People choose to donate for many different reasons, and in a multitude of ways. A one-off online donation, as we know, is generally a quick response to an urgent appeal. Yet in the Netherlands – and more widely – we have found that many nonprofits request a lot of personal data before allowing these donors to give.

There are several problems with this. Firstly, collecting data that isn’t needed in order to process an online donation puts people off giving. Secondly, it opens donors up to communications they don’t really want (potentially affecting how they then feel about that nonprofit), and finally, data minimisation is an important part of GDPR compliance.

Investigating whether charities practice data minimisation when taking one-off online donations is an area Donateursbelangen has looked into closely here in the Netherlands. Our research reveals which personal data is required, whether charities are transparent about donation transaction costs, and also whether donors have the option to give anonymously using payment methods with consumer protection.

Mandatory personal data requests
The complete research covers the Top 250 Dutch charities and is offered as open data that can be filtered on all fields. It shows that quite a few charities still make a mandatory request for personal data before allowing someone to donate, asking for everything from physical address, telephone number, name, email address, gender, and date of birth.

The study shows for example that 71 of the 285 online donation modules of charities examined require the physical residential address with the zip code & house number. Yet this personal data is not needed to process an online donation. Every donor who is obliged to leave an address can then expect direct emails in the mailbox, but apart from this, it enables charities can do data enrichment based on zip code + house number, from which up to 2,500 characteristics about the donor can be recorded.

Key figures
The following key figures provide insight into one-off online donations to charities via online donation modules in the Netherlands:

• 82% of charities do not communicate what the transaction costs are.
• 73% of charities don’t allow donors to give anonymously.
• 69% of charities don’t ask donors to agree to the privacy terms.
• 25% of charities demand the donor’s address.
• 4% of charities demand the donor’s telephone number.

Legitimate interest?
The nonprofit sector and fundraisers in Europe expect and explain that they can collect this data through the legitimate interest condition within GDPR’s law, but it’s a grey area. It’s not obvious how the condition applies, and unless a nonprofit can substantiate the reasoning, data subjects can object to the processing and force you to remove their records. They can do this via a DSAR (data subject access request), which gives them a full record of the data you hold on them and the purpose for collecting it. If they disagree with your justification for legitimate interest, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Making personal data mandatory that is not really needed for a one-off online donation, and not being transparent about how their data will be used, means donors don’t really know what’s happening, and that the nonprofit is not really representing their interests. The Privacy Coalition in The Netherlands, which Donateursbelangen has joined, is working to raise awareness of the issue, and to reverse this trend.

What must happen according to the Dutch Privacy Coalition?
We have to say goodbye to business models that are based on the massive collection of data from users. Asking for mandatory personal data from donors while making a one-off online donation should stop, and it’s an easy change to make. The first step is to make these fields optional in the donation form so donors themselves can decide how much personal data to share. The second is to make sure donors are aware that their data is collected and held through a privacy declaration and by making sure they can only donate when they’ve selected a mandatory checkbox to show this: [ ] I agree with the privacy declaration.

Data minimisation should be the starting point
Apart from possible legitimate interest, data minimisation is part of the GDPR law as well and should be the starting point when asking people for a donation. This fits into “Privacy by Design” as well.

What about Europe?
Donateursbelangen represents the interests of donors in the Netherlands only but checking a few charities outside of the Netherlands it looks like the situation is similar elsewhere. Currently the nonprofit sector in Europe is lucky that authorities in charge of GDPR legislation have other things on their mind but it could well be that someday data minimisation will win over legitimate interest. So why not act now and make the fields in your donation form or module optional. If you say you’re a donor-centric nonprofit, this should extend to letting your donors decide themselves what to share with you!

