Charities are a force for good. I was a trustee of one myself. But that experience, combined with running businesses that get invited to a lot of charity events, has forced me to question whether all charities are actually valid in the way they operate.
Take the cancer research centre in Guildford. No one would argue that cancer research isn’t a worthy cause. But there are at least four charities, and probably more, all raising money for the same lab.
Bright.
Prostate Project.
Topic of Cancer.
Grace.
And that’s just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
On the surface, this sounds positive. Multiple charities, all supporting the same cause. In reality, it creates massive inefficiency. No business in the world would intentionally silo its marketing, workforce, duplicate costs, and run parallel operations for the same outcome. Yet that’s exactly what happens here: duplicated admin, duplicated marketing, duplicated events, and completely uncoordinated mailing lists.
If these charities combined their efforts, shared resources, and pooled volunteer time and expertise, the result would almost certainly be better. Less waste. More coordination. More money reaching the people doing the actual work, and lower overheads.
This problem isn’t unique to cancer research. You see it everywhere. For almost every illness or cause, there are countless independent charities all operating in isolation.
The root of this seems to be emotional, dogmatic good intentions. Many charities are run by volunteers with little or no experience of running organisations. Even the ones lucky enough to have good leadership face a double problem: competition from other charities chasing the same donors, and volunteer workforces that are well-meaning but often lack the skills required to operate effectively.
There seems to be a natural sense of competition among the most similar of charities. Organisations with the same stated goal. As if they are their the only ones worthy of achieving such a lofty goal, and the other charities are somehow preventing them from achieving it.
As a result, there is a reluctance to collaborate and share resources.
If these organisations genuinely worked together, sharing mailing lists, assets, and infrastructure, they would raise more money and waste less of it. If the goal is to maximise funding for the cause, collaboration should be a no-brainer.
In buinsess building allies is key.
Instead, as with many volunteer-led organisations, things become political. Egos creep in. Decision-making shifts away from outcomes and towards control.
I’ve said for years that charities should be run more like businesses. Some larger charities already do this well, and they’re proof that it works.
The problem is that too many charities are run by people with limited experience and egos that prevent genuine self-sacrifice for the greater good.
We would be better off with fewer charities, fewer volunteers, and stronger organisations. Run them professionally. Pay good people to stay. Stop diluting funding and abolish unnecessary silos.
If the aim is to do the most good, this shouldn’t be controversial
