From its first days in office, the fourth government of Robert Fico framed a segment of Slovak NGOs – particularly those watchdogs active in anti-corruption, rule-of-law advocacy, and public policy – as politically biased and foreign-influenced. Organizations such as Transparency International Slovakia, Stop the Corruption Foundation and Via Iuris were repeatedly portrayed as actors operating “like political parties” but without public accountability. This narrative laid the groundwork for regulatory action.

The “Russian Law”

In 2024 and 2025, the coalition advanced an amendment to the NGO law with no expert discussion that soon became known domestically as the “Russian Law.” The original proposal required organizations receiving foreign funding of more than €5,000 to label themselves as “organizations with foreign support,” disclose donors publicly, and comply with expanded reporting obligations. Early drafts also considered classifying NGOs (and only NGOs, not businesses or other actors) as lobbyists. The parallels with Russian and Georgian legislation were widely noted, and international criticism swiftly followed. Under mounting pressure – including concerns raised at EU level – the government softened the terminology at the last minute, removing the explicit “foreign agent” label. Yet the core obligations remained, and Parliament passed the law in April 2025.

Civil society fights back

The proposal and ultimate adoption of the law triggered an immediate backlash. Civil society organizations coordinated across platforms, organized public protests, issued joint statements, and mobilized legal expertise to challenge the legislation. The response was unusually cohesive: NGOs formed broad coalitions, engaged European partners, and framed the issue as a constitutional matter rather than a sectoral dispute. Within days of adoption, opposition parties and the Public Defender of Rights filed a motion to the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic requesting constitutional review.

The most controversial element was the mandatory donor disclosure – with NGOs receiving significant contributions required to publish the names of donors above a €5,000 threshold. Critics argued that this endangered privacy, exposed donors to harassment, and created a chilling effect on philanthropy. Additional reporting and registry requirements also increased compliance burdens, particularly for mid-sized and smaller organizations.

Even before the Constitutional Court ruled, the political campaign translated into practice. Government-initiated financial audits targeted selected NGOs, presented publicly as evidence of systemic misuse of public funds. Yet the official audit findings revealed irregularities amounting to roughly 0.5% of the total controlled sum – hardly indicative of widespread abuse. Despite this, the narrative of suspected misconduct persisted. Within the sector, these waves of inspections and public statements were widely described as harassing and bullying – designed less to correct financial mismanagement than to intimidate and discredit non-governmental organizations.

Circumventing the Court ruling 

In December 2025, the Constitutional Court struck down the law as unconstitutional, holding that mandatory donor disclosure violated privacy and fundamental rights protected under the Slovak Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling rejected the framework in its entirety, and the law formally lost effect on 4 February 2026.

The government, however, did not abandon its approach. On 18 February 2026, it adopted a new resolution – this time not a law, but an executive directive – ordering intensified oversight of NGOs across multiple state authorities. District offices, tax authorities, labour inspectors, ministries, the Public Procurement Office, and the Data Protection Authority were instructed to expand controls over NGOs’ financial management, use of public funds, labour law compliance, and GDPR adherence. Annual reports from these inspections are to be consolidated and presented to the Cabinet each October.

Rather than labelling organizations as foreign agents, the state is mobilizing existing regulatory instruments to subject NGOs to heightened scrutiny. The formal justification remains transparency and proper use of public funds.

Further undermining of the sector

Other tactics are also being used to undermine the sector, including a deliberate strategy of defunding critical areas of civil society – designed specifically to limit and weaken nature protection, human rights protection, culture, and development aid. Analysis by the Platform for Democracy with the Open Society Foundation shows that funding losses in these areas reached €16m in 2024 and 2025. These were caused by a range of state interventions from administratively excluding NGOs from eligibility for the Green Education Fund (a loss of €823,000), to blocking approximately €5m from the European LIFE program by refusing mandatory co-financing, and negative intervention in the expert committees of 513 projects by the new Arts Support Fund Council (losing €3.5m).

For many in the sector, the cumulative effect of these measures constitutes a sustained campaign of pressure – intended not only to regulate but to intimidate.

Diversifying to build resilience

At the same time, the pressure has generated an unintended consequence: rising resilience within the sector. Many organizations have accelerated diversification of revenue streams, strengthening individual fundraising to reduce dependency on state resources. Crowdfunding campaigns, small-donor programs, and community-based giving have expanded. The process is exhausting, but also empowering.

