Head of Communications
Reading time: 7 minutes
Before even taking out their bank card, many people ask themselves this question: “What if my money is misused?”
It’s a legitimate concern. No one wants their generosity to finance opaque expenses or ineffective projects.
This very human fear has been fuelled by a few high-profile scandals, such as the ARC scandal in the 1990s, which left a lasting impression on people’s minds. But today, this fear sometimes takes up too much space. Because while embezzlement still exists (rarely), that is no longer the real issue.
The real question is whether the money donated really makes a difference. Before talking about effectiveness, let’s start by facing up to what fuelled the mistrust: a major scandal that changed everything.
At the heart of these abuses was Jacques Crozemarie, the association’s founder and iconic president. In 2000, he was sentenced to four years in prison and fined 2.5 million francs for breach of trust and misuse of company assets.
The ARC’s management resigned in 1996, and the association then embarked on a major overhaul of its practices, introducing renewed governance, enhanced transparency and systematic controls.
But the consequences of the affair went far beyond this single organisation. The shockwave was brutal. The ARC lost hundreds of thousands of donors. Other associations with impeccable records, such as the League Against Cancer, saw their resources fall by 20 to 25%.
And public opinion was filled with doubt: nearly one in two people believed that a similar scandal could erupt in any other organisation.
This scandal, although old but significant, largely explains why many donors now demand guarantees of transparency before committing themselves.
But it is also important to remember one key point: this affair was a turning point. It led to the emergence of new rules, more stringent standards and increased vigilance across the entire sector.
In a way, it was the starting point for a profound transformation of the voluntary sector.
Since the 2000s, the sector has developed robust mechanisms to regulate, monitor and report on the use of donations.
Today, numerous safeguards are in place to prevent abuses and restore trust. Since the 2000s, the French non-profit sector has developed a range of controls, rules and labels with a clear objective: to protect the generosity of the public.
Firstly, the law requires certain associations to publish their accounts (balance sheet, income statement, notes) each year, accompanied by an independent auditor’s report.
This obligation applies to organisations that receive more than €153,000 in public subsidies or donations entitling them to tax relief. These documents must be accessible online, in particular via the Official Journal (JOAFE).
In the event of non-compliance, penalties can include a fine of up to €9,000 or even compulsory publication by court order.
But beyond legal obligations, some organisations choose to go further. They voluntarily submit to transparency and good governance labels issued by independent bodies.
Don en Confiance verifies that associations comply with a strict charter (disinterested management, transparency, clear governance). The label is awarded after an audit and may be withdrawn if the commitments are no longer met.
IDEAS, another leading French label, assesses more than just management and governance. It is a demanding process, with precise criteria, supporting evidence and rigorous monitoring over time.
These labels enable donors to rely on reliable third-party assessments to guide their choices.
At the same time, regular audits are carried out by auditors as soon as an association exceeds certain thresholds in terms of resources or membership.
Their role is to verify the accuracy of accounts, as in the corporate world. For associations that receive significant public funding, the Court of Auditors may also intervene.
It conducts in-depth audits, assesses the use of public funds and publishes reports that are available for anyone to consult.
Finally, public access to financial data has become widespread.
Any citizen may consult the financial statements filed by the associations concerned, either through public services or directly on the websites of the most transparent associations.
Some, such as Action contre la faim, even publish their internal audits and provide clear details of their governance.
Thanks to this set of mechanisms, cases of corruption are now extremely rare.
The legal framework, independent controls, public pressure and voluntary transparency make large-scale misappropriation much more difficult than before.
The Court of Auditors regularly confirms this in its reports: significant abuses are now marginal, and the most rigorously controlled structures are also the most rigorous.
In other words: corruption is no longer the central issue.
The real question today is no longer “where does the money go?” but “what does it actually produce?”
And this is where confusion persists: many people think that a well-managed association is necessarily an effective association. But in reality, these two concepts are very different.
Having strong governance is essential. But it is no guarantee of impact.
An organisation may have perfectly maintained accounts, published online, audited by experts, and comply with all transparency rules… without its actions changing anything for the people it wants to help.
And the two do not always go together.
Let us take a few examples:
Sending coats to sub-Saharan Africa may seem generous… but it can also harm the local economy: artisans and clothing retailers are no longer selling, and the coats remain unused.
Distributing books in a language that children do not understand does not improve their reading skills or their future prospects.
Building wells without training residents to maintain them means running the risk of them falling into disrepair a few months later.
Shipping tonnes of free food into an agricultural region can destabilise an entire local market and jeopardise farmers.
