip to: Executive summary of the research

Skip to: General summary of the research

Skip to: The future of the Code

 

 

Rationale for the user research

 

The Code has always been user-led, always aiming to respond to core issues facing the sector. We felt the need to contact charity leaders to discover the main digital opportunities, the core tech risks on the horizon, and any other areas that may require additional guidance.

 

The best way to gain that information is by conducting user research with leading voices in the sector. We have used the research, along with support from the Review Board and a Steering Group, to improve the Code in 2025 and ensure its ready to meet the current digital landscape.

 

Develop the 2025 Code

 

 

Methodology of the user research

 

We have conducted interviews with seven charity leaders, all lasting between 15-30 minutes, delving into questions about the current Code, the use of digital across the sector, digital opportunities and risks, and general questions about preferences for learning.

 

Once interviews were complete, we saved the audio recording, the video recording, and a transcription of the recording. We then extracted and summarised key points from recordings.

 

We also conducted wide-reaching research in the form of a survey. We received comments from 62 charity leaders. All respondents have been kept anonymous and the responses are typically less in-depth than interviews, but the purpose is to get a more general quantitative understanding of the challenges charities are facing to complement the qualitative interviews.

 

Develop the 2025 Code

 

 

Executive summary of the research

 

Artificial intelligence (AI): Using AI proved a core issue, referenced by almost every interviewee and almost all of the survey entries at some point in the research. Charities were concerned around the responsible use of AI, the best platforms to use, the best ways to integrate the tech, and potential use cases. AI policies could be beneficial, according to research, and many respondents wanted to know more about entrance points to using the tech. The sector shows a clear desire to move on from content creation and onto advanced use cases for AI.

 

Tech procurement: Interviewees said that, in the past, they had wasted money onboarding the wrong tech and seldom had help at the level of procurement. Many respondents felt like they were always buying tech from salespeople and wanted external advice on decision-making.

 

Tech integration: Interviewees and respondents referenced issues around tech integration, which links to procurement. They often struggled to move towards procuring and integrating the best tech for their tech eco-system, adopting a more strategic approach rather than simply meeting immediate needs. In terms of specific tech options, maximising the use of Office 365 stood out as a priority for many of the survey respondents.

 

Social media: Social media has changed in recent years. But respondents still want to learn how to navigate new platforms and old, especially in terms of improving fundraising. Many raised the issue of navigating controversy on particular platforms, especially X (formerly Twitter), Meta platforms, TikTok, and YouTube. Charities want to learn more about safeguarding and how they can protect staff members who work with these platforms.

 

Cyber security: Many respondents see cyber security as a core risk. The challenges seem to constantly evolve, with new issues with AI and phishing.

 

Data: Data is important in two ways: data utilisation and data privacy. Or, put more simply: how to use data and how not to use data. Charities are concerned about data privacy, particularly around AI, and others suggest that charities need to use data more effectively. Compliance and governance regularly featured in interviews and the survey.

 

Develop the 2025 Code

 

 

Extensive summary of the research

 

Roadblocks facing charities when using digital

 

Mike Paxman, Head of Digital at Sponsors for Educational Opportunity (SEO), referenced tech procurement and AI implementation as core roadblocks. Tech procurement was a “really challenging area”, Paxman said, and it was hard to get past salespeople to find out exactly which system would work best. That’s particularly important, Paxman said, because the sector does not have an extensive budget and procurement decisions tend to have a long-term impact.

 

Jamie Anderson, Chief Executive of Age UK Wirral, echoed that point, suggesting that he could not find a data system that worked across a range of services, providing a specific example of Paxman’s more general point. He said that the system Age UK Wirral currently uses is no longer suitable and the “cost of digital is starting to outweigh the benefits”.

 

Pilotlight talked about tech integration, using Salesforce as an example. They were early adopters of Salesforce. Years after implementation they realised they weren’t really making full use of the CRM platform. They’ve started now investing in the CRM and have been using it in a transformational way. Ed Mayo, CEO of Pilotlight, said that charities often struggled with entrance points to CRM usage. Many survey respondents echoed issues around CRMs.