For fundraisers and philanthropy leaders across Europe, Slovakia illustrates how restrictions on civic space can unfold incrementally – through rhetoric that reframes NGOs as political adversaries, through legal experiments that probe constitutional limits, and through administrative escalation when courts intervene. The Slovak case shows how civic space can be pressured inside the European Union without formally dismantling democratic institutions, testing not only constitutional safeguards but also the resilience of activists and organizations, donor trust and independent fundraising ecosystems.

Eduard Marček

Initiated by Fundraising Club Bulgaria and organized by the Bulgarian Center for Not-for-Profit Law (BCNL), the conference will bring together fundraising professionals, civil society leaders and corporate representatives from Bulgaria and across Europe. Tickets are now available.

The event will take place at Grand Hotel Millennium Sofia, followed by a special Masterclass on 19 June.

A call for courage in fundraising

This year’s edition takes the central theme of courage, reflecting how in a rapidly changing social and geopolitical environment, civil society organizations are increasingly required to go beyond familiar approaches and mobilise communities in new, creative ways.

Participants will have the opportunity to exchange experience with leading experts from Central and Eastern Europe, gain international perspective, and build partnerships across sectors.

Masterclass: Building large-scale digital movements

The training will provide practical tools and frameworks for engaging the public at scale and inspiring action through digital campaigns through a mix of presentations, exercises and discussions.

Building on a successful first edition

The inaugural conference in 2025 brought together over 200 participants from the nonprofit and business sectors, alongside 30 speakers from across Europe, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania and Bulgaria.

The programme featured 11 sessions covering topics such as fundraising for complex causes, digital mobilisation, corporate giving trends, and engaging major donors.

A growing community of changemakers

The International Fundraising Conference has quickly established itself as a key meeting point for the philanthropic community in Bulgaria. It provides a platform for sharing knowledge, building partnerships, and developing sustainable strategies for socially impactful work.

The 2026 edition is expected to further expand this community, bringing together professionals who believe that strong civil society is essential for a more just, sustainable and democratic future.

The conference is initiated by Fundraising Club Bulgaria and organised by the Bulgarian Center for Not-for-Profit Law (BCNL), with the financial support of the America for Bulgaria Foundation under the project “Stronger Together: Engaging Other Sectors in Civil Society Initiatives (2026–2028)”.

Partners supporting the event include: Accenture Bulgaria, Fantastico and Vivacom.

The event is held in collaboration with the European Fundraising Association (EFA).

Main image by Alexandr Bormotin on Unsplash

This is according to the Nordic Donor Report 2026, conducted on behalf of EFA members ISOBRO (Denmark), Giva Sverige (Sweden), Fundraising Norway and VaLa (Finland), with around 1,000 adults surveyed in each country.

Seven in 10 (70%) Norwegians, up from 66% last year, said they donate regularly or occasionally to charities. In Denmark, which was the most generous nation in the 2024 and 2025 surveys, the figure fell slightly from 67% to 66%.

Sweden also overtook Denmark, moving from 64% to 69%, while Finland’s figure dropped from 50% to 48%.

Between 2024 and 2025, the donor share had risen in all four countries, by at least six percentage points.

The report notes that the difference between men’s and women’s giving rates has been narrowing over time, and that giving is also increasing across most age groups. The exceptions are in Sweden and Norway, where giving by 18-29-year-olds has been flat across the last three years — something the report says “may need specific attention.”

25% more engagement

Across the four countries, overall engagement in charitable activities has grown by 25% between 2024 and 2026. There is a positive trend around activities such as donating clothes or goods — the most common charitable activity in the region — entering raffles, and making one-off or regular donations.

Volunteering has remained essentially stable, moving from 9% in 2024 to 10% in 2026, while remembering a charity in a will has dropped from 2% to 1%.

Humanitarian aid remained the most supported cause across the Nordics, cited by 27% of respondents, with support for disadvantaged people in their home country (24%) and people in need in developing countries (18%) the next most prominent.

There is, however, notable variation within the region. Helping disadvantaged people in the home country is Finland’s most supported cause (35%), ahead of humanitarian aid (23%) — the reverse of the pattern in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, where humanitarian aid consistently leads. Finland is also the only country where support for religious organizations has not declined over the three years of the survey.

