In recent years individuals, businesses and non-profit organizations have embraced the use of social media, online tools that support the quick and easy creation and sharing of content by users including blogs, social network sites [1]. Increasingly, organizations are noting the imperative to be where their target market is, and are creating a social media presence. This paper contrasts three non-profit organizations' social media policies and guidelines. It identifies critical legal and ethical points for organizations to consider when devising a social media policy. While various guidelines on writing social media policies exist, the cases examined here underlined the variations in organizational approach, which may in some cases expose the employer to liability and potential litigation. In addition, non-profits have context specific considerations such as neutrality and crisis care that should be noted explicitly in their guidelines and policy for the benefit of all stakeholders. As more and more social media and employment cases are heard by tribunals and courts, it is important for all organizations to stay up to date with social media technology and the law, to ensure that their interests are protected. Klang and Nolin provide a useful model for classifying social media policies and guidelines based on their foundation position [2]. Policies or guidelines that specify and offer different guidelines or clauses based on a specific social media platform basis (e.g. clauses tailored to Facebook and Twitter) are considered heterogeneous. Those that are generic, providing one policy or guideline to suit all platforms are homogenous. Additionally, policies or guidelines can be written so as to indicate social media is a problem to be managed or a possibility to be explored [2]. These differences are presented in a quadrant model classifying social media policy as having a Bureaucratic foundation (Homogenous-Problem), a Branding foundation (Homogenous Possibility), a Disciplining foundation (Heterogeneous-Problem) or a Participatory foundation (HeterogeneousPossibility) [2]. This model will be used to classify the cases introduced in the paper.
The research used an exploratory archival analysis based multi-case study [
The search for cases uncovered two different approaches used by non-profits; some adopted policies and
others used guidelines. The sample therefore includes both guidelines and policy to contrast these approaches to
managing employee and volunteer use of social media by non-profit organizations. Inclusion of such polar cases
supports comparison aimed at identifying emergent patterns [
The selected case policies and guidelines were critically evaluated to identify the distinctions between policy and guidelines; the inclusions and gaps in each case; organization domain specific considerations and the relationship with policy/guidelines other organizational policies and the law. Alongside policy/guideline analysis, the authors reviewed the web and social media presence for each organization to identify the organizational context and to characterize their use of social media.
Three cases were selected for examination as part of the research: Lifeline, the Royal National Lifeboat
Institution (RNLI) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Lifeline is
an Australian based charity that operates a 24 hour telephone and web chat crisis support service [
The RNLI is a UK based charity. It supports a network of local UK organizations that provide services such
as lifesaving and rescue and education and information about maritime safety [
The IFRC is a humanitarian network that links national Red Cross and Crescent organizations around the
world as they provide health and wellbeing services to those in need [
A review of the social media policies and guidelines for the selected cases was conducted to classify the content into key areas of coverage. These areas included an introduction that explained social media and relevant terms, explicit guidance on appropriate and inappropriate personal and professional use of social media by employees and notes on branding including use of logos. However, areas specific to health and wellbeing organizations also featured, such as guidance on posts responding to requests for support and counseling, or posting about political or world events. The results of the policy and guideline classification are presented in the full paper.
The RNLI and IFRC tried to develop their guidelines using a possibility approach [
The Lifeline policy adopted a clearer problem approach, evidenced through a focus on management of use,
the brand and discipline for misuse that was only tempered through brief encouragement of participation as long
as it adhered to guiding principles. This approach indicated that a primarily Bureaucratic foundation [
The IFRC guidelines stressed the importance of neutrality when discussing core business such as politically related events. This was echoed to some degree in the Lifeline policy and RNLI guidelines that discouraged specification of political affiliation.
Lifeline provided scripted examples of posts that could be tailored for use in specific instances on social media. These sample posts were for use in directing subscribers seeking counseling to contact the official help line or emergency services. Similarly, the RNLI provided some examples of what and how to post about services, even providing tips on how to boost subscriber engagement.
Interestingly, Lifeline and the RNLI had an explicit non deletion position advising staff that the integrity of social media was undermined if they deleted negative posts. This point shows considerable insight from Lifeline and the RNLI into the nature of social media and the potential backlash from the public if negative feedback is seen to be suppressed. Both guidelines indicated that posts should only be deleted in cases where the usage guidelines had been breached (e.g. discrimination). In such cases, Lifeline noted a staff member should contact the person concerned to explain the deletion whereas the RNLI suggested a sample statement advising that the post was inappropriate and had been removed.
Both Lifeline and the RNLI included points of caution relating to endorsement or advertisement of products or organizations. The RNLI guidelines cautioned that posting about partner organizations may be perceived by subscribers as advertising, which they felt may be off putting for some. However, Lifeline was specifically concerned with staff not appearing to endorse a business on Lifeline’s behalf. While it has been addressed, both organizations would benefit from further detail to clarify the ramifications for employees.
Lifeline and the IFRC sanctioned employees posting the organization name as their employer in their personal social media profiles and all condoned staff posting about their work. However, they also suggested the inclusion of a disclaimer indicating that all views expressed were personal and did not reflect the organization. Interestingly, the Lifeline policy explicitly encouraged employees to re-tweet or re-post official Lifeline posts.
All three highlighted the need to protect professional confidentiality when using social media. Lifeline and the IFRC both promoted staff to be mindful of privacy protection, while only the IFRC made reference to IT security. All three also mentioned a process for reporting inappropriate posts from other staff.
The Lifeline policy was the only case where the process to be followed on detection of inappropriate staff use of social media was specified. The IFRC explicitly linked to their staff codes of conduct, employment handbook and IT use policy. Neither of the guidelines nor the policy explicitly identified the law that underpinned and related to the document. However, all included reference to common themes in employment law when specifying inappropriate use, including: a) Bullying, stalking and harassment; b)Hate speech, discrimination or other such inappropriate content; and c) Negative postings about the employer, the organization or fellow employees/volunteers
The RNLI was unique in providing a detailed section focusing on transparency of communication with children via social media. They referenced UK Government guidelines discouraging sharing or requesting information with or from children. Given that staff from all three organizations may interact with children online, this is a prudent and necessary inclusion. Aside from this reference to UK guidelines, no distinction between the cases could be made based on country of origin or international scope.