Nonprofit Logo Walls: Governance, Accessibility, and Management
Key takeaways
- A logo wall looks simple but carries governance problems that accumulate quietly: outdated logos, missing alt text, and implied hierarchies no one agreed.
- Because each logo is an image, and often a linked one, a wall without meaningful alt text creates a navigation failure for screen reader users at scale.
- Alt text should name the organisation, be specified when a logo is added, and be reviewed when it changes, with empty alt text reserved for logos whose name already appears in adjacent text.
- Displaying a logo after a grant, partnership, or accreditation has ended implies a relationship that no longer exists, a reputational risk for the funder and a credibility risk for the organisation.
- Removal should be as automatic as addition, triggered by the same administrative event that ends the relationship, rather than left until a discrepancy is noticed.
- Ordering, sizing, and prominence imply a hierarchy, and some funders specify logo treatment in grant agreements, so a documented display policy avoids both compliance failures and internal disputes.
Summary
Logo walls (rows of partner, funder, or supporter logos displayed on a nonprofit website) appear simple and are frequently poorly governed. The governance failures accumulate quietly: a funder relationship that has ended whose logo remains because nobody has formal authority to remove it, a partner organisation that has changed its branding whose old logo is still displayed, a logo with missing or meaningless alt text that creates an accessibility failure on a high-traffic page, and a collection of logos in different file formats and treatments that communicates institutional disorganisation to the visitors paying close attention. The governance implications are specific. An outdated funder logo implies a current funding relationship where none exists: a misrepresentation that could create credibility problems if a prospective funder researches the organisation's funding history and finds inconsistencies. A former partner's logo implies an ongoing partnership that may no longer reflect the organisation's current relationships. A logo wall without a documented ownership and review process is an area of the website that will drift into inaccuracy as relationships change and nobody updates the visual record to match. This post covers the governance framework for logo walls on nonprofit websites: how to establish a written policy for which logos appear and under what conditions, who has the authority to add and remove logos, what file format and technical standards logos must meet, how to write meaningful alt text for logo images, and how to build the annual review process that keeps the logo wall accurate as relationships evolve.
The logo wall looks simple. The governance behind it is not.
Most nonprofit websites have a logo wall somewhere: a grid of funder logos, partner organisation marks, or accreditation symbols, usually near the bottom of the homepage or on a dedicated partnerships page. The logic behind them is sound. Visible association with recognised funders or partners lends institutional credibility. A logo from a major trust, a government department, or an international agency signals that the organisation has been assessed and found worthy of support.
The governance behind logo walls is rarely considered at the time they are built, and the problems they create accumulate gradually: logos that are outdated because the funder relationship ended; accessibility failures because logo images lack meaningful alt text; political tensions because funders are displayed at different sizes or in an order that implies a hierarchy no one formally agreed; and, in some cases, active misrepresentation because a logo suggests an ongoing partnership that has since ended.
None of these are design problems. They are governance problems. And they require governance solutions.
The accessibility failure built into most logo walls
Logo walls are one of the most common sources of accessibility failures on nonprofit websites. Each logo is an image, and each image requires alternative text for screen reader users. In practice, most logo walls have no alt text, empty alt text, or alt text that says only “Logo” without identifying the organisation.
The WebAIM Million 2026 report found that 16.2 per cent of homepage images had missing alternative text, and that 45 per cent of those missing-alt-text images were linked images, meaning a user navigating by keyboard or screen reader encounters a link with no meaningful destination. A logo wall that links each logo to the funder's or partner's website, which is common, creates exactly this problem at scale. If each logo in the wall is a linked image without meaningful alt text, every one of them is a navigation failure for screen reader users, all in a single section.
The fix is simple at the individual image level: each logo should have alt text that identifies the organisation by name, for example, “Esmée Fairbairn Foundation logo” or “Comic Relief logo”. The governance requirement is that this alt text is specified when the logo is added and reviewed when the logo is updated. Without a process, the alt text will be set once, if at all, and never reviewed again.
For decorative logos where the funder name is already present in adjacent text, empty alt text (alt="") is the correct approach. But the decision about which logos are decorative and which are informative requires a deliberate assessment, not an assumption.
The brand management problem
Funder and partner logos change. Organisations rebrand. Brand guidelines are updated. A logo used without permission from a current brand asset file is a brand management problem for the funder, and a credibility problem for the organisation displaying it.