The Finland gap

The report flags a decline in monthly giving in Finland, with the proportion of monthly donors dropping from 18% in 2025 to 10% in 2026, compared to roughly one in three donors in the other three countries.

As was the case following the 2025 report, VaLa points to tax policy as a structural factor in the gap, noting its own research findings that more than 30% of Finns say they would give more if donations were tax-deductible, rising to around 45% among younger age groups.

Picture by Lara Jameson via Pexels

Many NGOs will be familiar with this issue: communication largely takes place within the same bubble. It poses a constant challenge, especially in political campaigning. So how can we reach new people with our messages? And then, how can we win them over as long-term allies?

For Oxfam, as a political NGO in particular, how to reach new people is a question that arises repeatedly and with great urgency. Social inequality is one of our core issues, and once a year, we publish our Inequality Report at the World Economic Forum in Davos, which generates a lot of media attention. However, the central product of the report is a 60-page study – not exactly a crowd-pleaser that is likely to go viral on social media.

The task

So the questions we ask ourselves every year are:

• How can we communicate our complex political work?
• How can we be low-threshold and target-group-oriented?
• How can we generate leads with the help of this product?

We know that we need to reduce the complexity and encourage engagement but that we also need to remain credible. So how do we reach those who find reading a study too time-consuming, and communicate our content clearly and simply?

As a politically active organization, we must not fall into the trap of populism, and as a donation-based organization, credibility is central to our supporters.

So what can we offer beyond the news headline? And how can we encourage people to engage with us on our various channels?

Our answer to this question is usually: we start a petition. But apart from the fact that petitions are time-consuming, the problem remains that we usually address the same audience. And in this case, we only had six weeks to launch the campaign in time for the World Economic Forum.

The path to the product

From the outset, 2024’s campaign was planned as a cross-team project. It could only work if we brought together expertise from our advocacy, campaigning, and communication teams. So first, we set up a strict schedule with clear responsibilities and sign-off loops. This was clearly going to be a sprint.

In search of something new, we placed particular emphasis on attracting new target groups. With the help of user-centred design thinking approaches, we wanted to break away from Oxfam’s academic communication style and be as accessible as possible without coming across as patronizing. We asked ourselves: Which target group do we want to reach? And above all: What are their needs and interests? And how can we create added value for them?

The idea: a children’s book!

Why? Because parents and guardians are perfect match. They’re interested (including politically) in the future of our society and planet, and willing to get involved – but they have little time.

As parents and guardians, they’re also always on the lookout for interesting, high-quality entertainment for children that they can use to spend time together.

This offered an opening for us to simplify these complex issues with a child-friendly presentation. We came up with a little rabbit that encounters various situations symbolizing social injustices and presents solutions for a fairer world.

In book form, titled “Sometimes the world’s not fair”, it presented an opportunity for parents and children to learn together and discuss social injustice.

The campaign set-up

Our goal was to collect email leads (with double opt-in) and phone numbers (through required fields) with the e-book as an incentive. First however, we launched the campaign with a limited print edition at the World Economic Forum in Davos. After this sold out, the campaign continued as an e-book only.

We used advertising to reach people – mainly via paid campaigns on Facebook and Instagram – as well as target group-specific distribution to parents, educators, and design-savvy audiences.

Initial success

The first step of lead generation was extremely successful. The initial print run of 4,000 copies sold out within three days, generating 4,000 leads at a very low cost. Even when considering the total costs (including agency, print, and logistics), the results were significantly better than other lead campaigns.

Oxfam also reached a completely new and significantly younger target group, and achieved a very strong response from both new leads and existing supporters. In addition, we received numerous enquiries from daycare centres, schools, and parents interested in more copies for classrooms and libraries.

Conversion emailing to our newsletter subscribers was also very successful with a high conversion rate to regular givers.

Learning from mistakes

While the quality of email contacts was good, reaching people by phone was less successful. The new contacts were difficult to reach and had little time, leading us to conclude that this channel was not suitable for the target group.

Trying new things

So what next? Our children’s book had clearly struck a chord with a target group that we had previously found difficult to reach. However, in order to turn this into lasting success for us and gain new supporters in the long term, we had to make some adjustments.

