Consultation outcome

Draft guidance: Charities’ use of social media - Consultation outcome

Updated 18 September 2023

Introduction

The Charity Commission registers and regulates charities in England and Wales, to ensure that the public can support charities with confidence and that charity can thrive and inspire trust.

We provide guidance to support our statutory function of encouraging and facilitating the better administration of charities, and our strategic objective to give charities the understanding and tools they need to succeed.

Earlier this year we conducted an 8 week public consultation on draft guidance on charities’ use of social media. The purpose of the guidance is to help trustees understand how their existing duties apply to their charity’s use of social media and to encourage charities that use social media to adopt a policy on how they use it. We issued the draft guidance for consultation to help ensure the guidance is as clear and helpful as possible to trustees.

We had a high level of engagement from the sector in responding to the consultation, as detailed below. This gives us a broad and detailed set of feedback which we have used to make the guidance clearer. We are grateful to everyone who responded.

Consultation proposals

Our consultation sought feedback from charities, their trustees and employees, sector representative bodies and the public on the draft guidance.

We particularly invited comment on:

• what the guidance says about the level of oversight trustees need to have about their charity’s use of social media and the expectations set out in the guidance of the level of trustee oversight
• whether the guidance covers all the relevant issues that charities need to think about to help them use social media appropriately
• whether what the guidance says about an individual’s personal use of social media – whether a trustee, employee or volunteer – is helpful
• as a result of reading the guidance how confident readers would be that they know what to include in a social media policy

Consultation responses

We received a total of 396 responses, 383 through the online tool and 13 by email.

41% (158) of respondents provided feedback on behalf of a charity with a further 26% (100) received from trustees sharing their own personal opinions. The breakdown of respondents who used the online tool was as follows:

Role	Proportion
Charity employee responding on behalf of my charity/employer	36%
Charity trustee responding for myself only (personal view)	26%
Member of the public	17%
Other person involved in the charity sector not falling into the above categories (for example, a professional advisor, lawyer or accountant)	11%
Charity trustee responding on behalf of a charity (collective view of all the trustees)	5%
Responding on behalf of a charity sector representative organisation or umbrella body	5%
Government department/regulator	0%

Summary of feedback received and recurring themes

Responses overall were supportive of the proposal to provide guidance on this subject and many respondents acknowledged that guidance is both welcome and timely on what is a difficult and fast changing area.

We received a substantial amount of valuable feedback which highlighted three key themes. See the sections below for more detail on these themes:

• what the guidance says about content posted by a charity’s trustees, employees or volunteers that has brought negative attention to the charity and risks damage to the charity’s reputation. Some respondents thought that the guidance risked limiting freedom of expression and privacy rights
• the level of oversight the guidance recommended trustees have over a charity’s social media is argued by some to be impractical for both large and small charities, with clearer delineation needed of what day-to-day monitoring is required and what falls to trustees for their oversight
• perceived gaps and lack of clarity in the draft guidance

We have read and considered all the responses and the consultation feedback has helped inform the final version of the guidance.

Themes emerging from consultation

Level of oversight trustees need to have about their charity’s use of social media

Question 6 in the consultation asked, having read the guidance, how clear respondents were on the level of oversight trustees need to have about their charity’s social media. 61% of respondents to this question said they were either clear or very clear, with 19% saying they were unclear or very unclear and 20% saying they were neither clear nor unclear.

Having read the guidance how clear are you about the level of oversight trustees need to have about their charity’s use of social media?

Response	Proportion
Very clear	21%
Clear	40%
Neither clear nor unclear	20%
Unclear	15%
Very unclear	4%

Question 7 in the consultation asked whether the expectations set out in the guidance of the level of oversight that trustees should have of the charity’s social media use are reasonable. 44% of respondents to this question believe that the expectations are reasonable whilst 46% believe they are not, with 10% being unclear whether or not they are reasonable.

