The Non-Profit Sector Provides Sustainable Solutions Where Business Fails

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 - 08:52
It is not fair for businesses to criticise civil society organisations (CSOs) for not operating like them. Unlike businesses, CSOs do not exist for profit but are about social change. The claim that non-profits pay their staff excessive salaries is not true since these organisations are accountable to various stakeholders, including their boards, beneficiaries, the public and donors. The non-profit sector does not only hold government and business to account, but also has a social, economic and political role to play

Comments

Business methods of measuring efficiency, performance and impact may well assist NPOs to improve their performance and impact, but it is simplistic to assume that the same processes can be transferred from one to the other and remain useful. One might as well ask, why don’t businesses operate more like NPO’s and place a greater emphasis on benefitting society than making a profit? Answer: businesses would be unable to achieve their core function, i.e. to make a profit. And vice versa. • It is fruitless to make sweeping generalizations such as “the non-profit sector is in chaotic decline” –following the global economic crisis, one could well say the same of business and industry. We know that this is not the case for all businesses, and vice versa. • The commentator must be careful to differentiate between non-profits and government and parastatals – which actually provide houses and jobs. The role of non-profits, as the author of the article articulates, is more subtle and much broader. • Donors do have a right to know to whom they are giving their money and how it has been used, and it is incumbent upon them to ensure that they identify the most effective organisations in this regard who will create the greatest social benefit with the budget available – a broader impact than simply measurement of expenditure • Sustainable NPOs know that it is in their own best interests to be transparent and accountable; those that are not SHOULD cease to operate (and will, for they are making themselves obsolete), but this is not the case with all NPOs. • Sustainable NPOs measure the impact they create and can easily tell any donor or, for that matter, any member of the public what impact they have and intend to have. It is inaccurate to say one cannot estimate how much good is being done. In this regard, NPOs’ greatest challenge is that they do not have the budget (or the inclination) to spend large sums of money on glossy print and broadcast adverts extolling their own virtues – an area in which corporates and government excel • While the private sector may provide money into society, money is merely a means to an end; NPOs use money to create benefit to society. This is their role, and is as valuable as the role of the private sector, although it is highly undervalued. • NPOs must also take responsibility for their own development, including greater transparency, so that there is no scope for incorrect perceptions of the non-profit sector.
Why bite the hand that feeds? If a business is the donor, it has every right to expect results, and if it knows there are better ways of managing procedures and getting results than the NPO knows of, it has the duty to expect the best. In other words, I do not blame the private sector when the non-profit sector is so clearly in chaotic decline. Why dress the truth? The non-profit sector is an umbrella that covers some organisations that serve the public good and many that don't e.g. self-promotion agencies like the trades unions, the political parties, business cartels etc. It also has monsters like LoveLife that consumed so much money and energy and displaced the real do-gooders. In other words, for some people, the sector is where they show their love and care, and for others, it is simply money for jam. Donors deserve to know who they are dealing with before giving their money. Why avoid the issue? How much good is our sector doing, really, other than providing insiders with jobs and houses etc. We cannot say our country is progressing overall on any front. The more light, the more honesty, the more learning from each other, and the less defensive denialism, the sooner we get to the society we want. We need the private sector because it provides 100% - directly and indirectly - of all the money that goes into society. We needs its productivity, because that supplies the surplus that goes into all taxes and grants. We need its skills because, to be honest, too many of us are operating on faith and gut. Without a doubt, the market and government has its failures, but even though I have been in the non-profit sector for 20 years, and know firsthand of our heroes and heroines, I would be very very slow to point a finger.
hmm. confusing article. Why bite the hand that feeds? If a business is the donor, it has every right to expect results, and if it knows there are better ways of managing procedures and getting results than the NPO knows of, it has the duty to expect the best. In other words, I do not blame the private sector when the non-profit sector is so clearly in chaotic decline. Why dress the truth? The non-profit sector is an umbrella that covers some organisations that serve the public good and many that don't e.g. self-promotion agencies like the trades unions, the political parties, business cartels etc. It also has monsters like LoveLife that consumed so much money and energy and displaced the real do-gooders. In other words, for some people, the sector is where they show their love and care, and for others, it is simply money for jam. Donors deserve to know who they are dealing with before giving their money. The real question is how much good our sector is doing, other than providing us with jobs and houses etc. The more light, the more honesty, the more learning from each other, and the less defensive denialism, the sooner we get to the society we want.
I do agree workshops are a waste of time and money and more investment by the FOR PROFITS should be made in developming skill in the NGO sector.
Its all well and good for an NGO to run like a business - In doing this won't we loose the ideal of caring for individual needs? People work far different to things and herein lay the fundamental differences between FOR PROFITS AND NPO's. I think what for profits' forget is that NPO employees run on all cylinders and in most cases do more than one individual's job. NPO's salaries are far less in comparison with a For profit organisation who has the means to employ three different employees to do the one person's job in the NPO sector. Yes accountability is very important but in most cases Civil society don’t have the necessary resources or the skills to clearly identify what funding is used for. In most cases where mismanagement happens is when a small CBO (community bases organisation) doesn’t have the resources or the skills to account for their funding but the work on the ground ALWAYS without FAIL happen.
Anonymous I agree with anonymous 1. If NPO's were more accountable for the way they utilise their funding, they would be able to use their funding a lot more productively. Having worked in an NPO and now in a for-profit business I realise how little value NPO's place on money. Money is often spent frivolously and perhaps I am generalising. Some NPO offices are better decked ou than small businesses. All we are saying is be more accountable and conscious of how funds are spent. NPO's will save lots of money if less workshops were conducted and more work was done
For so long now, I have been trying to articulate the function that my NPO serves. The current funding models of corporates sees NPO's as needing three years of financial assistance, and that this will fix them up i.e. transform them from an NPO, who wants everyone to feel sorry for and help them, to a business, who can pay for itself, and yet while being a business, will continue with a mandate to facilitate 'social change'. Shelagh, your article is something that the corporates need to read and understand. As NPO's we are not wanting to be sad and pathetic (i.e in need of funding). If we are in fact transformed by corporate intervention, we will essentially stop doing the work we do, and become another business entity, which by its very structure, nature and motivation will not be able to fulfill the mandate of an NPO, and serve its clients.You describe the work that we do so well, and contextualise the pressures on us to become businesses so well. We can do this, but we effectively then cease to become NPO's, and we will have to interact with employees, who we will have a totally different relationship and assocation with. Thanks for such a brilliant article, and for contextualising and summarising everything so well. Robin Opperman- Director Umcebo Trust.
Great article Shelagh - I agree with all that you have stated although few really say or believe that NPOs should run like a business but many have mooted they should behave in a businesslike manner. It is all too easy for those running non-profits to hide behind 'doing good' and claiming to have a lack of funds as an excuse for weak planning, leadership and accoutability. Bumbling along is considered to be OK, acceptable, if you work in the third sector whilst in reality it should be a privilege and carried out by those with the highest competence to serve humanity and safe guard society.
Entrepreneurship has a key role in society, not least in business which exists for profit. But business cannot do everything. It is the non-profit sector (NPO), however, that has the edge in working for the interests of you and me, the ordinary people in the community. So why does business criticise civil society for not operating like a business.