About Jordan van Bergen

Jordan van Bergen started the Dutch GeefGratis foundation in 2001, the goal of which was to deliver free internet services to charities through the donation platform geef.nl in the Netherlands. The platform was sold in 2021 and at the end of 2022 the foundation changed its name to Stichting Donateursbelangen. Its objective is to represent the interests of donors in The Netherlands. Fundraising organisations can show that they use donor-oriented fundraising by signing 10 donor promises. Jordan is currently the CEO of Stichting Donateursbelangen, and is also global leader of GivingTuesday in The Netherlands, and program manager for Techsoup The Netherlands, an IT marketplace for nonprofits.

Picture by Yan Krukau on Pexels

Every six months, one of the 27 EU Member States takes over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The reason why this is often referred to as the “EU Presidency”, rather than just the Council Presidency, is the fact that the agenda set by the Presidency sets the course for all EU decision-making for that six-month period.

These days EU Presidencies are organised in “Trios” which means that three consecutive EU Presidencies agree on an overarching programme ahead of their combined 18-month term. In other words, whatever course they decide to take will have a significant impact on the legislation coming out of Brussels during that time. The Czech Republic is the second Presidency in this trio, preceded by France and followed by Sweden.

The past years and months have seen a big push by the EU towards strengthening the rights and freedoms of citizens. Whilst this is of course a positive development in principle, we have also seen that an overzealous approach towards privacy protection can have negative implications for fundraisers and other not-for-profit organisations (NPOs). In the Programme of the Czech Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the Czechs announced that they will build on the work of their French predecessors, keeping a strong focus on the protection of (digital) rights of citizens. Whilst supporting the general principle, it is important for EFA and its members to remain vigilant and to educate decision-makers regarding any undue negative implications legislative proposals might have on the sector.

Whilst there is not much EU legislation drafted specifically for the fundraising sector, we have been following and reporting on a number of EU legislative proposals that can have a direct or indirect impact on how fundraisers and NPOs carry out their day-to-day business. Most of these proposals are designed to protect citizens’ rights, and more specifically their privacy. Whilst these proposals are drafted in essence to curb large online players, EU legislators often underestimate the collateral damage on the NPO sector.

We all know the General Data Protection Regulation by now, and the limitations it imposed on the work of NPOs, as well as a significant increase in administrative and regulatory burden. More recently, an ongoing revision of European e-Privacy legislation could kill all telephone and online outreach to existing and potential donors. But it is not just online limitations, for some time now the EU has been mulling the introduction of an opt-in regime for unaddressed mailings, which would make it virtually impossible to deliver leaflets or any other materials door-to-door in order to attract donors.

In their Presidency Programme, the Czechs outline that they will keep on this same course and take over the agreement of the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles, which was presented during the French Presidency. EFA will keep monitoring our relevant legislative files closely, together with our coalition partners, and we will set out to educate decision-makers regarding the potential implications of these proposals on the sector. This way we hope to contribute to a balanced approach that considers all stakeholders involved.

Patrick Gibbels, Gibbels Public Affairs

About Patrick Gibbels

Patrick is EFA’s public affairs columnist in Brussels.

He is the director of Gibbels Public Affairs.

Follow Patrick @GPA_Brussels.

Read more from Patrick in our View from Brussels column here.

Main photo by Martin Krchnacek on Unsplash

CNIL has warned against using Google Analytics because all data hosted through the tool is held in the US. Under GDPR, personal data transfer outside of the EU is restricted to ensure transfers only occur if the same level of protection can be guaranteed as within the EU. CNIL considers the measures Google has put in place to be insufficient.

To help nonprofits move from Google Analytics to other, GDPR compliant tools, France générosités undertook a review of those on offer. This saw a working group of 30 web marketing experts from its member base compile a comparative matrix of 15 compliant alternatives approved by CNIL, with the benchmark of different solutions now available to the France générosités network.

To help nonprofits outside of its network, France générosités has also made public its key takeaways and recommendations from the study.

“With the 2021 Generosity Barometer showing that online donations represented a quarter of the overall total collected in 2021 from one-off donations, it is an area well worth investing in,” commented Corentin Hue, France générosités digital project manager.