 

And survey respondents referenced tech integration. One respondent said: “Data storage systems don’t communicate because we use cloud-based tools for publishing.” Another respondent said that their biggest roadblock was “getting systems to integrate”. Another mentioned changes to tech and the need to constantly integrate: examples included the move from GA to GA4, integrating MFA, etc. Others mentioned integration of existing tech with AI, suggesting they struggled with integration and, after integration, struggled to find the benefits.

 

Lyndsey Nassim, Head of Marketing at the Chartered Quality Institute (CQI), referenced difficulties working with legacy systems, emphasising that it’s a continuous challenge. Investment in tech starts with people, Nassim said, followed by process, then comes the tech. The process can prove time- and resource-consuming – and isn’t always effective. Nassim emphasised the need for internal skills in instances of changing legacy systems, such as CRMs, to ensure its effectiveness.

 

Dean Gillespie, Lead, Digital, Creative and Mass Marketing at International Justice Mission (IJM), said that proving return on investment (ROI) from tech procurement, use, and investment is particularly important. At IJM, senior leadership are very supportive, but with everything changing so rapidly, with so many new platforms and options, especially with AI, there is always a question around how to build constant buy-in from leaders and trustees.

 

In terms of ROI, Abigail Sumption, Manager, Digital Marketing and Innovation at IJM, said that a roadblock exists in proving ROI, especially in terms of finding the right digital key performance indicators (KPIs). One of the more difficult KPIs to track, Sumption claimed, is income from digital channels. So, it’s vital to ensure that charities have a robust understanding of Google Analytics, pixels and tracking and any other elements that feed into that particular KPI.

 

Most interviewees referenced AI in some form. Mayo said Pilotlight still experimenting with AI and have found Charity Excellence Framework really useful. Experimentation, with an understanding of the risks, seems key. Anderson mentioned that AI literacy was a roadblock at Age UK Wirral, particularly the need to identify opportunities. Paxman noted lots of noise but little substance around AI. He said that he wanted more clarity on use cases for charities, a point echoed from many people in the survey, as we’ll see below.

 

Nassim highlighted the general importance of governance around AI, suggesting that its important because of the reputational risk involved. The CQI are particularly aware of the risk because its members are passionate about the need for quality, given that its central to their mission. CQI therefore developed an AI policy and tend to use AI from an “assisted” perspective as opposed to a “driven” perspective. But Nassim expects the charity to use it a lot more in the future and noted the need for transparency. “We totally embraced [AI],” Nassim told us. “The genie is out of the bottle. It’s not going back. It’s just how we do that genuinely.”

 

Kathryn Jackson, Risk Manager at British Heart Foundation (BHF), highlighting an AI roadblock that has hit BHF: making sure information security was invested in to allow innovation with AI. And, with that in mind, Jackson also mentioned the importance of upskilling in AI and how to drive momentum in that area. The absence of a roadmap on information security, Jackson said, could stifle innovation for charities.

 

The survey results validated much of the above. Lots of respondents referenced AI. One respondent said that they “hear its good or bad and potential implications without any specifics or context”, perhaps highlighting the lack of use cases across the sector. One potential problem with use cases, though, is that AI seems to develop quickly: use cases risk becoming outdated.

 

The absence of understanding seems the largest roadblock around AI. Charities seemed prepared to use the tech, but not sure how. One respondent said, simply, that “staff understanding of AI” proved a big roadblock. Another said that they’d like to know “How to use AI safely and effectively”. Several other survey respondents echoed similar sentiments.

 

 

Recent successes charities have had with technology

 

One success for Nassim, related to the abovementioned roadblock, was identifying systems that were not achieving their purpose for the team and the end user. She helped to move from a legacy e-marketing platform to the omni-channel system Dotdigital. The process involved data cleansing, understanding the charity’s data, not transferring data that wasn’t needed so as to be GDPR compliant, and updating their branding. The success shows the possibility of effective tech procurement and integration – something the sector needs to improve.      

 

A core success for IJM, Sumption said, is digital roadmapping. IJM’s digital roadmap afforded them the right building blocks to successfully scale and find the right online donation platform, Fundraise Up, plus with the addition of Salesforce marketing cloud’s segmentation tools. They are having remarkable success in utilising online and offline integration, which has been a challenge in recent years. Sumption’s comments again show how effective resources improve tech procurement, investment, and integration.

