The Price of Trust(ees): Why Paying Charity Boards Divides Opinion

As #TrusteesWeek 2025 - the national celebration of charity Trustees and the vital contribution they make to good governance -  comes to an end, reading through the commentary on social media one question that appears to have continued to divide opinion is that of Trustee pay.

The debate was reignited by the Charity Commission’s Chief Executive, David Holdsworth, in his recent speech “The Future of Trusteeship”. Holdsworth reaffirmed that voluntary service lies at the heart of public trust in charities, describing unpaid trusteeship as “a cornerstone of civic life.” He didn’t rule out payments entirely, but made clear they should remain the exception, not the norm.

At the same time, others across the sector have challenged whether an entirely voluntary model is still fit for purpose in 2025, especially when boards are striving to be more diverse and inclusive, and to meet the increasingly complex demands of charity governance. 

The case for paying Trustees

There’s a growing argument that recognising Trustees’ contributions more tangibly could strengthen charity governance.

Core to this argument is the principle that payment would remove barriers for those who simply can’t afford to volunteer significant time, in particular younger professionals, carers, or those in lower-income roles. If we’re serious about boards reflecting the communities they serve, pay could be one lever to achieve that.

Governance commentator, and Chair of the Association of Chairs, Joe Saxton, recently argued that each charity should have autonomy to decide whether payment is appropriate for its context, size, and workload. He sees it as one potential way to broaden participation and bring in skills that might otherwise be out of reach.

Research from New Philanthropy Capital (NPC) previously reached a similar conclusion, finding no strong evidence that payment automatically improves governance quality. They did, however, note that it can help remove practical barriers and encourage more representative boards.

A secondary point, but perhaps also worth considering is that in a world where governance responsibilities are becoming more complex, and where the reputational and regulatory stakes for Trustees are higher than ever, perhaps it’s time to view the role less as a passive oversight function and more as an active, professional commitment?

The case against

Yet, David Holdsworth suggests, voluntary trusteeship is part of what sustains public confidence in charities. Paying Trustees risks changing the dynamic between board and executive, from service to transaction and could invite uncomfortable scrutiny from donors or the media at a time when many organisations are struggling financially.

Reach Volunteering has gone further, arguing that payment isn’t the best lever for change. In her recent blog “Forget payment — open recruitment is the answer to increasing trustee diversity,” CEO Janet Thorne wrote a compelling argument as to why paying Trustees could actually “narrow, not widen” the pipeline of candidates, as most charities could never afford it. Instead, she argues, genuine open and inclusive recruitment is a faster, fairer way to address the issue around Board diversity – particularly when we know that a significant proportion of Trustees are still being recruited to Boards through existing Chair/Trustee networks only. 

There’s also a broader cultural concern: Trustees are often viewed as role models for volunteering within charities. Their unpaid service reinforces the ethos that giving time and expertise is itself a public good. Introducing pay could blur that line, creating a two-tier culture where strategic volunteering is financially valued but community volunteering is not.

Finding the middle ground

Perhaps the most interesting developments lie between the extremes. Many charities are now exploring approaches that go beyond just reimbursing expenses but that also preserve the voluntary spirit.

Examples include:

• Payment for lost earnings, enabling people to serve without financial penalty.
• Covering childcare or caring costs, removing practical barriers to participation.
• Offering training and professional development, viewing trusteeship as a two-way learning experience.

These measures align with calls for flexibility, acknowledging that good governance has a cost, but that this cost doesn’t have to compromise ethos. Limited, transparent pay in the right circumstances may strengthen fairness rather than erode it. After all, the current “voluntary” model can unintentionally favour those who already have the privilege of time and financial stability.

A question worth continuing

The debate over Trustee pay is a live one, and it will be interesting to see how this develops in the coming months. What is true is that every charity is different, so what’s right for one won’t be right for another. What matters most is that organisations feel able to have an open, transparent conversation about pay. 

Whether through payment, flexibility, or better recruitment practices, the goal is the same: to ensure that those leading our sector can do so sustainably, and that the opportunity to serve is genuinely open to all.