The Impact Storytelling Collective opens 9 November. Founding members join free.
Ethics
Ethical storytelling for charities: the Naz Rule, and why consent isn't a checkbox
Most consent processes protect the organisation, not the person. The Naz Rule and the Consent Protection Spectrum: what leaders should require of every story.
The form exists. The signature is on it. The legal team is satisfied.
And the person whose story you just published didn’t really understand what they were agreeing to.
That’s the uncomfortable truth about consent in a lot of charities. Not because anyone means harm, but because most consent processes were designed to protect the organisation, not the person.
This guide is for the people who sign stories off: charity CEOs, fundraising and comms leads, trustees, and CSR teams working with charity partners. It sets out a simple test, a way to see where your organisation stands, and what to require of anyone who gathers stories for you.
Why I had to build my own rule
After the tragic death of my fiancé, Naz, in 2014, I set up the Naz and Matt Foundation. I wanted other LGBTQ+ people, and their families, facing what we faced to know they weren’t alone. That meant telling our story.
What I didn’t understand then was how consent works when the person at the centre of the story can’t give it.
Naz can’t tell me whether he’d want our story told in government departments. He couldn’t say whether he’d be comfortable with a documentary on Channel 4, or with the song The Young’uns wrote about us being performed at folk festivals.
What I do know is that we talked a lot about building something that would outlast us. Before he died, he asked me to promise I would never forget him. I kept that promise, and I made another one: that I wouldn’t let the world forget him either.
So I had to work out where the line was, between sharing that helps others and sharing that uses him. That tension never goes away. I still feel it before every talk. And out of years of asking myself the same question, I arrived at what I call the Naz Rule.
The Naz Rule
"Before you share anyone's story, ask: if this person were standing behind me right now, reading every word, would they feel safe, respected and accurately represented?"
The Naz Rule
If the answer is anything other than a clear yes, you stop.
When the person can give consent, the Naz Rule sits alongside a proper consent process. It’s the gut check that catches what a form can’t: the small ways a story can diminish someone even after they’ve agreed to it.
When the person can’t give consent, because they’ve died, are a child, or lack capacity, the Naz Rule becomes the whole framework. It replaces the signature you can’t get with a question you can always ask.
A consent form protects you. The Naz Rule protects them.
I’ve seen organisations with carefully drafted consent forms publish stories that reduce someone to their worst moment. The form was signed. The story was approved. The person was still harmed.
Legal permission is necessary, but on its own it’s not enough. You need the form and the question.
I’ve also seen how much practice has changed. When I started out making documentaries, consent often meant a single form: sign everything away, or you can’t be in it. I don’t work that way now, and I’d be wary of anyone who still does.
The two mistakes I see most
Telling no stories at all
Some organisations decide it’s safer to show only activities and numbers. It feels responsible. But without stories of real change, funders struggle to believe the impact is real, supporters can’t connect, and your own team loses sight of why the work matters.
Rushing consent
Others ask too quickly. Someone says they’re grateful, and a member of staff asks, “Can we share your story?” They say yes because they feel they should.
Six months later their photo is on your website, then in a funding bid, then in a leaflet, then in the local paper. They agreed to something vague at a moment when they felt they owed you. Calling that informed consent would be generous. I call it permission extraction.
The Consent Protection Spectrum: where does your organisation sit?
I use five levels to help organisations be honest about where they are. Most charities I speak to sit at Level 2.
Level 1: No protection (harmful). Consent grabbed in the moment of service, stories used without clear permission, no way to withdraw.
Level 2: Legal protection only (not enough). A form exists but it’s vague about where the story will go. No follow-up, and withdrawing is hard.
Level 3: Basic dignity protection (the minimum). A gap between the service and the request. Specific uses explained in plain language. A withdrawal process people actually know about. No obligation.
Level 4: Comprehensive protection (best practice). Separate consent for each use. The person sees the draft before it’s published. Regular check-ins. Support offered if sharing causes distress.