 

Gillespie said IJM have improved “systems, structures, and strategy” in the past year. They are seeing huge tech advances with systems, particularly with the use of Fundraise Up: a major campaign, for example, saw IJM increase the value of new regular givers by 148%. Structures have improved by investment in their global network and boosting collaboration. And, finally, echoing Sumption, Gillespie said, in terms of strategy, the new roadmap has proved vital.

 

Anderson claimed that a success for Age UK Wirral has been the process of moving its entire telephony system onto Microsoft Teams. Anderson also claimed Age UK Wirral has migrated to 365, which has proved beneficial. The successes show the benefits of successful migration, consolidating the need to ensure charities can access advice on tech adoption and integration.

 

Paxman claimed that SEO has fine-tuned its tech offering in the past year, making gains particularly with the use of their CRM system. Paxman suggested that more has been done to tackle cyber security and looking into the application of AI to business problems.

 

The survey provided some interesting successes. Various respondents mentioned, as with interviewees, successful tech transitions. These included transitions to oomi, Dotdigital, Wordpress, Office 365, and new CRM systems. Again, tech integration and implementation seemed a core theme, with many people emphasising success – and a need for more help.

 

AI, again, was referenced by many survey respondents. One said that they are using AI to help with writing and developing a newsletter. Another said that, while they see the value of AI, they have fallen into a trap of using applications promising AI and “losing focus on what it was I was trying to achieve in each case”.

 

Using AI for AI’s sake seemed to be a problem. But, it goes without saying, AI will feature prominently in the future, with many charities trying to find use cases that deviate from simple content creation and idea generation. 

 

 

Digital opportunities for charities in the present and the future

 

Anderson explained that Age UK Wirral were in the middle of moving to a new CRM system. He hopes that will enable them to pin down clear data insights, enabling everyone in the team to be on the same page. Another big priority for next year is making the most of opportunities to better automate and interrogate the data the charity holds. 

 

And Sumption highlighted the continuing importance of getting in front of people, face-to-face, but then ensuring they have a great online user journey after the fact. The key, Sumption argued, is to transfer a successful offline experience to a successful online experience.

 

Sumption also mentioned the potential ROI on YouTube advertisement, an arguably neglected opportunity for the sector. Indeed, as Gillespie also noted, advertisement seems to be a key skill to learn, as it’s a complex eco-system, one that constantly changes, one with new demands, new platforms, new functionality, and new opportunities at every turn. Advertising provides huge opportunities, which charities, at present at least, are not quite grasping.

 

Gillespie also highlighted website development. Integrated fundraising campaigns are essential, Gillespie said, and the sector should focus on hyper-personalisation on websites. Gillespie sees opportunity with the behavioural insights that will lead to revenue growth, such as gaining better feedback from supporters to incrementally improve the user journey. Better us of data was referenced by several survey respondents, too.

 

Mayo mentioned AI as the central opportunity of the future, but specifically natural language search. Mayo claimed natural language offers a profound and genuine revolution for charities. Charities are often constrained by costs and labour and turn to various sources. Natural language search can revolutionise a charity’s ability to find unique information.

 

As an example, Mayo said that, if you ask a question like “what are the risks this charity faces?” in standard search, you’ll have risks for all charities, which may not be applicable. The natural language search makes it specific to you, with the right prompt. Mayo re-emphasises the risks but says the ability to provide specific answers will drastically improve the ease of information search.  

 

Jackson referenced early adoption of AI as a clear opportunity for the present and future. As an organisation, BHF are keen to push sector boundaries and explore how AI can be used to deliver the overall digital strategy. Jackson shared how she had observed hesitancy towards AI across the sector, a hesitancy bucked by BHF’s ambitious approach to AI adoption.

 

The emphasis on AI, once again, came through in the survey. In fact, it was referenced by the majority of respondents as an opportunity. “AI to reduce administration,” one user said. “AI will become increasingly important due to its time-saving capacities,” another said. “We are looking at using AI to manage memberships,” another said. “AI to help us with fundraising, particularly disseminating the digital magazine,” another said.