Since the children’s book was obviously a very strong incentive, we converted the campaign into a direct acquisition campaign for regular givers. This was implemented with a landing page and an accompanying Meta campaign, and quickly showed an attractive CPO and a constant source of new regular donors. To keep interest high we developed a range of new paid social assets with different approaches, such as user-generated content (UGC).

We also tested the children’s book as an incentive in various other campaigns, as it can be easily combined with different topics, such as cuts in international aid programs. We sent out various conversion emailings to existing supporters, where we were able to achieve an extremely high conversion rate.

Finally, we were able to get a well-known German actress to record the text as an audiobook for us, which we used as part of our Christmas campaign.

In 2025, the campaign won first prize from the German Fundraising Association, and the book has now been adapted internationally by other Oxfam affiliates and published in countries including Turkey, Australia, and the Netherlands.

Lessons learned

• Be bold – trying new things can take a leap of faith but it pays off
• Get your basics right – set out a strict schedule and clear responsibilities
• Take your target group seriously – respond to what you know about them and what their actions tell you
• Don’t be discouraged – every mistake is a lesson you can learn from
• The devil’s in the details – it’s the many elements in a campaign that, together, make the difference

Valerie Senden

About Valerie Senden

Valerie Senden studied philosophy, German language and literature, and English language and literature in Berlin, Potsdam, and Turin, Italy. She has been working for Oxfam Germany in the field of digital communication and marketing since 2019, becoming head of digital communication in 2022 and currently serving as director of public fundraising and marketing (interim).

The survey of 1,043 adults finds that 56% gave money in the last six months, meaning the figure has returned to 2020 levels, although it remains short of the 63% in 2016, the survey’s first year.

The number giving monthly has also returned to pre-pandemic levels, at 29% – but remains lower than 2016’s 32%. Both monthly and general giving has increased for both men and women, and across all age groups.

Earlier this year, Giva Sverige said that two in three Swedish nonprofits expected their fundraising income to increase during 2026.

A more polarised landscape

Overall sentiment towards nonprofits remains strong – 79% of Swedes hold a positive view of the sector, a figure which was 77% in 2016 and has only changed marginally in the years since. The figure is even higher (88%) for those aged 18-34.

However, the report notes a growing divide between voters who supported the centre-right and nationalist parties who make up the Tidö coalition, which has governed Sweden since 2022, and opposition voters.

While 91% of opposition voters have a positive view of the sector, this drops to 66% among Tidö supporters – and the gap has grown since 2025, when the respective figures were 86% and 71%.

Charlotte Rydh, secretary general of Giva Sverige, writes in the report:

“Differences between voters of the different political blocs show that civil society operates in a more polarised public sphere — a reality that organizations must navigate. We also see a clear shift in what Swedes want civil society to do: from being seen as actors that solve societal challenges and strengthen democracy, to being valued for meeting places and community.”

Rydh’s point about shifting expectations reflects another point in the data.

The proportion of Swedes who say uniting people and creating meeting places and is an important future role for civil society is 32% – more than double the figure of 15% in 2021. The number saying it should help people to have meaningful leisure time has gone from 14% to 18%.

Meanwhile, the proportion saying that nonprofits must support the most vulnerable elsewhere in the world has dropped from 42% to 30%, and those who say it should solve difficult social challenges from 24% to 15%.

Reasons for not giving

The report also looked at the reasons why people gave, and why they did not.

For those who had given in the past six months, there were four main reasons:

• The cause matches my values: 43%
• I have been giving to this organization for a long time: 39%
• I wanted to help make a difference for the recipient of the gift: 38%
• I felt the need was clear/great: 38%

Among Swedes who had not donated in the previous six months, 36% said they couldn’t afford it, and 26% said they thought money wasn’t being spent properly. Nearly a fifth (17%) said they hadn’t been asked.

Picture by mammela on Pixabay

Philanthropy in Europe: Mapping Research and Data on Donations by Households, Bequests, Foundations, Corporations and Charity Lotteries looks at contributions from households, bequests, corporations, foundations, and charity lotteries to provide a comparative overview of philanthropic giving across Europe. An executive summary can be downloaded here, and the full report accessed via this link.

