2,865
edits
Not For Profit: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''A not for profit (NFP) organisation is one thats primary aim is to not to make profit but to do something else such as protect the earth or promote ping pong. In recent years, as corporate culture has spread the line of profit has become increasingly blurry.''' | '''A not for profit (NFP) organisation is one thats primary aim is to not to make profit but to do something else such as protect the earth or promote ping pong. In recent years, as corporate culture has spread the line of profit has become increasingly blurry.''' | ||
To operate NFPs need people, people require wages, this is not deemed as profit as people are a ''necessity'' to the operation of the business. The best NFPs can be at least ten times better than a typical NFP operating within the same area, hundreds of times better than poor-performing NFPs, and the worst NFPs can do harm<ref>Based on Animal Charity Evaluators comprehensive review of The Humane League, Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness, accessed on 2021-11-11. This report estimates 450m to 9b chicken's lives improved on a spend of $5.8m. This translates to a range of ~80k to ~1.6m lives per $1,000 USD. ↩︎</ref>. This is to do with legacy efficiency, since the ''digital revolution'' many NFPs have large human resources bills for workers who do unproductive jobs<ref>Boccalatte, K. (2021), "The growth of unproductive labour and the new crisis of management: the case of Australia", ''Journal of Management History'', Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-07-2021-0039</nowiki></ref>. Furthermore, with inequality is rising, CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978, this includes those working in NFPs.<ref>Economic Policy Institute: [https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978]. Published: August 14, 2019, Accessed 16th April 2022.</ref> | To operate NFPs need people, people require wages, this is not deemed as profit as people are a ''necessity'' to the operation of the business. The best NFPs can be at least ten times better than a typical NFP operating within the same area, hundreds of times better than poor-performing NFPs, and the worst NFPs can do harm<ref>Based on Animal Charity Evaluators comprehensive review of The Humane League, Criterion 3: Cost Effectiveness, accessed on 2021-11-11. This report estimates 450m to 9b chicken's lives improved on a spend of $5.8m. This translates to a range of ~80k to ~1.6m lives per $1,000 USD. ↩︎</ref>. This is to do with legacy efficiency, since the ''digital revolution'' many NFPs have large human resources bills for workers who do unproductive jobs<ref>Boccalatte, K. (2021), "The growth of unproductive labour and the new crisis of management: the case of Australia", ''Journal of Management History'', Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-07-2021-0039</nowiki></ref>. Furthermore, with inequality is rising, CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978, this includes those working in NFPs.<ref>Economic Policy Institute: [https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978]. Published: August 14, 2019, Accessed 16th April 2022.</ref> NFPs should have a moral commitment<ref>Centre for Global Development: The Moral Imperative toward Cost-Effectiveness in Global Health. Published March 2013<nowiki/>https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/162329/1427016_file_moral_imperative_cost_effectiveness.pdf</ref> to efficiency to ensure spiralling ineffcicient work forces do not swallow money where it is needed most. | ||
== Not For Revenue == | == Not For Revenue == | ||