Recent months have seen much discussion over whether or not charity trustees should be paid. To mark Trustees' Week, we look at some of the arguments on both sides of the debate.
As we celebrate Trustees Week, it's the perfect moment to recognise the extraordinary contribution that charity trustees make to civil society. Trustees are the backbone of the charity sector, providing strategic leadership, ensuring good governance, and safeguarding charitable assets for public benefit. Yet despite their crucial role, a persistent question continues to spark debate across the sector: should charity trustees be paid for their service?
The current landscape
In England and Wales, the default position is clear: charity trustees serve voluntarily and without payment. The Charity Commission's guidance emphasises that trusteeship is generally an unpaid role, reflecting the voluntary ethos at the heart of charitable endeavour. This principle is deeply embedded in charity law and culture, with many arguing that unpaid service helps maintain public trust and ensures trustees are motivated purely by commitment to the cause rather than personal gain.
However, the law does permit trustee payment in specific circumstances. The Charity Commission allows payment where there is express authority in the charity's governing document, or where the Commission has granted permission. This typically applies when a trustee provides services to the charity beyond their trustee duties—for instance, if a trustee who is a qualified accountant provides professional accounting services, or if an expert trustee delivers specialist consultancy that the charity would otherwise need to purchase externally.
The Commission is careful to set conditions for such arrangements: there must be a clear benefit to the charity, the trustee must not participate in decisions about their own payment, and robust conflict of interest procedures must be in place. The payment must represent value for money, and the majority of the board must remain unpaid to preserve the voluntary character of trusteeship.
It's important to recognise that the charity sector is incredibly diverse — from local village halls to large organisations like Cancer Research UK which employ over 5000 people. Any approach to trustee payment does not need to apply universally. Variation arguably should not only be acceptable but necessary, allowing each charity to make decisions appropriate to its size and complexity.
The case for paying
Advocates for trustee payment make compelling arguments, particularly around diversity and inclusion. The current model, they argue, inherently favours those with the financial means to donate their time (typically people who are retired, financially secure, or able to rely on a partner's income). This creates significant barriers for younger people, those on lower incomes, working parents, carers, and people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The data supports these concerns. Research consistently shows that charity boards lack diversity across multiple dimensions including age, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and disability. When trusteeship requires donating potentially dozens of hours each month without compensation, it's unsurprising that boards end up dominated by a narrow demographic profile.
Paying trustees could transform this landscape. It would enable people who cannot afford to give their time for free to contribute their skills, perspectives, and lived experience to charity governance. A single parent working multiple jobs, a young professional building their career, or someone from a marginalised community could bring invaluable insights to a charity's work, if they could afford to.
Furthermore, proponents argue that paying trustees might professionalise governance, attract high-calibre talent, and reflect the increasing complexity and responsibility of trusteeship in the modern era. As charities grow larger and face greater regulatory scrutiny, the time commitment and expertise required has intensified. Should we really expect this level of responsibility and skill to always be provided free of charge?
The case against
Yet the arguments for maintaining unpaid trusteeship remain powerful. Critics worry that introducing payment would fundamentally alter the relationship between trustees and charities, potentially shifting motivation from mission to remuneration. The voluntary nature of trusteeship, they argue, acts as a filter ensuring that trustees are genuinely committed to the cause rather than attracted by financial reward. New groundbreaking research by University of Bath, also suggests that those motivated by money and career advancement, rather than alignment with the charity's mission, could actually be harmful to board effectiveness. This research also cautions that introducing payment may become a one-way street — difficult to reverse once implemented. However, this does not inherently make the idea wrong; it simply requires careful consideration.
There are also practical concerns. Many charities, particularly smaller grassroots organisations, operate on minimal budgets where every pound is precious. Diverting funds to trustee payments could mean less money for frontline services, and this may be a trade-off that’s impossible to justify to beneficiaries and donors. Public perception matters too; donors might question why their contributions are funding trustees' salaries rather than supporting the charitable purpose they care about.
Some argue that the sector should focus on other barriers to diverse trusteeship before resorting to payment. Better expense policies ensuring trustees aren't out of pocket, flexible meeting times, providing childcare, offering remote participation, and creating inclusive board cultures might achieve diversity gains without the complications of payment. Many organisations also successfully reimburse trustees for loss of earnings when attending meetings, providing a middle ground that removes financial barriers without establishing formal remuneration. Another way to increase diversity in board decision-making is to introduce advisory board members — individuals who are not full trustees but contribute their knowledge, skills, and expertise to board discussions.
There's also concern about unintended consequences. Would payment create a two-tier system where only large, wealthy charities could afford diverse boards? Might it professionalise trusteeship to the point where passionate community members feel excluded? Would it blur the important distinction between trustees' governance role and staff's operational role?
The way forward
This debate doesn't have simple answers, and perhaps it shouldn't. Different charities face different circumstances, and what works for a major national organisation may be inappropriate for a small community charity. The key is that the sector continues to grapple seriously with the diversity challenge while preserving the values and public trust that make charitable work possible.
What's not in question is the vital importance of trustees themselves. Whether paid or unpaid, trustees provide leadership, expertise, challenge, and safeguarding that enables charities to achieve their missions effectively and responsibly. They ensure compliance, guard against risk, set strategy, and hold executives to account. Without trustees, the charity sector simply could not function.
Be part of the solution
If you've ever considered becoming a trustee, Trustees Week is your call to action. The sector desperately needs people with diverse skills, backgrounds, and perspectives to strengthen charity governance. You don't need to be wealthy, retired, or have governance experience, just passion for a cause, willingness to learn, and commitment to making a difference.
Whether you're a finance professional, someone with lived experience of the issues a charity addresses, a young person with fresh perspectives, or simply someone who wants to contribute to society, there's a trustee role waiting for you. And if financial concerns feel like a barrier, look for organisations with strong expense policies, flexible arrangements, or those exploring innovative approaches to removing barriers to service.
For those preparing to take on trustee responsibilities, understanding charity finances is crucial. CFG offers excellent guidance for Trustees, as well as running ‘Finance for Trustees’ events, which help you develop the financial literacy that effective governance requires. Good financial oversight is one of the most important contributions any trustee can make. It's also important to remember that board decisions are collective. Every trustee has a responsibility to engage with financial matters — it's not appropriate to defer entirely to the treasurer.
As we celebrate Trustees Week, we want to honour those who serve, support those who aspire to, and continue the important conversation about how we can make trusteeship accessible to everyone who has something valuable to contribute. The future of the charity sector depends on it.