Expense disclosures and the social meaning of charitable donations

Purpose This study examines how donors use expense disclosures when evaluating charities. Design/methodology/approach We conducted 35 interviews with individual donors using a vignette-based method, combining Zelizer's (2012, 1997) theory of the social meaning of money with Kolhede and Gomez-Arias’ (2022) donor typology of “impressionable”, “intrinsic” and “sceptic” donors. Findings Donors interpret expense disclosures through relational and moral frameworks rather than purely technical or economic ones. Impressionable donors treat expense information primarily as a trust signal, relying more on social cues and reputation. Intrinsic donors use ethical, mission-focused reasoning, valuing explanations of how spending benefits beneficiaries. Sceptic donors engage analytically, using disclosures to judge integrity, efficiency and legitimacy. Impressionable, intrinsic and sceptic donors focused not only on how much was spent, but on whether expenditure was perceived to meaningfully contribute to the charities’ mission and outcomes. Research limitations/implications Our findings suggest that donor behaviour cannot be fully understood through economic models alone and call for greater attention to the social and ethical dimensions of financial information. We also highlight the limitations of standard expense classifications and the need for more contextualised disclosures. Practical implications Charities should provide expense disclosures that are layered and inclusive, combining numerical clarity, contextual explanation and value-based narratives to address differing information needs. Doing so can help build trust, avoid the nonprofit starvation cycle, and foster stronger, more sustainable donor relationships. Originality/value We reconceptualise expense disclosures as part of relational work, showing that donors assign moral and symbolic meaning to financial data, challenging assumptions of purely rational donor behaviour.