Along with an obsession about measuring the impact of organisations; the attempted application of King III principles to the nonprofit sector; the emergence of rating agencies to advise donors which organisations are good or bad (against business standards) and complaints about salaries paid to non-profit personnel, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the role of civil society and the contribution it makes to our lives.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I must stress that I am not against business or entrepreneurship.  So why am I writing about this? 

Firstly, while business is a key component of our society and provides jobs and services, there is a great deal that business cannot do. 

Secondly, I am tired of people making assumptions about the civil society sector so that organisations are only seen through the prism of ‘charity’. There are thousands of civil society organisations and very few are just ‘charities’. 

Charity implies giving to the needy – providing for the immediate needs of destitute people. Although there are organisations that do this and play an important role, most NGOs run programmes that do not just alleviate needs, but also transform people’s lives. These are development organisations – not charities. 

And thirdly, the critique that somehow ‘charities’ need to function like businesses is unreasonable. Nonprofits cannot be run like businesses – their whole reason for being is not about profit and production, but about social change. Their trustees or board members do not earn directors’ emoluments; they do their work for social benefit.
 
Running a non-profit is as complex, and probably more complex, than running a business because of issues of accountability to a wide range of stakeholders – their board, beneficiaries, donors and the public. There are multiple layers of nuanced relationships and networks on which every non-profit relies for success.  It has far less control on its outcomes than a for-profit as it is dependent on people and relationships outside the organisation, from funding through to social impact.
 
It’s time to move on from the antediluvian concept of ‘charity’ as the notion that some rich man’s wife is running a ‘help group’ to keep her busy and therefore charity leaders should not receive fair pay for their work.  And it must be said that excessive salaries are not nearly as common as in business. In fact it is hard to conceive how one can even compare non-profit salaries with the business sector.
 
The latter usually offers attractive financial perks such as share options, massive retirement packages, company cars, entertainment allowances. Reports abound of executives who leave their jobs with fat cat ‘bonuses’, let alone those who receive payout deals to cover up their wrongdoing or as part of the political power play.   It is thus astonishing that business people feel they can pontificate on how non-profits should be run.
  
In contrast, the way business is practised has led to some of the key problems in the world.

Two of these, poverty and climate, are based on the concept of extraction, a business principle. Thanks to this, our earth is warming and millions of people have been marginalised and abused with the resultant poverty that is overwhelming us, aggravated by the financial crisis with its genesis in questionable banking practices globally.
 
Justifiably it can be asked what happens if a non-profit abuses its funding? The abuse of funds can never be defended and organisations must account for their expenditure and income to donors and stakeholders. However, in comparison to business this is small change. We have just seen the massive corruption in banks and financial services companies, the bedrock of business, which led to the global recession. Are these the practices that the non-profit sector is being asked to emulate?

Against this civil society can cite significant achievements, done without using business principles. Amongst these are the abolition of slavery (opposed by business), the environmental movement (derided by business as tree huggers), the right to ARV treatment in South Africa and the women’s movement, not forgetting the pressure on the SA government to change in the 1970s and 1980s.
 
The belief that those days are over is naive. Who will protect the freedom of the press, who will protect our human rights, who will continue to push the women’s agenda when it has fallen off government’s programme, who will stand against violence against children and who will campaign against global warming? Who is working with the poor to ensure that business people can sleep safe and sound?  Not business. Its role remains profit. Where social responsibility has become a part of operations, it is a side-show and not its core business.

So is the non-profit sector just an easy scapegoat, maybe because civil society holds business and government to account?

Non-profits are not just the sum total of their service delivery, but have a social, economic and political role to play. This doesn’t fit the neat little concept of ‘charity’, but is the reality of what is a dynamic and innovative sector doing the non-extractive work of our world. These are not “charities”, but organisations society cannot do without.
 
They are not making profit, but they are working for your and my interests.  We should be thankful they exist. Without them, societies descend into darkness.

Shelagh Gastrow is executive director at Inyathelo – the South African Institute for Advancement. This article first appeared in the Cape Argus newspaper. It is republished here with the permission of the author.

Add Comments

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Twitter-style @usersnames are linked to their Twitter account pages.
  • Twitter-style #hashtags are linked to search.twitter.com.

More information about formatting options