In reviewing comments from those who did not see the expectations as reasonable, we established that this was because the guidance had been interpreted as steering trustees towards doing the practical work of overseeing a charity’s social media use on a day to day basis. This was not our intention, and we believe it is related to placing the section on levels of oversight by trustees of charity’s social media early in the guidance. To help make a clearer distinction between what is governance and what is operational oversight, we have moved the majority of the content about adopting a social media policy into a practical checklist in an Annex to the guidance. The checklist could be used by individual trustees or employees adopting a new policy or checking an existing one.

We have also made clearer that a trustees’ level of oversight should be proportionate to the charity’s needs and will depend on the activities a charity is carrying out and how the charity uses social media.

Respondent concern

Our response

It is impractical for trustees to have the level of oversight set out in the guidance (both for smaller charities and for larger ones). It is important to acknowledge that one size does not fit all. The guidance should be clearer about the oversight role of trustees and what is operational/day to day management and is for employees/volunteers.

We have made a clearer distinction in the guidance between what is trustee oversight and what is day to day management of social media policy, which would be carried out by employees or volunteers where they are responsible for managing its social media. We have provided a checklist alongside the guidance which highlights areas that trustees may want to include in a policy depending on how their charity uses social media. We have made clear that how detailed a policy needs to be will depend on what a charity uses social media for, the different social media platforms a charity uses and that proportionality is expected.

Perceived gaps and lack of clarity in the draft guidance

Question 8 in the consultation invited views on whether the guidance covers all the relevant issues that charities need to think about to help them use social media.

51% of respondents believe it does whilst 49% believe that it does not. Many respondents who believe it does not cover all the relevant issues provided us with helpful feedback on additional areas to include in the guidance.

We have made some changes throughout the guidance to make the regulatory expectations even clearer and additionally to strengthen the messaging on the positive benefits of charities using social media, which include reaching a wider audience than through traditional methods of communication.

We have included links to a template social media policy developed for charities and signposted to organisations and resources to help improve social media skills.

Respondent concern	Our response
It would be helpful to have some practical examples or case studies included in the guidance.	We have not included case studies in this guidance because we think they are likely to be quickly rendered redundant by the fast-changing nature of the technology.
It would be helpful to provide a template policy for trustees to use.	We have highlighted that template policies are available and have included a link to one example of a template which has been developed based on a number of existing charity social media policies.
The overall tone of the guidance is too negative and needs to be more balanced to highlight the positive aspects of social media and the benefits to charities of using it.	We have made appropriate amendments including adding some text to highlight the different ways in which charities can and do use social media and the positive benefits of social media, for example reaching a much wider audience than through traditional communication methods.
Referring to ‘problematic’ and ‘controversial’ social media content is too vague and open to different interpretations.	We have used clearer language. For example, we have removed the word ‘problematic’ and have provided examples of procedures which trustees may want to put in place to deal with what happens if there is a breach of the charity’s social media policy or if the content that the charity posts or shares risks significantly damaging the charity’s reputation. We have replaced ‘controversial content’ with ‘emotive content’ to be clearer that charities can be involved in talking about issues that provoke strong emotions. This is the same word we use in our guidance on political activity and campaigning by charities (CC9).
The draft guidance says that charities can ‘only’ use social media to further the charity’s purposes. Guidance needs to make clearer that charities can and do use social media in a number of different ways, including engaging with supporters on wider issues.	We have included clearer wording in the guidance on the ways in which a charity’s use of social media could further its purposes, such as fundraising and engaging on wider topical issues with beneficiaries if the benefits of doing so outweigh any risks.
More guidance on planning for/what to do in a social media crisis.	We have strengthened the messaging on this in relevant parts of the guidance and have included reference to it in the checklist of what trustees could include in a social media policy.

Personal use of social media by trustees, employees or volunteers

Question 9 of the consultation asked whether what the guidance says about an individual’s personal use of social media – whether a trustee, employee or volunteer – is helpful. 45% of respondents to the question believe that the guidance is either helpful or very helpful, 38% believe it is unhelpful or very unhelpful and 17% believe that it is neither helpful nor unhelpful.

