No One Will Protect What They Don’t Care About: Collaboration, Experience And Impact In The 2026 SORP Era

“No one will protect what they don’t care about; and no one will care about what they have never experienced.” — David Attenborough

Experience drives understanding. Proximity builds trust. Shared environments spark action. This is as true for charities as it is for conservation. Small charities are under pressure: demonstrate value, navigate compliance, and secure funding – all with limited capacity. Yet one of the most overlooked forms of support is simple: physical proximity. Sometimes the best resource is the organisation next door.

We are social by nature. We thrive on interaction, collaboration, and visible purpose. Even buildings matter. Open, shared spaces in green surroundings foster creativity, trust, and a shared mission. The door to the next room isn’t just convenient,— it’s an enabler.

Meanwhile, small charities face growing demands: GDPR, safeguarding, and requirements set by the Charity Commission alongside fundraising standards. All of this must be managed with lean teams and in a highly competitive funding environment.

The 2026 SORP (Statement of Recommended Practice) aims to simplify reporting through a new three-tier structure based on income. Tier 1 now extends to £500,000, with lighter-touch reporting requirements designed to reduce the burden on smaller organisations.

This is an important shift. The intention is not to impose uniform expectations, but to make reporting more proportionate. Tier 1 charities are not expected to produce the same depth of disclosure as larger organisations. Instead, additional narrative and outcome-focused reporting increases with size, particularly in Tiers 2 and 3. However, one expectation does cut across all tiers: charities must explain what they do, why it matters, and how their work benefits the public. The emphasis is not on technical complexity, but rather on clarity and credibility.

DELEGATION CAN SUPPORT EFFICIENCY, BUT IT MUST BE CLEARLY STRUCTURED, PROPERLY DOCUMENTED, AND SUBJECT TO ONGOING OVERSIGHT.

Two questions follow:

• What if small charities had the same collaborative environments that help larger organisations thrive?
• How could shared, experience-led spaces help them meet rising expectations – without overwhelming capacity?

Look at the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, based in the David Attenborough Building. It brings together organisations like BirdLife International and UNEP-WCMC. Co-location amplifies efficiency and impact – not just through formal partnerships, but through everyday experience. Conversations happen between meetings. Ideas flow informally. Expertise is always nearby. Collaboration isn’t an event; it is built into the environment.

For small charities, this model offers practical advantages. Shared spaces reduce overheads. Pooled services – communications, grant writing, administration – improve effectiveness. Collaboration can also strengthen fundraising, with joint initiatives and shared credibility attracting support that might otherwise be out of reach.

But collaboration must be balanced with accountability. Trustees cannot outsource governance. Even in shared environments, each board retains full legal responsibility for the charity’s activities and decisions. This includes a core duty to act only within the charity’s objects clause, ensuring that all activities – whether delivered independently or collaboratively – further the charity’s stated purposes and provide public benefit.

Delegation can support efficiency, but it must be clearly structured, properly documented, and subject to ongoing oversight. Trustees must be satisfied that any shared services, joint initiatives, or pooled resources remain aligned with their charity’s objects. Collaboration must never blur purpose: every activity must advance the charity’s aims. Done well, shared working can strengthen governance rather than dilute it – reducing administrative burden while allowing trustees to focus on strategy, compliance and long-term impact.

Returning to the 2026 SORP, the key change is not that all charities must suddenly adopt complex impact measurement. Rather, the shift is toward more meaningful narrative reporting, scaled according to size.

For Tier 1 charities, this means keeping reporting proportionate and accessible: clearly explaining activities, beneficiaries, and the difference the charity is trying to make. It may include simple examples – feedback, case studies, or basic indicators – but does not require sophisticated evaluation frameworks. For larger charities, expectations increase. Tier 2 and Tier 3 organisations are expected to go further in explaining outcomes – what has changed as a result of their work, for whom, and why it matters.

Seen this way, the direction of travel is clear, even if the requirements differ by tier. The sector is moving from describing activity to explaining impact – but at a pace and scale appropriate to each organisation. The most powerful lesson returns to experience. Just as individuals care more when they encounter something directly, organisations are more effective when they are embedded in collaborative, purpose-driven environments.

The Cambridge Conservation Initiative demonstrates that support can drive missions forward. Sometimes it starts with proximity – shared space, shared purpose, and the simple act of opening a door. The funding flowing to CCI reflects this: Arcadia committed US$10 million, including work with the RSPB to restore landscapes and seascapes across Europe.

Embrace these principles, and the sector can move beyond survival toward sustainability together - provided always, there is clear objects alignments between any collaborating parties at the outset. Even the smallest organisations can deliver meaningful impact – and explain it clearly, proportionately, and with confidence.

Originally published by Philanthropy Impact Magazine, 4 June 2026, page 41