NGOs say that funders now prefer program-specific funding over general year-round support. “Across the sector, core funding has become harder to access, with most money now tied to specific projects,” says Shruti Singh, director of Fashion Revolution India. “That means the organization is in a constant state of shorter fundraising cycles for projects, and that can limit their ability to build stable capacity and systems.”
With project-based financing, salaries and overheads are scrutinized more heavily, says Singh, with funders now looking for “demonstrable, measurable, and tangible” results for their funding. “Advocacy does not always produce linear or easily quantified results. Much of its value lies in influencing mindsets, policy conversations, and ecosystem behavior. I meet a lot of people who would say they’re doing what they’re doing because they read something that Fashion Revolution published,” she says. “That impact is real, but it is not always easy to quantify in traditional grant metrics.”
Reporting requirements have also increased, according to Christina Dean, founder of Hong Kong and UK-based NGO Redress. “I’ve definitely seen much more demanding funders wanting ‘Dollar in, KPI out’,” she says. “On the reporting side, we’ve seen much heavier due diligence. In order to renew funding, they want more for their money.” Last year, Redress cut its team by a third in response to funding delays, and continues to face funding challenges this year.
Finding alternative funding
Neither CCC nor Remake accept funding from fashion brands in order to maintain their independence. “I’ve had investors tell me, ‘You should just get brands to pay you for consulting,’” says Barenblat. “But as a watchdog organization, we simply could not do that.” Fashion Revolution has an Ethical Funding Policy for brand partners, and Redress works with brands on initiatives like its clothing collection program in various Zara stores around Hong Kong. This isn’t a reliable funding source either.