As well as ensuring a fine is avoided, France générosités notes another benefit of using compliant analysis tools – more data. This is thanks to the more precise tracking that is possible through a hybrid mode with cookies, which many of the newer solutions offer. Previously some of its members had observed between 50% and 80% data loss on their Cookies Management Platform due to GDPR compliance on cookies use.

When looking for a new tool, the working group’s review recommends:

– Testing a number of tools during the decision-making process, alongside Google Analytics, to enable a comparison of the resulting data.

– Involving all relevant departments in the process and considering the organisation’s likely future requirements

– Undertaking all due diligence to ensure the documentation provided and the support available for the tool meet requirements, and documenting the entire process – also essential for GDPR compliancy.

There is also a summary of criteria for nonprofits to consider when creating their own list of alternatives to Google Analytics, from compatibility with data visualisation tools, to whether they plan to continue using classic quantitative data or to move towards heat map journeys or solutions for example, and what APIs and data feedback campaign managers require from the different channels.

Providing additional support, CNIL has produced a Q&A on the topic, which explains in more depth why Google Analytics can’t be used under GDPR.

More on this topic: Is Google Analytics on its way out?

Picture by Pexels on Pixabay

The Global Data Privacy Report by the Global Data & Marketing Alliance (GDMA) in partnership with Acxiom reveals that 49% of global consumers across all 16 markets are comfortable with the idea of data exchange. The markets surveyed include Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and UK.

In Europe, the proportion of those unconcerned about sharing their data rises above 1 in 3 in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands, while growth in this segment is particularly pronounced in France, Spain, and the UK.

Trust & transparency

Trust in an organisation remains the most important factor driving consumer willingness to share personal information. Transparency is also a fundamental factor. 77% of global consumers saying that transparency around how data is collected and used is important to them when sharing their personal information. This is particularly the case among older consumers. 83% of those aged 55+ globally state that transparency about the collection and use of their data is important, compared to 67% of 18-34s.

Privacy & GDPR 

Online privacy remains a concern for an average of 71% across the 16 markets surveyed. This is falling however across some markets. Across 10 that were also surveyed in 2018, it has dropped from an average of 74% in 2018 to 69% in 2022. Spain and the USA have seen the most significant fall, from around 80% in 2018 to just under 70% in 2022, and in Belgium, France, Germany and Japan, it falls to a low of just over 60%.

Public awareness of GDPR has risen significantly across European markets. In fact, awareness has more than doubled in all European markets since 2018.

Martin Nitsche, Chair of GDMA & President of DDV (German Data Marketing Association) said:

“Given the diversity of cultures, economic development and digital maturity of these markets, this report is remarkable for the consistency of its findings across the 16 countries. Critically, consumers understand the part data has to play in the data value exchange. Trust remains the most decisive factor driving consumers’ willingness to share data, so the guiding principle of valuing privacy must engender trust at the heart of customer communication.”

Photo by William Fortunato on Pexels

Online giving is booming. Here in France, online donations were up by over 70% in 2020, according to our annual barometer. Digital is becoming increasingly important for nonprofits, but the environment is becoming more restrictive and therefore a riskier space.

After a historic decision by the Austrian Data Protection Authority that the continuous use of Google Analytics contravenes data protection regulations (GDPR), the French Data Protection Authority CNIL has now followed suit, sanctioning the use of Google Analytics in transferring data outside the EU and saying:

“While Google has adopted additional measures to regulate data transfers within the framework of the Google Analytics functionality, these are not sufficient to exclude the possibility of access by American intelligence services to this data.”

Does this mean it’s all over for Google Analytics? If so, what does that mean for nonprofits and our use of cookies more widely? And what impact will that have on our communications with donors or the supporter experience more widely?

