Charities are often seen as the societal safety net, stepping in where governments and private sectors fail. They aim to provide essential services—like food, shelter, and healthcare—to the most vulnerable, offering hope and a chance at a better future. Charities also play crucial roles in advancing medical research, promoting education, and preserving the environment. Ideally, they serve as a conduit for funneling funds from well-meaning donors to worthwhile causes. However, the reality often falls short of this ideal.
The Pitfalls of Charity
Excessive Spending on Overheads
It’s alarming how much of donated money is consumed by operational costs. Many charities hire third-party companies for marketing, which take a significant cut of the donations as commissions. These marketing companies often employ young, impressionable individuals to solicit donations, offering them only a small portion of the proceeds.
While some argue that spending on marketing makes sense if it increases overall donations, this perspective overlooks the fixed budgets many individuals allocate for charitable giving. Funds spent on advertising, creative agencies, and tech platforms divert resources from other causes, creating a zero-sum game. Unlike private companies, whose marketing efforts align consumer needs with products, charity marketing often amounts to resource-intensive competition for limited altruistic budgets. Total charitable giving as a % of GDP was around 1.7-2.3% over 40 years, despite new innovations in marketing
Lack of Transparency
Transparency remains a significant issue for many charitable organisations. Funds are frequently redirected to vague “general funds,” with little accountability. Take the example of the Red Cross during the Haiti earthquake relief efforts in 2010. Despite raising half a billion dollars, NPR and ProPublica investigative reports found numerous administrative black holes and poorly planned projects. Similarly, allegations of misuse of funds by staff within the UNRWA have raised concerns about donations being misappropriated.
The UNRWA, a UN agency that seeks to help Palestine refugees, fired nine staff members who “may have been involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel”. Yes, this is a small minority of the staff involved. However, to think that donations could have been diverted to funding violence against civilians is a chilling thought.
Fraudulent Practices
Beyond inefficiency and opacity, some charities engage in downright shady practices. In recent years, several high-profile organizations have come under scrutiny for mismanagement and misuse of funds. The Wounded Warrior Project, a charity for veterans, was found to have spent millions on lavish parties and conferences in 2016. Similarly, the Cancer Fund of America and its affiliates were exposed in a 2015 government investigation for misusing over $187 million in donations, funneling money to the founder’s family and friends.
A Superior Approach: Social Entrepreneurship
Charities often compete for donor attention, yet their dependency on emotional appeals and goodwill can lead to inefficiency. Two alternatives can address these shortcomings: structural changes and social enterprises.
Structural Changes
Structural reforms focus on altering systems to reduce the need for charity altogether. For example, instead of relying on campaigns to encourage organ donation, implementing an opt-out system leverages behavioural economics to increase donor rates. Such systemic changes are more sustainable and efficient than continuous fundraising efforts.
Social Enterprises
Social enterprises operate at the intersection of profitability and social impact. Unlike charities, they are forced to provide tangible value to remain sustainable. By accepting a lower rate of return, these businesses keep operations lean while fulfilling their social missions. Social enterprises do not rely on tugging at heartstrings; instead, they deliver measurable impact while maintaining accountability.
One example is A-day (formerly VitaeGum), which develops vitamin-enriched chewing gum to address malnutrition in children. This scalable solution received recognition at the Oxford All Innovate competition and funding from the Oxford Seed Fund. Such initiatives exemplify how social enterprises can tackle systemic problems more effectively than traditional charities.
The Role of Charities in Exceptional Cases
While social entrepreneurship is a promising alternative, charities still have a role to play in urgent humanitarian crises. During natural disasters or other emergencies, charities can mobilise resources quickly, filling gaps that social enterprises might not be able to address in time. However, even in such scenarios, scalable solutions developed by social enterprises can provide long-term benefits.
Why I Could Be Wrong
Stephen Bubb, from Oxford’s Grade Institute of Charity, highlights the unique role of charities in addressing gaps left by governments. For instance, charities can step in to support failing healthcare systems or offer non-partisan solutions to complex problems. Unlike governments, charities can act swiftly without being bogged down by political debates.
My Approach to Giving
While the idea of charity is noble, its execution often falls short due to inefficiency, lack of transparency, and occasional fraud. These systemic issues undermine its impact and waste donors’ goodwill. For these reasons, I choose to support direct-impact initiatives and social enterprises that demonstrate measurable, sustainable outcomes.
Charities remain relevant in certain scenarios, particularly during one-off humanitarian disasters. However, I believe the future lies in scalable, innovative solutions driven by social entrepreneurship—a model that blends profitability with purpose to create lasting impact.
Leave a Reply