Most nonprofits add logos to their website at the time of a grant award or partnership agreement and do not revisit them until the visual discrepancy becomes obvious, usually when someone notices that a logo looks different on the website compared to the funder's current materials. By that point, the organisation has been displaying an outdated logo for an unknown period of time.
The governance requirement is a defined process for logo acquisition and update. This means requesting logo files in the correct format at the time of the partnership agreement, noting the source and date of the file, and building a logo review into the annual content audit. Where a funder has a brand portal or style guide, that should be the reference point for any logo update.
The representation risk: logos implying partnerships that no longer exist
The most significant governance risk with logo walls is misrepresentation. A logo on the website implies an active relationship. If the grant ended, the partnership concluded, or the accreditation lapsed, displaying the logo continues to imply an association that is no longer accurate. This is not a minor inaccuracy. It is a reputational risk for the funder whose logo is displayed without their current knowledge, and a credibility risk for the organisation that, if asked by a journalist or regulator, cannot explain the basis for the displayed relationship.
For organisations that receive scrutiny from funders, regulators, or the media, a logo wall that is not accurately maintained is a liability. The question “do you still have a relationship with [Funder X]?” should not be answerable by looking at the website and discovering that the logo has been there since a grant that has already ended.
The governance requirement is a clear policy on when logos are added and when they are removed. Addition criteria might include: active grant relationship, active partnership agreement, or current accreditation. Removal criteria should be equally defined: the grant ends, the partnership agreement expires, or the accreditation lapses. The process for removal should be as automatic as the process for addition, triggered by the same administrative event that concludes the relationship. Corporate partners' logos follow the same triggers, and the corporate partnerships page post sets out what the agreement lets you show.
Membership and verification marks need the same discipline. Under the Core Humanitarian Standard (2024), anyone may say "We are working towards the application of the CHS", but claims of conformity or compliance "may only be made in line with a recognised, objective verification process"; CHS Alliance membership alone is not that. The Fundraising Badge also has to be earned: the Charity Commission requirements guide covers when. A network's logo says you are a member, not that the network has checked your work, so label it as membership. See the checklist rows for networks and verified marks.
The political problem: ordering, sizing, and prominence
Logo walls that display logos at different sizes, in a particular order, or with different visual treatments imply a hierarchy. That hierarchy may reflect the relative financial contribution of different funders, the perceived prestige of different organisations, or simply the order in which logos were added without any deliberate decision being made.
For organisations with multiple funders, the question of how logos are displayed is sometimes a contractual one. Some large funders specify the treatment of their logo in grant agreements: minimum size, placement requirements, proximity to other logos. The National Lottery Community Fund, for example, requires grant holders to use its logo at no less than 125 by 40 pixels on screen, with a defined clear space around it. Failing to meet these requirements is a grant compliance failure.
Where there is no contractual specification, the organisation still needs a defined policy: are logos displayed at a uniform size, or in proportion to grant value? Are they ordered by grant value, by date of first partnership, alphabetically, or randomly? Is there a defined maximum number of logos that will be displayed, and a process for deciding which are included when that number is reached?
These decisions should be made deliberately and documented, not left to evolve through accumulated additions. The Communications Director should not be in a position of having to navigate a funder conversation about logo prominence without a documented policy to reference.
When the Grant Agreement Sets the Terms
For two large international funders, the logo is a condition of the money.
FCDO's branding guidance for ODA-funded programmes says branding "is a condition of accepting funding from the UK government" for implementing partners, and lists "websites (eg on home page or a page listing donors)". The default mark has been UK International Development since 27 April 2023; UK aid is kept for humanitarian programming. FCDO can approve exceptions where visible UK support would endanger "the lives, safety and security" of the people a programme serves or its staff. If a programme has one, check it covers the website: a donors page can be read in the country the exception protects.
The European Commission's visibility guidance for external actions (July 2022, updated July 2024) sets a "general obligation" to show the EU emblem with "Funded by the European Union", and beside other logos the emblem must be "at least the same size as the biggest" of them. A wall sized by grant value can breach that. Departures for security are agreed with the EU case by case.
Neither says when the logo comes down: your agreement does, so record its visibility clause and end date when the logo goes up. A logo on a wall of current funders comes down when the grant ends; the acknowledgement on a report the grant paid for stays, because it records how the report was made. The funder acknowledgement row tags this Conditional.
A governance framework for logo walls
A workable logo wall governance framework covers four areas: addition, maintenance, removal, and accessibility.
Addition: logos are added when a formal relationship is established (grant award, partnership agreement, or accreditation confirmation). The logo file is obtained from the official source in the correct format for web use. The alt text is specified at the time of addition. The date of addition and the basis for display are recorded.
