Criterion
MEDIA, JOBS & RESOURCES for the COMMON GOOD


3 Comments

  • Mrs Sandra V Mrs Sandra V says:

    Thank you for the interesting discussion. Something that may benefit the above is to actually move away from the term 'Not for Profit' which for many many people is extremely misleading. Unfortunately it is interpreted by some quite literally which is not the case. As we know, the 'Not for Profit' only refers to how surplus funds can be distributed (ie profits cannot be distributed to shareholders or members). A Not for Profit must make a surplus or profit because otherwise it will become insolvent like any "for Profit" organisation. Certainly there can be discussion about the scale of surplus or profit but I suspect even that becomes to a degree moot if the following change were taken up. I know that there has been talk of changing the sector name to "For Purpose". Making such a change, I suspect would have many positive consequences for not only the above discussed issue but also the quality/diversity of people attracted to the sector.

  • CommTogether CommTogether says:

    There are three basic problems which stem from the argument outlined in this article: 1. Culturally in the sector as well as in the general public, people believe the term 'not-for-profit' means you can not make money. 2. Organisations do not understand the competitive advantage they have over business and how reinvesting money into their organisation adds value to clients. It is not always about offering the cheapest or free service to everyone. 3. Business can get a lot from supporting not-for-profits but they should not try to do the 'social' work themselves. We all need to recognise the tremendous working being done by organisations with a view to their expansion rather than going off on your own. There is a way all this can work, but the changes must come from within the NFP sector first. The risk is otherwise they will be over run by businesses who for all their 'social good' and 'moral drive to add value to the community' will always be beholden to their shareholders. The trick is in showing both parties how it can work for them. The answer is simple when you take it step by step and work on solid foundation, understand how everyone needs to benefit then provide the outlets for success. I have spent some time developing a framework which will be published in my book next year.

  • Graham Graham says:

    here is an interesting concept on changing the way we fund change – http://profitforothers.com/blog/changing-the-way-we-fund-change/

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

ACOSS ‘Rise to the Challenge’

Contributor

Thursday, 20th September 2018 at 7:30 am

NFPs to Share in $1 Million of Free Tram Advertising

Luke Michael

Wednesday, 29th August 2018 at 4:39 pm

Why NFPs Should Volunteer to File a Modern Slavery Statement

Rob Jackson

Thursday, 26th July 2018 at 1:59 pm

Why Investing in an Awards Event Brings Results

Paul Carter

Wednesday, 25th July 2018 at 1:59 pm

POPULAR

$50 million Up For Grabs to Help NFPs Drive Change

Maggie Coggan

Monday, 17th September 2018 at 4:21 pm

Choice and Control At Risk For NDIS Participants

Luke Michael

Tuesday, 25th September 2018 at 8:54 am

Australia’s Most Innovative NFPs Highlighted

Luke Michael

Thursday, 13th September 2018 at 8:41 am

Philanthropic Leader Calls to Overhaul Economic System

Maggie Coggan

Thursday, 13th September 2018 at 8:52 am

Criterion
pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

The social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!