The study findings are based on the best available data from 2022 on philanthropic giving in 23 European countries. Breaking the overall figure of €104.5 billion down, the study reveals that:

• Household giving is the largest and best-documented source of philanthropy, totalling €52 billion across Europe
• Corporate giving amounts to €21.5 billion, though the true figure is likely considerably higher
• Foundation giving reaches €20.6 billion, with Germany and Switzerland home to the most active foundation sectors
• Bequests contribute €8.4 billion and remain significantly under-measured across most of Europe
• Charity lotteries generate €1.9 billion, concentrated in a small number of countries including the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden

The study is edited by Barry Hoolwerf and Johan Vamstad and draws on the expertise of nearly 50 researchers. It maps how philanthropic resources are directed toward a wide range of causes, including health, social services, education, culture, environment, international aid, and community initiatives.

It also provides a systematic assessment of data quality across Europe, stating that the €104.5 billion estimate is a lower-bound figure, with significant amounts of giving remaining invisible due to data gaps and inconsistencies. This, ERNOP says, highlights how differences between countries often reflect differences in data infrastructure as much as differences in generosity.

Barry Hoolwerf, director of ERNOP and co-editor of Philanthropy in Europe said:

“Building on our 2017 Giving in Europe study, this publication again maps the scale of philanthropic giving across Europe. What emerges is a picture of considerable variety and resilience in how philanthropy is expressed across countries. At the same time, our ability to understand it remains uneven — and in some cases appears to be weakening. The gaps in our data are not a footnote; they are a central finding. Strengthening Europe’s philanthropic data infrastructure is not a technical ambition — it is a prerequisite for informed public debate, effective policy, and the long-term development of the sector.”

ERNOP’s 2017 Giving in Europe study estimated philanthropic giving at €87.5 billion in 2013. Although ERNOP states that differences in data availability and methodology limit direct comparison, it notes that the updated figures underline both the scale of philanthropy in Europe and the importance of continued investment in data infrastructure.

Main image: Unsplash Community for Unsplash+

The publication also includes 17 recommendations for the Scottish Government, its charity regulator, grantmaking foundations themselves, and the organizations which seek their grants.

The research by the University of St Andrews Business School’s Centre for the Study of Philanthropy and Public Good (CSPPG) identifies 315 charities that mainly distribute funds to other organizations, rather than run services themselves. Around half of the foundations, both in number and in terms of total funds, are based in Scotland’s two largest cities, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

These foundations generated a collective total income of £2.6bn in their last year, a figure significantly larger than the £601m of grants made. However, the researchers warned that it could be a mistake for the Scottish Government to create laws, like those seen in other countries, to force foundations to distribute a certain percentage of their assets each year.

“The modelling suggests importing a similar rule without careful design could backfire,” a CSPPG press release says, noting that it might encourage some to “cut back to the minimum”, reducing the sector’s total outlay.

Other recommendations in the report for the Government include engaging with foundations with low levels of grantmaking, and to develop further regulations for emerging forms of philanthropy, such as donor advised funds (DAFs). Meanwhile, recommendations for the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) focus on improving the data available on grantmaking foundations and charities to enable better policymaking.

On this point, the project’s lead research Dr Christopher Dougherty says:

“We now have a clearer picture of the scale of foundation wealth in Scotland, but we still lack reliable data on restrictions, investments and grant recipients. Without that, it is very difficult to design evidence-based policy.”

Meanwhile, grantmaking foundations are urged to “consider economic counter-cyclical funding practices, to increase funding when economic conditions are worse to better respond to community needs”, alongside three other recommendations around better engagement with both others in the sector, and local and national government.

Grantseekers are told to “focus on pragmatism in approaching grantmaking foundation”.

Last year, Fundraising Europe highlighted new research showing that there are approximately 175,203 foundations across Europe, with total annual expenditure of €76bn. CSPPG’s data therefore shows that Scotland’s foundation make up just under 1% of that total expenditure, but represent only 0.2% of total foundations.

Picture by Henrik Hjortshøj on Unsplash

Raport 100 #nonprofitPL na LinkedIn, published by communications consultancy Instytut Dobrej Komunikacji, includes the 100 Polish nonprofits with the highest LinkedIn following, and a separate ranking of individual sector leaders.

