Guest post by Lauren Kay, Communications Manager, Community Partners
Should new legal structures (B corporations were the primary focus) be created to make way for new business hybrids that allow for a bottom line concerned not just with profit, but social good as well?
Guest post by Phil Buchanan, president of The Center for Effective Philanthropy
This is the final installment in a series of six blog posts, which were originally featured on the CEP Blog.
Why are we, in the nonprofit sector, putting corporations on a
pedestal? The recent damage caused by the unethical, if not illegal,
practices of many of this country’s largest financial institutions needs
no recounting. Nor does the environmental destruction wrought by a wide
range of companies over the decades.
Yet, as I have discussed on this blog over the past six weeks, many
continue to hype boundary-blurring, beat up on the label “nonprofit,”
advocate the adoption of “business thinking,” and promote corporations
as the solvers of our toughest social problems. All this without
sufficient acknowledgment of the vital role of nonprofits –
organizations that do not have to answer to investors pushing for a
financial return.
Guest post by Phil Buchanan, president of The Center for Effective Philanthropy
This is the fifth in a series of six blog posts, which were originally featured on the CEP Blog.
In my last several posts, I have described what I regard as worrisome
trends: the way many (inside and outside the nonprofit sector) push for
a “blurring of boundaries” between sectors, disparage the term
“nonprofit,” and equate “business thinking” with “effectiveness.”
But, many go further still, arguing – or at least strongly implying –
not just that nonprofits could benefit from an infusion of “business
thinking” but that, in fact, nonprofits are increasingly irrelevant
because it is companies that will solve our most vexing social problems.
To this growing chorus, the private sector is now where the action is.
Guest post by Phil Buchanan, president of The Center for Effective Philanthropy
This is the fourth in a series of six blog posts, which were originally featured on the CEP Blog.
Related to the emphasis on boundary-blurring and the frequent dissing
of the term “nonprofit” that I have discussed in my last several posts
is an equation of “business thinking” with effectiveness. You would
think, after what we have witnessed in the past several years, that the
word “business” would not be used as a synonym for “effective.”
But it is. And an increasing number of people, including those who should know better, seem to be falling into this trap.
Guest post by Phil Buchanan, president of The Center for Effective Philanthropy
This is the third in a series of six blog posts, which were originally featured on the CEP Blog.
Beating up on the label “nonprofit” has become an almost reflexive habit of those speaking and writing about the sector.
“Anyone
who has thought about it for more than a nanosecond agrees that
‘nonprofit’ is about the worst possible summary we could give of
ourselves and our work,” writes
Harvard Business Review blogger Dan Pallotta, crediting Harvard
Business School (HBS) Professor Allen Grossman for noting that the
sector “suffers from the distinction of being the only sector whose name
begins with a negative.” (I had Professor Grossman as a second-year MBA
student at HBS and he is an outstanding professor, who I respect
greatly and stay in touch with to this day. But I disagree with him when
it comes to the way he views the sector and the comparisons he draws to
business.)
In a much more constructive spirit than Pallotta’s, Peter Hero, former president of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, has also argued that the term “nonprofit” is problematic because of what it conveys.