Several thousands euros of lost donations

For France générosités, CNIL’s approach is not surprising. Indeed, Google Analytics hasn’t been classified as being exempt from consent and, during discussions with the CNIL, their team explained their view that Google’s solutions were not compliant.

For years, the members of France générosités have been working to comply with the GDPR. When it comes to cookies compliance, the impact has been felt astutely. Our member associations and foundations have recorded an average of 50-80% data loss on their CMP (Cookies Management Platform).

This has a real consequence on the acquisition of donations, restricting organisations’ abilities to optimise marketing campaigns or to source digital leads for donation. For some of our members, this loss was valued at several thousand euros a year. But it’s challenging to measure the full picture reliably and the true cost to the sector may well be considerably higher.

Should this “cat and mouse” game continue?

We are seeing a change within this digital era, which includes Apple’s policy update and web browsers that default to block tracking cookies and the weariness of Internet users towards cookie notices. Should this “cat and mouse” game continue? Do we really need to keep optimising these tools and looking for lost data on Google Analytics?

Even while waiting for a response from Google Analytics to the latest CNIL announcement, it seems clear that we need to start changing our practices. It’s time to recognise the utopianism of free data provided by Google Analytics and to be ready to invest in sourcing and managing reliable, relevant and essential data for our collection strategies.

The CNIL has already referenced 15 digital tools, which in a certain version and in a certain configuration (accuracy is the key to our business apparently) are “compliant” alternatives to Google Analytics. And at France générosités, we’ve set up a working group to co-build a comparison matrix of new measurement tools, sharing their feedback and experiences across the network. Our comparative table will be finalised by June.

What is the future for digital marketing?

New compliant solutions are being worked out between Google, site editors, online advertising players and data regulation authorities to develop alternative tools to third-party cookies that comply with GDPR, such as Topics from Google (recently replacing FLoC).

In the meantime, audience measurement tools can offer a wide variety of features at prices ranging from €100 per month to €50,000 per year. What investment are we willing to make to have access to this data and finesse analysis? These alternative technologies provide statistical and attribution data that is very different from Google Analytics.

Many players (like Apple with IOS 14) are changing their attribution models to better match today’s constraints. However, repetition is the key to transformation, so why continue to obsess over this data?

According to Adfinitas, 53% of the messages our associations and foundations send to donors are not personalised. We must then rethink our KPIs to seek qualitative data and develop our loyalty cycles to reduce attrition.

At France générosités, we will continue to support the sector and our members through all these new constraints to develop the generosity of the French people and support the professionalisation of fundraising. The first step will be to report back on our assessment of the 15 alternative tools to Google Analytics, which we’ll share the comparison matrix through Fundraising Europe this Summer and report online at www.francegenerosites.org.

About Corentin Hue

Corentin Hue, France générosités

After taking an MBA in communications and marketing strategy, Corentin worked with Caritas France, French Food Banks, and Humanity & Inclusion. He joined the syndicate France générosités three years ago, where he leads on institutional communication, promotion of generosity with the platform Infodon.fr and runs the annual campaign #VosDonsAgissent. Corentin supports NGO members through digital and innovation in fundraising, coordinating the organisation’s many working groups.

On January 1, France officially took over the rotating Presidency of the EU Council from its predecessor Slovenia. Traditionally, every Presidency presents its priorities at the beginning of its six-month tenure. The EU Council Presidencies work in Trios, which means that a wider trio programme is developed and agreed between the three consecutive presidencies within the trio, upon which the individual programmes are based. France is at the helm of a trio with Czechia and Sweden respectively, therefore the French Presidency programme sets the tone for the EU Member States’ general policy priorities for the coming 18 months.

We analysed the French programme and what it might mean for NPOs and the fundraising sector.

