Nonprofit Logo Walls: Governance, Accessibility, and Management

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is rarely considered at the time they are built, and the problems they create accumulate gradually: logos that are outdated because the funder relationship ended; accessibility failures because dozens of images lack meaningful alt text; political tensions because funders are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 not existed for two years.

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 there are 20 logos in the wall and each is a linked image without meaningful alt text, that is 20 navigation failures for screen reader users 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 ended three years ago.

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.

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. 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.

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 also describes the destination (e.g., “Esmée Fairbairn Foundation website”). 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

Question 1: Is there a legal obligation to remove a funder's logo when a grant ends?

There is no single universal legal requirement, but there may be contractual obligations in the grant agreement: some funders specify how and when their logo may be used, and continued use after a grant ends may breach those terms. 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.

Question 2: 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.

Question 3: 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.

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.