These actions are often well-intentioned. They are sometimes carried out by organisations with impeccable, audited, certified accounts. But their impact is zero. Or worse: counterproductive.
Good governance ensures that money is well safeguarded. Real effectiveness ensures that it is truly used to improve lives.
In a world where resources are limited and needs are immense, this distinction is crucial. It is no longer just a question of doing things well. It is a question of doing the right things.
This distinction changes everything. Because impeccable governance without concrete results is like a beautiful car without an engine: it inspires confidence, but it goes nowhere.
And this is where the real challenge for the voluntary sector today lies.
The French voluntary sector has become considerably more professional since the 1990s. Thanks to control mechanisms, increased transparency and independent labels, the risk of misappropriation has become marginal.
But another issue has taken over.
Today, the real question is no longer simply “is this money being kept safe?”
It is: “is it really being used to improve lives?”
An association may be perfectly managed, publish its accounts, comply with all governance standards… and yet have little concrete impact on the ground.
In many cases, actions are taken with good intentions: to help, to relieve, to act. But intentions do not guarantee results.
For a donation to really make a difference, projects must be tailored to real needs, carefully planned and objectively evaluated. In other words, it is no longer enough to know whether the money is being put to good use; we must also ask what it is achieving and for whom.
The real challenge today is to increase the actual effectiveness of every euro donated.
Not by giving more, but by giving better.
It is this requirement that redefines the value of giving in 2025.
And it is this requirement that Mieux Donner has decided to take seriously.
At Mieux Donner, we do not stop at the first step, however essential it may be, which is good governance.
What we are looking for is real effectiveness: the kind that allows every euro donated to have a concrete, measurable and lasting impact.
Why did we create Mieux Donner?
Because we noticed something: many charities are well managed, but few can prove that their actions are making a real difference.
Conversely, some charities that are very active in the field lack rigour in their management or communication, which hinders their development.
Our objective is therefore simple: to help donors make informed choices by highlighting organisations that meet two essential conditions:
Reliable governance: this means that the association is well structured, transparent, accountable and uses donations responsibly.
Proven effectiveness: this means that its actions have a positive impact on the ground, and that this impact is assessed using a systematic approach.
What difference does this make?
It means you are not donating “blindly”. You know where your donation is going, what it is being used for, and what it actually achieves.
Unlike other platforms, Mieux Donner does not take any commission on donations.
We publish our selection criteria, explain our choices, and work to make the data understandable and accessible, even if you have never heard of “cost-effectiveness analysis” or “impact monitoring”.
In summary, Mieux Donner was created to address a shared frustration: not knowing whether one’s donation is making a real difference.
We want to remove this doubt. And above all, enable you to support projects that transform lives, not just “do a good deed”.
The fear of corruption is legitimate. It is rooted in very real scandals and a deep need for trust.
But today, this fear must no longer hinder our generosity. Instead, it must encourage us to make better choices, to direct our donations to those who can make the most of them, with seriousness, method and transparency.
The question is no longer simply:
“Will my money be misappropriated?”
The real question is:
“Will my money really help someone?”
Every donation makes a difference. In the right hands, it can change lives, improve living conditions in the long term, save time and suffering, and sometimes even save lives.
That is the choice offered by Mieux Donner. Not a “magical donation” or an exaggerated promise. Just a donation that is more likely to be useful where it matters most.
Finland, Iceland, Denmark lead the 2026 ranking. Full list of 147 countries, key findings on social media and wellbeing, and how your donations create happiness.
Human life is precious. It is natural to want to mobilise all our resources to save a life, even if it only prolongs a life by a week. But what happens when other people are also in danger, and our resources are not enough to help them all? As a society, we face practical limits that force us to make difficult decisions.
It’s easy to feel discouraged by the dramatic retreat of glaciers in the Alps and the scale of climate change can easily leave us feeling powerless. This article will equip you with the knowledge to take meaningful climate action, in both your personal life and through your charitable donations.
Is deciding from London or Paris who needs help and how a form of colonialism? This article examines what the critique gets right, where it goes wrong, and what effective giving does concretely differently — including its own blind spots.
Scared Straight won an Oscar and increased delinquency. Open Philanthropy invested $130 million in criminal justice reform — then changed course. Romain Barbe examines what the evidence actually says, and where your money can do the most good.
31 confirmed deaths, or nearly a million? Romain Barbe examines what the data actually say about Chernobyl’s human toll — and why the fear it generated may have killed far more than the radiation itself.