The Trio Priorities are thematically organised into four pillars: to protect citizens and freedoms; to promote a new growth and investment model for Europe; to build a greener and more socially equitable Europe; a global Europe. Within these pillars, the French Presidency has incorporated a number of files that have been on EFA’s radar and that affect the sector.

e-Privacy

The French Presidency will continue work on the ePrivacy Regulation concerning the respect for private life and the protection of personal data in electronic communications, which clarifies and complements the General Data Protection Regulation whilst protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals and legal entities with regard to the supply and use of electronic communications services. I wrote on this subject in previous editions of Fundraising Europe, the new rules and potential restrictions on digital and telephone outreach can become considerably burdensome for fundraisers. EFA has been actively advocating on behalf of the sector.

Data Act and e-ID

Similarly, The Presidency will begin work on the Data Act, which, together with the Data Governance Act already adopted, which is aimed at creating a reliable legal framework enabling data exchange whilst ensuring that sharing mechanisms are secure. In order to produce practical results for European citizens, the Presidency will continue work on creating a European digital identity. A clear data act and a better use of cross-border electronic identification (e-ID) could be of benefit to the day to day business and administration of NPOs, especially those operating cross-border.

Anti-Money Laundering (and terrorism financing)

A high priority will be placed on protecting financial transactions against cyber and criminal threats. The Presidency will continue the work on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism by creating a European supervisory authority, and revising the rules on transfers of funds. It will hold a ministerial conference on sovereignty in the face of financial crime as early as 21 January 2022. Whilst it is important to stop money laundering and the financing of criminal activities, we must ensure that the work of fundraisers is not disproportionately hampered by restrictions based on a one-size-fits-all approach by the EU.

Tax evasion

In line with the above, the Presidency will undertake work on future initiatives designed to strengthen administrative cooperation between Member States and action to counter tax evasion and avoidance.

EFA will continue to monitor these policies closely and we will update you on any meaningful developments regarding these files in more detail, as they progress through the EU Institutions during the French Presidency.

Patrick Gibbels, Gibbels Public Affairs

About Patrick Gibbels

Patrick is EFA’s public affairs columnist in Brussels.

He is the director of Gibbels Public Affairs.

Follow Patrick @GPA_Brussels.

Read more from Patrick in our View from Brussels column here.

Photo by jlxp on Pixabay

This year’s European Commission Work Programme has a very strong focus on completing the European Single Market. In essence, this is good for charities. After all, fragmented rules across Europe can cause problems for organisations, particularly those operating cross-border. However, levelling the playing field should not mean a one-size-fits-all approach, and it is important for the EU to consider the specific nature of nonprofits. A number of initiatives can have a significant impact on the sector and so we are monitoring these files closely. Ones to watch include the following:

Anti-Money Launching and Terrorist Financing

New rules on Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Terrorist Financing are due to be published this month. These new rules could mean a heavier administrative and regulatory burden for nonprofit organisations. The way the EU classifies each nonprofit, more specifically whether the organisation is seen as an obliged entity or not, will determine whether they fall within the full scope of the regulation. The sector has therefore been advocating a risk-based approach, rather than a catch-all solution.

One of the main reasons for the EU to update the rules on money laundering is legal fragmentation across EU Member States, making it very difficult for organisations to operate cross-border. It also creates a competitive disadvantage for those nonprofits that are active in the more heavily regulated countries. The aim now is for maximum regulatory harmonisation across the EU. In the most recent move, an EU-level contact point has now been established to assist nonprofits that are active in areas hit by EU sanctions. This person will oversee derogations for these organisations – see this guidance note. We are monitoring developments on this front and will share updates when the new legislative proposal has launched.

Conference on the Future of Europe

To guide Europe’s future policies, the European Commission has introduced The Conference on the Future of Europe. This initiative is a citizen-led series of debates and discussions that will enable people from across Europe to share their ideas and help shape our common future. The outcome of the Conference will be agenda setting and affect the course of future EU actions. It is therefore important that civil society is represented.