Maintenance: logos are reviewed annually as part of the content audit, against a record of current relationships. Any logo where the underlying relationship cannot be confirmed is flagged for verification or removal. Any logo that differs from the funder's current brand materials is updated using the official source.
Removal: logos are removed when the formal relationship ends. The removal should be triggered by the same administrative process that records the conclusion of the relationship, not by a subsequent discovery that the logo is still displayed. A clear removal criterion prevents the accumulation of logos representing ended relationships.
Accessibility: all logos have alt text that identifies the organisation by name. Linked logos have alt text that describes the destination (e.g., “Esmée Fairbairn Foundation website”), which is what the W3C's guidance on functional images asks for when an image is the whole content of a link. The accessibility standard is verified when each logo is added and checked as part of the bi-annual accessibility audit.
For more on the accessibility audit process, the colour and accessibility governance post covers the broader accessibility compliance framework. And for the connection between governance documents and institutional funder expectations, the what funders see post addresses how credibility signals are assessed during due diligence. The broader website governance policy framework, of which logo wall governance is one element, is covered in the nonprofit website governance policy post.
FAQ
If your logo wall has not been reviewed recently, or if your site lacks a formal policy for managing partner and funder relationships online, the Blueprint Audit includes an assessment of credibility signals and governance document completeness as part of the review. Learn more about the Blueprint Audit.
Free download
Your website, for the board.
A two-page briefing you can fill in and put in the next board pack. It covers the six things funders check, how to see what AI tools say about you, and the options to put to trustees.
That did not send. Email hello@socialectric.com and I will send you the briefing.
Frequently asked questions
- Is there a legal obligation to remove a funder's logo when a grant ends?
The obligation is usually in the grant agreement rather than in a statute: some funders specify how and when their logo may be used (the National Lottery Community Fund publishes its requirements for using its logo, for example), and continued use after a grant ends may breach those terms. For FCDO and EU funding the agreement also requires the acknowledgement while the grant runs, so read the visibility clause for both ends; the funder acknowledgement row of the section checklist covers both. Beyond contractual obligation, displaying a logo that implies an active relationship which has ended is a misrepresentation, regardless of whether it is intentional. The reputational risk to the organisation and the potential concern from the funder whose logo is displayed without current authorisation are both sufficient reasons to treat removal as mandatory when a relationship ends, not optional, particularly since funders check the website during due diligence.
- How should logos be sized and ordered on a nonprofit website?
The most defensible approach, and the one least likely to create funder relationship difficulties, is uniform sizing and alphabetical or random ordering. Sizing logos proportionally to grant value creates an implicit ranking that may not reflect the organisation's values, may be visible to all funders simultaneously, and may create awkward conversations when grant values change. Where a funder's grant agreement specifies a display treatment, that specification takes precedence. Where there is no specification, a documented uniform treatment is easier to defend than one that evolved without deliberate decision-making.
- Do all logos on a nonprofit website need alt text?
All logos that convey meaningful information about the organisation's relationships, accreditations, or affiliations need descriptive alt text. Logos that are purely decorative, where the organisation name is already clearly present in adjacent text and the logo adds no additional information, may use empty alt text (
alt="") to indicate to screen readers that the image is decorative. The distinction requires a deliberate decision for each image, not a blanket assumption. Linked logos always need descriptive alt text, because the link destination must be announced to screen reader users regardless of whether the image is considered decorative. The same discipline applies to every image on the site; the image strategy post covers alt text for photography.- How often should we check the logos on our website are still current?
Once a year on schedule, and immediately whenever a relationship ends. Every logo is reviewed once a year as part of the content audit, against a record of current relationships: any logo whose relationship cannot be confirmed is flagged for verification or removal, and any logo that differs from the funder's current brand materials is replaced from the official source. Separately, removal should not wait for that review. It is triggered by the same administrative event that ends the relationship (the grant closing, the partnership agreement expiring, the accreditation lapsing), so the wall does not depend on someone noticing a discrepancy. The annual review is the backstop, not the mechanism; the content governance post sets out the wider review cycle it sits inside.
- What should we record when we add a logo to the wall?
Four things: the date the logo was added, the basis for displaying it (the grant, partnership agreement, or accreditation), the source and date of the logo file (so it can be checked against the funder's current brand materials later), and the alt text that was specified. That record is what the annual review is checked against. Without it, the review has to reconstruct the history of each relationship from memory, which is how logos representing ended relationships stay on the site.