Is what the guidance says about an individual’s personal use of social media – whether a trustee, employee or volunteer – helpful?

Response	Proportion
Very helpful	11%
Helpful	34%
Neither helpful nor unhelpful	17%
Unhelpful	15%
Very unhelpful	23%

We included this section in the guidance as this is an issue the Commission sees in casework and complaints about charities using social media, including direct complaints from members of the public.

The guidance makes clear that trustees, charity employees and other individuals have the right to exercise their freedom of expression within the law in their communications. We consider it is important to highlight issues around individual use of social media that trustees should consider given the potential for reputational risk to the charity in certain circumstances, and the consequent risk to public trust and confidence in charities generally.

Having reviewed the guidance we remain of the view that it is important to ensure trustees are aware of the potential risks so that they can make informed and appropriate decisions for their charity and to highlight that:

• there will be real benefits to charities having set a clear policy ahead of any issue arising
• it is common practice for organisations to cover this in their HR or social media guidelines for their staff

The guidance does not tell trustees what their policy should include, as this will be different for each charity depending on its circumstances, but it is important for trustees to have given appropriate consideration to the policy and made a proper decision.

We appreciate that this area of the guidance raised concerns or queries for some respondents and have made a number of revisions, detailed below, to make these points with further clarity.

Respondent concern	Our response
What the guidance says on this issue is an invasion of people’s privacy and could be seen as limiting an individual’s freedom of speech. It could deter people from remaining or becoming trustees.	We have retained the wording stating that trustees, charity employees and any other individuals have the right to exercise their freedom of expression within the law in their communications, both in their personal capacity and when communicating on behalf of the charity. We have made clear in the guidance that trustees should understand that content posted on personal social media could have a negative effect on the charity in some circumstances. For this reason we recommend that trustees share guidelines (often in a social media policy) with trustees, staff and volunteers so that the potential risks are understood. We have given examples of what could be included in guidelines, to help minimise the risks and impact to the charity.
It is impractical for trustees to monitor personal accounts of employees or volunteers.	We have updated the guidance to clarify that we do not expect trustees to monitor personal social media accounts.
It would be helpful to provide examples of when problems might occur.	We have used an example to help illustrate when personal use of social media might present a risk to the charity, making distinctions between a CEO and a volunteer in terms of the level of risk of an association having an impact on the charity.

Knowing what to include in a social media policy

Question 10 in the consultation asked, after reading the guidance, how confident readers would be that they know what to include in a social media policy. 54% of respondents said that they would be confident or very confident, 22% said that they would be unconfident or very unconfident and 24% said that they would be neither confident nor unconfident.

As a result of reading the guidance how confident would you be that you know what to include in a social media policy?

Response	Proportion
Very confident	15%
Confident	39%
Neither confident nor unconfident	24%
Unconfident	13%
Very unconfident	9%

Respondent concern	Our response
It would be helpful to have a checklist of what to include in a social media policy.	We have adapted the section of the guidance on what to include in a social media policy and moved this into a checklist for trustees or employees to use when they are developing or reviewing their social media policy.

Other comments on the draft guidance

Question 11 asked respondents for any other comments they had on the draft guidance. Many of the comments related to the key themes already identified in responses to previous questions.

Respondent concern	Our response
Support/training is needed for trustees who aren’t used to using social media.	We have highlighted in the guidance that there are training and resources available to help trustees become familiar with and use social media. We have signposted in the guidance to some of these resources.
There is not enough information on the importance of providing support for staff/volunteers who manage a charity’s social media and have to deal with online abuse.	We have strengthened the messaging in the guidance on supporting staff who manage a charity’s social media and have, in the course of that role, experienced online abuse. We have not provided a new paragraph or section about this, but have included in relevant places the importance of considering the needs of staff.