The generation that will not donate (if nothing changes)

Young people are not less committed. They are less willing to commit to models that do not generate trust, participation, or visible impact.

That phrase should be framed in the meeting room of every NGO in this country. Because the problem isn't generational—it's structural. And the social sector, for the most part, still hasn't grasped that.

The fact that should make the entire sector uncomfortable

The report "Youth and NGOs" by the ESADE Institute for Social Innovation and the PwC Foundation (2025) makes it very clear: 75% of young people want to get involved in collective causes. Only 41% have ever done so.

There's a 34-point gap between desire and action. And that gap isn't explained by apathy or generational selfishness—two narratives the sector repeats far too readily. It's explained by a design flaw: NGOs continue to build participation models for a donor or volunteer profile that no longer exists, or exists in ever-decreasing numbers.

The average level of trust in NGOs among young people is 5.4 out of 10. Among those who are unfamiliar with any specific organization, it drops to 4.9. Ten percent report having no trust at all. This isn't a communication problem. It's a problem of reputation—earned, or not earned, on a daily basis.

What has changed (and what the sector doesn't want to see)

For decades, the third sector's funding model relied on a base of loyal donors, fixed monthly contributions, and an almost implicit relationship of trust: "we are a good cause, trust us." This tacit contract worked reasonably well with generations that inherited a relatively stable philanthropic culture.

That contract has expired.

Not because young people are worse people. But because they have grown up in a radically different environment: structural economic insecurity, digital overstimulation, a culture of instant verification, and—this is important—a huge array of alternative ways to do good that don't involve traditional NGOs.

Team for the Planet raises millions by selling stakes in specific climate projects with full traceability. Twitch streamers organize charity marathons that generate more engagement in 24 hours than many institutional campaigns do in a year. Charity running clubs transform sport into both community and cause. Patagonia turns its entire business model into an activist manifesto.

NGOs no longer compete only with each other. They compete for attention, trust, and cultural relevance with movements, content creators, and platforms that have understood something fundamental: Generation Z doesn't donate to causes, it joins communities.

The six warnings that the report shouldn't bury in a PDF

The ESADE report identifies six signs that deserve more than a quick read and a panel of experts at a conference.

1. First: transparency is no longer optional. 78% of young people demand real transparency in the use of funds. Not an 80-page annual report in PDF format that no one reads. Real transparency: Where exactly does every euro go? What percentage reaches the beneficiary? What happened to last year's project? Honest answers to these questions are what build trust, not certification logos in the website footer.

2. Second: the impact must be verifiable. 52% demand measurable impact. "We help thousands of people" is no longer enough—and rightly so. An organization that has been working for years should be able to say precisely what has changed in the lives of its beneficiaries, not just how many workshops it has given or how many people have gone through its programs. I will return to this in another article, because the problem of impact measurement in the sector deserves its own discussion.

3. Third: Institutional communication alienates rather than attracts. Only 10% of young people associate NGOs with innovation. Only 4% associate them with empowerment. The sector's language—dense, institutional, and riddled with euphemisms and acronyms—doesn't resonate with a generation that consumes content in agile, visual, and honest formats. 82% demand a greater presence and genuine dialogue on social media. No more scheduled posts with inspirational quotes. Dialogue.

4. Fourth: Participation matters more than donations. Generation Z doesn't want to be just a number in a membership database. They want a voice, decision-making power, and to feel that their participation changes something beyond a monthly bank transfer. Organizations that have understood this are designing active membership models, co-creating projects, and implementing more open governance structures. Those that haven't are still sending out the same monthly newsletter they were sending in 2010.

5. Fifth: without young people in governance, there is no future. 73% of NGOs acknowledge a lack of youth representation on management teams. 76% on governing bodies. This is a structural contradiction: organizations ask young people to trust them while denying them a voice in decision-making. Trust isn't asked for. It's earned.

6. Sixth: the sector's causes are not their own. Young people are primarily concerned about mental health (62%), housing (61%), and employment (55%). The traditional causes of the third sector—international cooperation, classic social exclusion, the environment in the abstract—rank lower in their stated priorities. This doesn't mean those causes don't matter. It means that organizations need to do much more explicit work connecting their mission to the real concerns of this generation.

The most frequent diagnostic error

When this topic is discussed in teams, the most frequent reaction is usually: "it's that young people today don't have a culture of sacrifice", "it's that they want everything immediately", "it's that social networks have destroyed attention", "they don't donate because they don't have money".

That diagnosis is convenient because it exonerates the organization. And it's incorrect.

Young people who organize fundraisers on Instagram for humanitarian emergencies in 48 hours have no problem with sacrifice or raising awareness. Those who mobilize en masse for climate, feminist, or mental health causes are not an apathetic generation. They are a generation that has learned—rightly so—to be very selective about where they place their trust and energy.

The problem isn't that young people have changed. The problem is that many organizations haven't changed with them.

Young people are not less committed. They are less willing to commit to models that do not generate trust, participation, or visible impact.

What organizations can do (and what is useless)

What's useless: opening a corporate TikTok without a strategy, holding a "youth day" in the organization, or hiring a 25-year-old community manager to "speak their language".

What does have a real impact:

• Radical transparency in communicating about money. Not just in the annual report—in day-to-day operations. An updated dashboard on the website. A monthly report explaining how the money was spent that month and what changes resulted from it.

• Design engagement before donation. The first interaction shouldn't be a membership form. It should be an experience that fosters connection: an event, a specific project of limited duration, a decision in which people can participate.

• Open up governance. Not with symbolic gestures—with real responsibility. Young people on boards of directors, on project selection committees, in strategic decisions.

• Connect the mission with their concerns. An international cooperation organization can perfectly connect with concerns about employment or mental health if it makes the effort to build that bridge explicitly and honestly.

• Measure and communicate impact in a verifiable way. Don't say "we've helped 3,000 people." Say "of the 3,000 people who went through our program, 67% were still employed six months later, compared to 34% in the control group." The difference between the two statements is the difference between a slogan and proof.

The question every organization should be asking itself today

If a 22-year-old were to arrive at your website today without knowing anything about the organization, would they understand in five seconds what you do, what impact you generate, and how they can participate in a way that goes beyond just a bank transfer?

If the answer is no — or if there are doubts — that's where the work comes in.

The generational shift in social commitment is not a problem for young people. It is a responsibility of the sector.