 

One user, echoing the above, said: “Increased engagement with AI tools to empower time pressured people to increase outputs.” AI is referenced generally as a timesaving, productivity-boosting tool. Nassim echoed that point, suggesting that AI will help CQI with the general “drudgery” of work, getting rid of the more administrative and tedious tasks, allowing the team to be more creative. 

 

Social media was referenced by several people. The responses show an understanding of the opportunities, but often a need to change. “Using social media to raise awareness and funds”; “Working with our new comms intern to revamp social media”; “Increase use and benefit of social media over ‘regular’ advertising channels”.

 

Social media has become a more controversial fundraising tool in recent years, following reputational damage to key platforms, Elon Musk’s controversial time at the helm of X, the latest announcements from Meta around fact-checking, and the general absence of effective safeguards. But charities have not fled the major platforms, at least not at the scale once predicted, and it seems unlikely that they will feel en masse in the future, so the challenges will revolve around navigating the new world of legacy social media, as well as embracing any of the new and emerging platforms.

 

A final point noted in the survey revolved around digital inclusion. One respondent saw the need to “engage community volunteers with skills on IT support that can help our communities to make more of their tech, living more sustainably or overcoming cost barriers”. Another said: “Digitalisation of our support for those who want less formal mental health support.”

 

 

Digital risks for charities in the present and the future

 

Nassim covered the risks of AI. She explained that, given such risks, its vital CQI make sure it finds the right people with the right skills over the next five-to-ten years. The challenge lies in recruiting inclusively and finding the candidates who are self-motivated with the right digital skills. She noted that everyone in the charity needs digital skills, not just the marketing team.

 

Jackson reiterated the point. She said that the core risks to BHF in the near future fall mainly around ensuring use of AI is both ethical and responsible. Information security and resilience is a primary concern. Jackson shared how important continued investment is within that particular area.

 

Paxman considered his charity at the higher end of the risk spectrum when it comes to cyber security. The charity’s funding model is reliant on a relatively small number of large funders, so proportionately, if one pulls out, it can have a bigger impact on the organisation. 

 

Paxman mentioned the ethical implications and reputational damage of a potential cyber breach. He talked about cyber-crime and how the industry is ballooning, including the risks of state-sponsored attacks and the negative impact of AI, as we’ve seen in phishing attacks.

 

Mayo mentioned cyber security, emphasising the risks posed to smaller charities. Cyber and safety is an area where codes and insurance play their role. Mayo noted that when it comes to cyber security, charities are similar to businesses, so a sector-approach may not be needed, as there are plenty of people in the commercial sector who can provide support. The main differences are around reputational risk and charity constraints around funding and capacity.

 

The survey saw lots of people echo the sentiment. Here is a handful of responses to serve as an example: “Cyber security: we’re increasingly receiving spam etc and as our team grows it is a concern that we will experience a cyber-attack”; “Cyber-attacks are always a worry – we have several partner organisations that manage our publications and we don’t have much control over them”; “Breach of data from phishing attacks”.

 

Several people mentioned funding as a potential risk, particularly in light of recent budget announcements. Here are some responses: “Lack of grant funds”; “Lack of funding! It is a huge problem at the moment!”; ‘Funding and increased employment costs”; “Sustainable funding access – likely to be trimmed and/or short-term contracts”. Many people answered with a one-word answer: “Funding.” Funding is clearly an issue, but one that we expect – or at least hope – will grow easier in the near future.

 

 

Digital skills that charities need to develop

 

Sumption highlighted that keeping up with tech trends is important, especially in terms of getting buy-in from leadership teams. Gillespie suggested that more advanced digital skills are needed, particularly around coding and website development. And, as above, Gillespie and Sumption emphasised the increasing importance of advertising, suggesting it takes a lot of skill to do well, specifically referencing the need for training on Google and YouTube advertising. 

 

Paxman highlighted customer journeys as an important area of training for charities, a position confirmed by Charity Digital’s experience, as we’ve seen massive uptake for sessions and articles on customer journeys. Paxman said the training needs to be more sophisticated, as the slick user journeys provided by customer brands eclipse the current position of charities.