Three fundraising figures

Three of the ten most influential individuals in the Social Justice & Philanthropy category for Poland are fundraising professionals, according to data from analytics platform Favikon, which ranks individuals based on factors including engagement and reach rather than follower count alone.

• Mirella Panek-Owsiańska, a fundraising advisor to NGOs, ranks third with 10,249 followers.
• Robert Kawałko, president and CEO of the Polskie Stowarzyszenie Fundraisingu (Polish Fundraising Association), ranks sixth with 5,835 followers.
• Fundraising consultant Katarzyna Konefał ranks eighth, with 10,813 followers.

The top position is held by Olga Kotyk, a social impact entrepreneur and CEO of the Web-Korki Foundation.

Women’s organisations lead the field

In the organizational rankings, five of the top six accounts by follower count work specifically on women’s empowerment and professional development.

Sieć Przedsiębiorczych Kobiet (Network of Entrepreneurial Women) leads the ranking with 41,000 followers, while Fundacja Kobiety Inspirują (Women Who Inspire Foundation) recorded the highest percentage growth of any organisation tracked, up 453% since the report’s previous edition in 2023, adding more than 24,000 new followers.

The report notes that women’s organizations not only attract large audiences but frequently collaborate with one another, amplifying their collective reach.

Paulina Kołodziejak-Łaska, marketing director at Sieć Przedsiębiorczych Kobiet, writes in the report:

“LinkedIn has become a key platform for consciously shaping career paths and strengthening market position. Networking on LinkedIn has stopped being merely about collecting contacts, and has become a process of building strong support networks.”

Beyond the women’s sector, education-focused organizations account for the largest single category by number of profiles in the top 100 (18), followed by technology (10) and sector or industry associations (10). The median follower count among the top 100 is 5,381.

Overall, tracked organizations grew by an average of 50% over the two-year period, though growth was highly uneven. The report’s authors note that follower count is not the sole measure of communications success, but offers a useful guide to which causes and approaches are resonating on the platform.

Photo by freestocks-photos on Pixabay

According to the report, public donations continued to drop between 2024 and 2025, with people giving an estimated £14bn in 2025, compared to £15.4bn in 2024. The public’s mean monthly donation was £65 in 2025, down from £72 in 2024, while the median donation also declined by 9%, from £28 to £26.

Affordability and (lack of) interest

The survey respondents who did not donate to charity in 2025 were asked the reasons why. The most common response by far was ‘I can’t afford it’ (49%), followed by ‘I don’t trust charities to use my money wisely’ (19%), ‘I just didn’t want to’ (10%) and ‘There hasn’t been a charity that’s interested me enough (9%)’.

CAF says that nearly three in 10 (28%) of non-donors gave an answer suggesting that they weren’t interested in charities in general, with that figure rising to just under half (49%) of those who are higher and additional rate taxpayers – a more affluent group of UK residents, numbering roughly seven million.

For those who donate to charity, the majority are motivated by an emotional reason (78%), such as caring about the cause, and because they want to be part of something bigger (53%), such as supporting their community or making a difference.

Sectors and methods

The overseas aid and disaster relief sector has been particularly badly hit – total donations have dropped from £970m in 2016 to £727m in 2025.

Health charities have the broadest support (43% of donors supporting them last year), but on average give £27, which is on par with the sector-wide average.

While only 8% of donors gave to religious causes last year, their donations were on average far higher than for any other sector at £90 – no other sector had a figure in excess of £60. Religious charities were particularly popular among donors in Northern Ireland and the East of England, while London donors had a particular interest in environmental charities.

More than a quarter of all giving – £4bn in total – is ‘planned’, which CAF defines as meaning it comes through direct debits, standing orders, membership fees and subscriptions. Meanwhile, 40% of donors said they normally only give to charity when directly asked or moved by an appeal, and a third of donors still like to donate cash.

Mark Greer, managing director of the Charities Aid Foundation says:

“Giving falling by nearly 10% in a year will be a significant concern for charities up and down the country who are providing vital services to people in need. We have been relying on a declining number of dedicated donors, but the reality of this trend has begun to bite.

“To support our communities, we need a collaborative effort to revive the culture of giving across the country. This includes exploring ways we can encourage donations from those that can afford to give, and policy action from the Government to unlock greater giving.”