75 civil society organisations have signed a joint declaration. The declaration sets out that civil society organisations are intermediaries between individuals and public institutions, as recognised by the EU Treaties.They bring people together in a common cause, set collective goals for the common good and ensure participation and empowerment of all people. As such they should be actively and proactively involved in the different phases of the Conference.

Action plan for social economy

Aiming to boost the contribution of social economy organisations to a fair and sustainable growth in Europe, achieve The European Commission is currently preparing an action plan for social economy, it plans to launch in the fourth quarter of this year. The plan will enhance social investment, support social economy organisations to start up, scale up, innovate and create jobs.

Foundations and philanthropic actors are acting in the social economy sphere in a dual capacity: as social economy actors in their own right, and as funders/investors and partners of social economy actors. Through Philanthropy Advocacy, DAFNE and EFC have drafted a policy paper exploring the role of foundations and other philanthropic actors.

ePrivacy and data protection

Also highly relevant for the sector are the new EU rules on ePrivacy, a file which had started moving again after years of deadlock in the EU Institutions. These new rules can have a serious impact on the daily operations of fundraisers and nonprofits as they dictate what type of donor outreach is allowed and what isn’t, and which data an organisation can collect and in what way these data may be used. The GDPR already brought restrictions to the sector, the e-Privacy Regulation seeks to further tighten these rules. EFA has been working with other organisations who follow this dossier and share our concerns.

As it stands, the European Council is pushing a one-size-fits-all, rather than a risk-based approach, which is not ideal for the nonprofit sector. To help us all understand the Regulation better, EFA is in the process of organising an exchange of views with the European Commission on this matter. This will also provide EFA with an opportunity to inform the Commission of the potential pitfalls of this Regulation for the sector. More news on this will follow.

About Patrick Gibbels

Patrick Gibbels, Gibbels Public Affairs

Patrick is EFA’s public affairs columnist in Brussels. He is the director of Gibbels Public Affairs. Follow Patrick @GPA_Brussels.

Read more from Patrick in our View from Brussels column here.

Main photo by Stephanie LeBlanc on Unsplash

Pedro Nuno Santos, Portuguese Minister for Infrastructure and Housing, President of the Council, says:

“Robust privacy rules are vital for creating and maintaining trust in a digital world. The path to the Council position has not been easy, but we now have a mandate that strikes a good balance between solid protection of the private life of individuals and fostering the development of new technologies and innovation. The Portuguese presidency is very pleased to launch talks now with the European Parliament on this key proposal.”

An update to the existing ePrivacy directive of 2002 is needed to cater for new technological and market developments, such as the current widespread use of Voice over IP, web-based email and messaging services, and the emergence of new techniques for tracking users’ online behaviour.

The draft ePrivacy regulation will replace the existing ePrivacy directive.

A summary of the Council mandate is set out below. You can read more about the background to this in our View from Brussels column and about the EU’s shift towards a digital Europe.

Council mandate

Under the Council mandate, the regulation will cover electronic communications content transmitted using publicly available services and networks, and metadata related to the communication. Metadata includes, for example, information on location and the time and recipient of communication. It is considered potentially as sensitive as the content.

To ensure full protection of privacy rights and to promote a trusted and secure Internet of Things, the rules will also cover machine-to-machine data transmitted via a public network.

The rules will apply when end-users are in the EU. This also covers cases where the processing takes place outside the EU or the service provider is established or located outside the EU.

As a main rule, electronic communications data will be confidential. Any interference, including listening to, monitoring and processing of data by anyone other than the end-user will be prohibited, except when permitted by the ePrivacy regulation.

Permitted processing of electronic communications data without the consent of the user includes, for example, ensuring the integrity of communications services, checking for the presence of malware or viruses, or cases where the service provider is bound by EU or member states’ law for the prosecution of criminal offences or prevention of threats to public security.

Metadata may be processed for instance for billing, or for detecting or stopping fraudulent use. With the user’s consent, service providers could, for example, use metadata to display traffic movements to help public authorities and transport operators to develop new infrastructure where it is most needed. Metadata may also be processed to protect users’ vital interests, including for monitoring epidemics and their spread or in humanitarian emergencies, in particular natural and man-made disasters.