 

Mayo explained that digital strategy at the highest level is essential, emphasising the importance of data, finding data, and data sharing. Mayo mentioned that Pilotlight have supported loads of charities around data, the way they share data, the protocols, and now the charities are able to see and use data at a strategic level. Benchmarking is notoriously weak in the sector, Mayo said, but that would improve as the approach to data improves.

 

Jackson said charities need training on information security, AI, and compliance around digital tech. BHF, Jackson claimed, are actively trying to adopt a more proactive approach to digital compliance. AI featured prominently in the survey, too.

 

Many suggestions were specific: “As a lot of charities receive applications, it would be great to have training on how we can make the application process more accessible using AI”; “AI and the implications if more and more organisations use it for (for example) grant applications”; “AI data collection and impact reporting.” As above, that shows a need to move past the current use cases of AI in the sector.

 

Cyber security and social media also featured prominently in the survey. But the most surprising responses came in the form of a specific focus on 365. Here is just a selection of responses: “Donated 365 is brilliant, but most charities just use Word and Excel as standalone packages – there needs to be more training with the wider 365 platform and Admin Center training. 365 is like pulling a thread – you need to keep pulling at loose threads to see where they go”; “How to manage Office 365 for a small charity with no IT expert”; “[Training on] Office 365 product suite”; “Effective working practices, using Office 365 to its full potential”; “Maximising the tools available in 365 and working out which ones are best suited to your org’s needs”; “As a small org, it’s as basic as how we all use MS Office or Dropbox to generate materials that can be shared easily”; “Managing Office 365 for a small charity with no IT expert.” Training staff and volunteers on 365 might prove particularly important.

 

 

The resources and support for developing digital skills

 

Pilotlight has a technical systems lead, so has their own network and systems of support. Pilotlight tend to work around tech partners, using the training they offer. The Charity Excellence Framework is really great for AI, Mayo said, but it can prove a little clunky at times. A few other respondents to the survey also reference the Charity Excellence Framework. 

 

Mayo also referenced the work of Charity Digital. Paxman, Gillespie, and Sumption all reference reading Charity Digital. Several people in the survey referenced Charity Digital.

 

Gillespie referenced conferences and said IJM pay to ensure effective – and accredited – marketing training for their team. They’d gone through the Institute of Digital Marketing and Institute of Data and Marketing, stressing the importance of gaining qualifications from professional bodies. Gillespie also referenced the M+R Benchmarks, suggesting they’re helpful for the sector.

 

Sumption claimed Platypus Digital and Forward Action are great organisations, saying they are good at providing charities with effective case studies. The organisations, Sumption said, do a great job of giving reference to charities of similar shapes and sizes facing similar challenges.

 

Nassim found information and support from the CQI’s network of partners. She emphasised that suppliers should act as “critical friends” to help the charity find success with their products. That relates to earlier points raised by several people that suggested an absence of support from third parties, with the feeling that they are mainly interested in selling products.

 

Nassim said she wants to work with partners who say: “Why are you doing that? Because [the product] actually does this.” The CQI seeks out partners’ advice even when not working with them on specific projects. Its partners Cranfield University and Gartner have been particularly helpful. And, Nassim said, she always came back to the Charity Digital Code of Practice, the Charity Digital Skills Report, and trusted voices in her network such as Amar and Nick Scott. 

 

The largest response in the survey was the use of search engines, mostly Google. Others mentioned newsletters. There were a few mentions of webinars. Each of the following were referenced by at least one respondent: ChatGPT, Digital Candle, YouTube, and CAST.

 

 

The best formats for training charity professionals

 

Mayo claimed that he prefers written and video content. Paxman preferred discussion seminars to long-form written content. He said seminars are usually best when not weighted towards a particular product, and the ones with Q&As and panels are particularly helpful. Jackson said webinars and peer-to-peer educational formats, such as roundtables, are particularly useful.

 

The survey proved interesting in giving us a quantitative view of content preferences. Survey respondents were asked to click all options that they found most helpful. 