Level 5: Empowerment (the aim). The person shapes how their story is told, sees what it achieved, and is treated as a partner rather than a subject.
Ask for: Level 3 as the minimum for every story your organisation publishes, and Level 4 for anything involving people at risk.
What proper consent requires
Time and space. Don’t ask in the moment someone is grateful, vulnerable or dependent on you. Note the moment so it isn’t lost, then ask later, outside the service.
Specifics. “Can we share your story?” is too vague. Say where it will appear, who will see it, whether their name and face will be used, and for how long.
The right to withdraw. People’s circumstances change. They need to know they can change their mind, and what you can and can’t take back. You can take a story off your website. You can’t recall a printed leaflet or a broadcast documentary, so say so before they agree.
No obligation. Make it explicit: saying no won’t change the support they get. This matters most when you hold power over someone’s housing, care or income.
Separate consent for separate uses. Someone may be happy with an internal report but not social media, or a first name but not a photo. Let them choose.
Ask for: a consent form that lists each use separately, with a tick box for each, and a plain-language line on how to withdraw.
When someone can’t give consent
If the person has died, ask whether sharing serves their memory or uses it. I ask this about Naz all the time, and the answer decides what I share and what I keep private.
For children and young people, get consent from both the young person and their parent or carer. What feels fine at fourteen can feel mortifying at eighteen, so protect their future self: pseudonyms, and no identifiable photos.
For people who lack capacity, work with their advocate or family and default to caution. Their experience can still be told in aggregate, without identifying anyone.
In each case, the Naz Rule is your compass.
Ethical storytelling makes your case stronger
I sometimes hear leaders say ethical storytelling means fewer, smaller, safer stories. It doesn’t.
It means stories that are true, told with permission, about people who come across as whole human beings with agency. Funders who read a story like that trust the organisation more, not less. The organisations that keep their supporters’ trust for years tell the most honest stories, not the most dramatic ones.
Six questions to ask anyone who gathers stories for you
Whether it’s a member of staff, a freelance writer, a photographer or an agency:
When and how will you ask for consent?
How will you explain each place the story will be used?
Can people see the story or the pictures before they go out?
How can someone withdraw, and what happens if they do?
What will you do if someone can’t be identified?
How will you make sure saying no carries no penalty?
If they can’t answer these clearly, they’re working at Level 2.
Three things to do this week
Read your consent form against the spectrum above. Be honest about the level.
Apply the Naz Rule to the last three stories you published. If any answer is uncertain, you have work to do.
Have one conversation with your team about the difference between legal consent and dignity-centred consent. That’s where the culture starts to change.
If you’d like your whole team confident with this, it’s at the heart of my social impact storytelling workshops. And there’s a free dignity-centred consent form template for subscribers to my newsletter.
Questions people ask
What is the Naz Rule?
A simple ethical test developed by Matt Mahmood-Ogston after the death of his fiancé, Naz. Before you share anyone’s story, ask: if this person were standing behind me right now, reading every word, would they feel safe, respected and accurately represented? If the answer isn’t a clear yes, you stop.
How do we get proper consent for beneficiary stories?
Give people time and distance from the moment of service, explain each use specifically, make withdrawal easy, make clear that saying no won’t affect their support, and take separate consent for separate uses.
What should we do when someone can’t give consent?
Apply the Naz Rule as your main framework. For someone who has died, ask whether sharing honours their memory. For children, get consent from the young person and their parent or carer and avoid identifying them. For people who lack capacity, work with their advocate and default to caution.
Does ethical storytelling make fundraising harder?
No. It makes it more trustworthy. Funders trust stories where people clearly had agency and gave informed consent.
What is the Consent Protection Spectrum?
A five-level way to assess how well your consent process protects people: from no protection, through legal protection only, basic dignity protection and comprehensive protection, to an empowerment model where people shape their own story.
Matt Mahmood-Ogston is a London-based social impact storyteller and documentary photographer. He founded the Naz and Matt Foundation in 2014 and has led it for more than 12 years.
