In the past month I’ve been eating out more often with friends. Christmas season does that.

I’ve also noticed a billing practice that makes me uncomfortable: some restaurants add a small “donation” line item to the bill without asking first.

This post is not an attack on charity. I support charitable giving, and I think many customers genuinely want to participate in good causes.

My concern is simpler and more important: a donation is a choice, and it should always be opt-in.

A concrete example

On a recent receipt, there was a line item called “GiftTree” with a small amount charged.

The receipt described it as “optional” and linked it to a good cause (offsetting the carbon footprint of the meal). But nobody asked me whether I wanted to participate before the bill was presented.

It was already included among the items on the receipt.

That is the problem.

Not because it is a large amount, but because it turns a voluntary act into a default assumption.

It’s easy to reduce this to: “it’s only £1–£2”.

But the amount is not the point.

A donation is not the same as a menu item. It is not a normal charge for something I ordered. It is a voluntary act — a personal decision — and it should remain exactly that.

When a donation appears on a bill by default, the customer is placed into a subtle social situation:

  • Some people won’t notice it at all.
  • Some will notice it, but feel awkward asking to remove it in front of friends, a date, or colleagues.
  • Some will pay it simply to avoid friction.

That last category matters. A system that relies on friction and embarrassment is not a clean way to raise money for good causes.

Charity should be given freely, not obtained through social pressure.

If a restaurant wants to support a charity or a carbon-offset programme, that can be positive. I don’t object to the idea.

But it must be done in an honourable way.

The honourable way is simple: ask first.

A donation is a moral choice made with someone else’s money. That choice must remain with the person paying.

A better approach would be:

  • Ask clearly at payment: “Would you like to add £1–£2 to [cause] today?”
  • Make it opt-in, not opt-out.
  • Make it private, ideally as a card-terminal prompt rather than a public conversation.
  • Be transparent: who receives the money, what the scheme is, and how the funds are passed on.

If the customer says yes, they have participated in something good.

If the customer says no, nothing is lost — except the restaurant’s ability to use social pressure as a fundraising tool, which is exactly what should be lost.

Why this feels wrong, even when the cause is good

Some people will say: “but it’s for a good cause.”

That may be true. But good causes do not justify weak ethics.

The method matters because it shapes the meaning of the act.

When a donation is added before consent, it is no longer clearly an act of generosity. It becomes a small “extra charge” that the customer must actively remove. The psychological direction of travel is reversed:

  • Instead of choosing to give,
  • you must choose not to give.

That is not a neutral difference. It changes the entire moral character of the transaction.

It also changes the social dynamic at the table. The customer who notices the charge is forced into a choice:

  • accept it quietly, or
  • ask for it to be removed and risk being judged as “stingy” in front of others.

A restaurant should not put customers in that position.

It also creates a trust problem

Even if the restaurant’s intentions are good, default donations naturally raise questions:

  • Where does the money go, exactly?
  • Is it passed on in full?
  • Is it audited and tracked properly?
  • Is the restaurant gaining marketing value while customers fund the scheme?

I’m not claiming wrongdoing. My point is that this practice creates doubt where there doesn’t need to be any.

A customer shouldn’t have to wonder about any of this during a meal.

The clean way to avoid doubt is to ask for consent and be transparent.

A donation should never be “bundled” into the bill

There is a difference between inviting participation and assuming participation.

Inviting participation is respectful:

“Would you like to add £1 to [cause] today?”

Assuming participation is not:

“Here’s your bill — we added a donation. You can ask to remove it.”

Even if the receipt later calls it “optional”, the sequence still matters. Consent must come before money is requested, not after.

This is a basic principle that applies well beyond restaurants. If you want someone to support something, you ask them. You don’t quietly insert it into the transaction and rely on silence.

What I will do next time

Next time I see a donation item added without being asked, I will simply request its removal:

“Please remove the donation from the bill.”

If asked why, my answer is straightforward:

“I donate separately, by choice.”

That keeps the interaction calm and factual. It does not criticise staff, and it does not create a public scene. It simply restores the basic principle: consent.

And I think it’s worth saying explicitly: I’m not doing this because I dislike charity. I’m doing it because I respect charity enough to believe it should be done properly.

What an honourable restaurant would do instead

If a restaurant genuinely wants to help customers contribute to a good cause, it can do that without compromising the ethics.

The standard should look like this:

  1. Explicit opt-in

    • Ask directly, and accept “no” without friction.

  2. Private choice

    • Let customers decide on the card machine, not under social observation.

  3. Clear description

    • Name the charity or scheme. Explain what the donation funds.

  4. Transparency and follow-through

    • Publish totals raised and confirm how funds are transferred.

This isn’t difficult. It’s just a choice about whether the restaurant values consent more than conversion rates.

Charity should remain charitable

If a restaurant wants to support good causes, I’m open to it, and many customers will be too.

But charity should not be “smuggled” into a bill.

Ask customers if they want to participate. Make the choice explicit. Keep it private. Be transparent about where the money goes.

That preserves the spirit of charity — and it preserves trust.

Because charity only has real meaning when it is freely chosen.