Why it’s time for charities to stop ‘empowering’ people

Why one overused word is quietly reinforcing the wrong dynamics.

In a recent blog, I wrote about overused words in the charity sector. But there’s one repeat offender that deserves a closer look — and that’s empower. Possibly the king of the charity buzzwords, empower is everywhere. You’ll find it in mission statements, straplines, funding bids and five-year plans. It sounds good. It looks great in a strategy deck. It has that polished, ambitious tone charities often reach for, but scratch the surface and it starts to fall apart.

Let’s look at what it actually means. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to empower is ‘to give (someone) the authority or power to do something.’ To give someone the power. Not to recognise it. Not to support it. But to give it — as if people are sitting there, powerless, waiting for a well-meaning organisation to hand it over like a gift. It sets up a dynamic where power flows one way. But in most cases, the people you support already have strength, ideas, skills and agency. They don’t need to be empowered. They need systems to stop working against them. Or they need space, tools, backing — recognition, not permission.

A real-world example:

A charity working with young climate campaigners described their work as ’empowering young people to speak out.’ But when asked, the young people said they were already speaking out loudly and clearly. The problem wasn’t a lack of voice. It was a lack of access to the rooms where decisions get made.

This is where empower starts to look less helpful. However warm or well-intentioned it sounds, it reinforces a hierarchy — the organisation as giver, the community as grateful recipient. It risks positioning people as passive, waiting to be activated, rather than already in motion.

Even if that’s not how your organisation thinks, it might be how your communications sound, especially when trying to speak to funders, policymakers and the people you work with all at once.

It’s also vague. What do you actually do when you empower someone? Campaign? Fund? Train? Listen? Share decision-making? If your word could mean anything, it probably doesn’t mean much.

So what now?

If you’re serious about representing the people you work with — and not just speaking about them — then in most cases, empower isn’t the right word. It suggests a hierarchy that doesn’t match the reality of the work. It’s vague, overused, and doesn’t say what you actually do.

This isn’t about nitpicking language for the sake of it. It’s about asking: ‘Are we being honest about our role? Are we describing people with respect? Are we being clear about what we’re doing and why it matters?’

If the answer’s yes, there’s probably a better word than empower.

Got a mission statement that needs a rethink? A strapline that’s starting to itch? Get in touch if you’d like to talk positioning, values and saying what you really mean, without the waffle. (We promise not to empower you!)