In certain cases, providers of electronic communications networks and services may process metadata for a purpose other than that for which it was collected, even when this is not based on the user’s consent or certain provisions on legislative measures under EU or member state law. This  processing for another purpose must be compatible with the initial purpose, and strong specific safeguards apply to it.

As the user’s terminal equipment, including both hardware and software, may store highly personal information, such as photos and contact lists, the use of processing and storage capabilities and the collection of information from the device will only be allowed with the user’s consent or for other specific transparent purposes laid down in the regulation.

The end-user should have a genuine choice on whether to accept cookies or similar identifiers. Making access to a website dependent on consent to the use of cookies for additional purposes as an alternative to a paywall will be allowed if the user is able to choose between that offer and an equivalent offer by the same provider that does not involve consenting to cookies.

To avoid cookie consent fatigue, an end-user will be able to give consent to the use of certain types of cookies by whitelisting one or several providers in their browser settings. Software providers will be encouraged to make it easy for users to set up and amend whitelists on their browsers and withdraw consent at any moment.

The text also includes rules on line identification, public directories, and unsolicited and direct marketing.

The Council and the European Parliament will need to negotiate the terms of the final text, and the regulation would enter into force 20 days after its publication in the EU Official Journal, and would apply two years later. 

It’s been four years since the European Commission tabled its proposal for a new e-Privacy Regulation, but the file is once again gaining momentum. The Regulation, which will replace the existing e-Privacy Directive, will likely introduce stricter privacy rules.

At a time where public fundraising is limited, reliance on electronic communication is high. Any new measures that further increase the privacy and data protection of citizens, might reduce the ways in which charities and NGOs reach out to and keep track of existing and potential donors.

The Regulation is supposed to replace the 2002 e-Privacy Directive and specify the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, the proposal has been in a semi-deadlock in the European Council since 2017, with Member States failing to align on its specific contents. The objective of the Regulation is to reinforce trust and security in the Digital Single Market, whilst providing a measure of flexibility for stakeholders. Since one contradicts the other, this creates a win-lose situation. The Council has tabled several compromise papers, during the Presidencies of Finland, Croatia, Germany and, most recently, Portugal in an attempts to find balance.

One of the main issues for fundraisers and NGOs within the e-Privacy Regulation will lie within the areas of data processing and direct marketing. Maintaining relevant databases of donors, as well as the ability to reach out to potential donors, are crucial elements in many EFA members’ daily operations. The key issue in both areas will be explicit consent, in other words, whether an opt-in by citizens is needed and which activities will fall within the scope of this.

Another major point of discussion amongst the Member States is the ‘do not track’ standard, which is difficult to enforce in practice. This standard would have made sure that cookies and other digital trackers need to be disabled by default and from the outset – and could only be enabled with the explicit consent of the user. Such a standard would be harmful for the sector as it is unlikely that many people will go and actively enable cookies and trackers, and that is assuming they know what they are in the first place.

Most organisations have already experienced tighter rules on things like email and telephone marketing campaigns, in terms of who may be contacted and how consent must be acquired. The e-Privacy Regulation seeks to extend this much further into digital marketing by including providers of electronic communication networks or services (internet companies, such as Google and Facebook) and, more importantly, by covering not only communications data but also metadata (e.g. sender, time, location).

It will cover cookies, online identifiers, search engine directories, and direct marketing. These tools are used by fundraisers to target potential donors and will be particularly relevant to those that use ad-supported business models, given their reliance on cookies and tracking technologies. Anything that could impede their ability to track and behaviourally target ads at web users is a threat to the current modus operandi.

