Introduction In February 2014 we circulated and solicited responses to a Google Docs survey aimed at investigating stakeholder requirements from the GCG. The survey was not aimed specifically at GCG membership, but those managing geological collections or with an interest in the management of geological collections. We circulated an invitation to fill out the survey on both the GCG and Natural Sciences Collections Association (NatSCA) JISCmail lists, on our Facebook and Twitter feeds as well as by e-mailing all members that we have on our 77 GEOLOGICAL CURATORS' GROUP SURVEY 2014: RESULTS AND A VISION FOR THE FUTURE by C. Giles Miller 1 , Tim Ewin 1 , Hannah-Lee Chalk 2 , Kathryn Riddington 3 , Helen Kerbey 4 , Cindy Howells 4 , John Nudds 5 , Matthew Parkes 6 , Jim Spencer 7 , Tony Morgan 8 , Mike Howe 9 , Emma Bernard 1 , Sarah King 10 and Isla Gladstone 11 Miller, C.G. et al. 2014. Geological Curators' Group Survey 2014: results and a vision for the future. The Geological Curator 10 (2): 77-92. In early 2014 the GCG carried out an on-line survey to investigate: the present status of geological curators, potential networking with other groups, support levels for electronic delivery of our journal and newsletter, subjects requested for future workshops/training events, the need for a database of natural history collections, how to deliver skills sharing networks and future GCG activities. It would appear that most geological collections are managed by curators with additional subject specialist areas of responsibility but there is a core of experienced geological curators in the UK with responsibilities for large collections. Direct e-mailing and our JISCmail list are the best method for communication within our group. The largest overlap in our membership is with NatSCA but members listed 45 other organisations with 91% of the total responses welcoming closer links with other natural science collection organisations. A list of subjects are presented here that can act as a basis for planning future programmes and skills sharing networks. There were many requests for low-level training as well as for advice on specimen conservation issues. 74% would consider receiving a pdf and not hard copy of Geological Curator but this was higher for Coprolite (88%). Only 64% said that they see GCG as the first port of a call to answer questions on the management and use of geological collections. 'A louder voice for advocating geological collections' was considered the most important future role for the GCG. Finally 12 major action points summarising our proposed direction over the next three years are presented. 1 Department of Earth Science, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK 2 Manchester Museum, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK 3 Lapworth Museum of Geology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK 4 Amgueddfa Cymru - National Museum Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NP, Wales, UK 5 School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK 6 Natural History Division, National Museum of Ireland, Merrion Street, Dublin 2, Ireland 7 3 Merlyn Court, Austin Drive, Didsbury, Manchester M20 6EA, UK 8 Clore Natural History Centre, World Museum Liverpool, William Brown Street, Liverpool L3 8EN, UK 9 British Geological Survey, Kingsley Dunham Centre, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG, UK 10 York Museums Trust, Yorkshire Museum, Museum Gardens, York YO1 7FR, UK 11 Bristol Museum & Art Gallery, Queens Rd, Bristol BS8 1RL, UK. Received 27th November 2014. Accepted 1st December 2014