 

Of the 62 respondents, 47 picked online sessions (referring to webinars and workshops) as a preference for content consumption. The second highest, with 38 respondents, was written content, followed by video, with 35 respondents. That perhaps contradicted our expectations, but not significantly: we always expect written and video content to feature at the top. 

 

 

 

The ideal forms of support for charities

 

If resource was not a constraint, we asked, what would ideal support look like? Anderson said a digital team would be ideal, rather than relying on a single individual. Age UK Wirral, Anderson said, incurs a lot of risk when that one person is out of office. The charity is unable to think about digital in the future, as it is limited by resource and is therefore often reactive.

 

Ideal support, Anderson added, would allow Age UK to digitally upscale, with staff at all levels of the organisations able to take ownership of digital rather than constant leading from the top.

 

Mayo said there were plenty of practical things that people need. But some of the most important, he claimed, are the strategic self-check, peer benchmarking, and vision setting.

 

Nassim argued that ideal support would allow more consultation time at each stage of a project. CQI aim to make the use of tech more human-centred. That depends on expert advice sooner before too much money is spent. Ideal support, Nassim said, depends on collaboration and peer-to-peer learning, with organisations learning from each other’s mistakes.

 

Face-to-face training is ideal, Sumption argued. She referenced an example where IJM brought over colleagues from marketing teams in their global offices. They went through platforms like GA4 and found ways of simplifying things in person. “Miles better,” Sumption says. Gillespie agreed with the point about face-to-face training.

 

He added that any digital leadership programme – building greater buy-in from senior members – would be great. He stated that anything elaborating on Amar’s work supporting digital trustees would be welcome. 

 

 

The best digital training for charities in the future

 

Mayo said Pilotlight has leaned on LinkedIn Learning. They found it useful to pick up information on lots of different areas – there’s always something for the quiet times to improve skills. But the best training is experiential training, Mayo said. That’s because its core to what Pilotlight offers: volunteering as a form of experiential learnings. It’s in-person, immersive, and value-based, and it aims to change reference points.

 

Paxman said that Charity Digital’s AI summit was valuable and pointed him to different areas such as the CAST network. Further seminars came from that one event. He also said it was worth getting away from the desk and create headspace while listening to others’ experiences.  

 

Nassim says CQI’s copywriter undertook an AI course for copywriting, while its marketing manager embarked on an AI governance and GDPR course. Nassim completed training to understand the Dotdigital platform and its inbuilt AI-assisted tool to create templates and automated campaigns. She went to workshops with suppliers around the charity’s CRM project.

 

The marketing team at CQI completed a SIM Chartered Institute of Marketing AI strategy and tools course, which was a very hands-on way to explore a range of marketing applications of AI.  The digital marketing manager completed training on Google Analytics with its move to GA4, both getting ready for the switch and understanding it retrospectively.  

 

Jackson said that the BHF used sector-focussed training from the Institute of Risk Management, which particularly applied to Jackson’s role as Risk Manager.

 

The survey results again highlighted an interesting array of training taken by leaders across the sector. YouTube came up several times, as well as references to unspecified training on GDPR, cyber security, and data protection.

 

Only five respondents out of 62 mentioned any form of AI training, with two referencing Microsoft’s AI training. Others mentioned general webinars. But the most common answer was a variation of “None”, as demonstrated by the word cloud.

 

Develop the 2025 Code

 

 

The future of the Code

 

The 2025 will feature information on using AI, definitions of AI, and the best ways to use AI to seize opportunities and mitigate risks. It’ll likely feature a new principle, Data, which serves to highlight how charities can adopt a data-driven approach and protect the data of beneficiaries and stakeholders. We’ve introduced guidance on procurement and boosted parts on cyber security. We’ve improved the glossary, extended advice on accessibility, and so much more.

 

Thank you to the Co-op Foundation and Lloyds Banking Group for funding the initial development of the Code. Thank you to all the organisations on the steering group and the charities, individuals, and bodies working in the sector who have advised us. 

 

We are especially grateful to The Clothworkers’ Company, The WCIT Charity, and Resource for London who have funded the 2025 update of the Code.

 

Develop the 2025 Code