It is important to note that this concerns an EU Regulation. Unlike a Directive, which is the legal basis of the current e-privacy rules, Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. They are binding in their entirety on all EU countries. Therefore, what is decided in Brussels will be implemented in the Member States unaltered and will apply to all organisations undertaking activities that fall within the scope of the Regulation.

Once the EU Council reaches a General Approach on the matter, it will enter into negotiations with the European Parliament. After both Institutions vote in favor or the final report, the Regulation will be published in the EU’s Official Journal, upon which it will become law. This means there is a limited window of influence to address any concerns EFA’s members may have to the European Parliament and Council, so that they can take these into consideration during their negotiations.

In the coming week, EFA will reach out to members with more specific information and questions.

Main image credit: Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Patrick Gibbels, Gibbels Public Affairs

Patrick is EFA’s public affairs columnist in Brussels. He is the director of Gibbels Public Affairs. Follow Patrick @GPA_Brussels.

Read more from Patrick in our View from Brussels column here.

This year has been extremely tough for nonprofits and fragmentation in the way different European Member States approached the pandemic certainly won’t have made life any easier. So, the announcement of a more coordinated approach for the future is welcome, as set out in the European Commission’s annual work programme for 2021, announced on 19 October. Aiming to ensure Intra-EU cross-border activities in future scenarios, the European Commission set out six clear headline areas for action:

• A European Green Deal;
• A Europe fit for the Digital Age;
• An economy that works for people;
• A stronger Europe in the world;
• Promoting our European way of life;
• A new push for European democracy.

Within those headlines, there are at least a couple of areas that are likely to have an influence on philanthropy and fundraising.  Under Europe fit for the Digital Age, the European Commission will expand on its push towards free-flowing data and data aspects of Artificial Intelligence (AI), while working to protect the right to privacy. The Commission will propose a new European Digital Identity giving people more access to services across Europe but also more control over the data they share and how it is used.

For civil society organisations, this can work both ways. On the one hand, you will be able to enjoy easier access to data and AI, which could lead to better identification of potential donors and an overall more targeted approach. On the other hand, it can lead to more administrative and regulatory burden. It is important that nonprofits are included in any relevant consultation procedure at EU level or make their voices heard in alternative ways, so as to educate the EU Institutions about the needs of the sector and warn them about any potential pitfalls in planned legislation.

An economy that works for people, through the European Pillar of Social Rights will include an action plan towards socio-economic recovery and resilience in the medium and long term, focusing on improving social fairness of the digital and green transitions. Civil society has an important part to play in this. Nonprofits and other organisations are encouraged to make their voices heard via a consultation that closes at the end of this month (30 November 2020). The action plan for a social economy aims to enhance social investment and support social economy actors.

In light of further harmonisation, the Commission wishes to deepen the Economic and Monetary Union, which includes measures to boost cross-border investment in the EU. It must be made clear to the Commission that philanthropy is very much a part of the capital market and tax incentives should be utilised in order to facilitate cross-border investments in this part of the economy as well.

Anti-money laundering and tax evasion are still high on the European Commission’s agenda with a legislative package planned for the former during the first quarter of 2021. The latter is due to be finalised this coming year. It is vital that the Commission considers proportionality when tackling these issues so that these do not result in unnecessary administrative and regulatory burdens on the philanthropy and fundraising sector.

NextGenerationEU, the Commission’s ambitious funding tool is geared towards recovery from the current crisis, as well as improving the future frameworks through sustainable investment and reforms. A part of the budget is earmarked for preparing, monitoring and implementing national recovery and resilience plans. Civil society should be given access to EU budgets to use their expertise and tools contribute to these plans.

In addition to the European Commission’s Work Programme, the European Parliament has recently established a special subcommittee on tax matters. It comprises 30 members who deal with money laundering, tax evasion, and other relevant maters. The Committee has officially started its activities.

We will monitor any developments in the European Commission and Parliament and will keep you informed.

Patrick Gibbels, director of Gibbels Public Affairs

Image credit: Photo by Guillaume Périgois on Unsplash