The nonprofit sector is the only one with a name starting with a negative, communicating what it is against, not what it is for.
Shakespeare once wrote: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. This is true for many things in life - freshly baked bread, popcorn at the movies, and the interior of a brand-new car. However, the inverse could also be true - change the name and people’s perception of the thing itself can also change. Once you remove the negative connotations associated with a label, perhaps one can be granted the chance to reinvent these connotations and associations.
During the 20th century we have transitioned from the term “charity” to “nonprofit”. Perhaps it is now time to evolve and claim an even more fitting title for the sector. This contemplation already sprouted in 2009 when Suzanne Perry expressed her discontent with the term nonprofit and argued “Why should groups describe themselves by what they are not?” Nonprofit professionals don’t focus their energy on not enriching shareholders, as the word implies - they focus their energy on addressing and solving the social justice issues that face our society; the exact social justice issues that neither for-profit organisations nor the government can solve.
Nonprofit executive Dan Pallotta delved a little deeper, writing in the Harvard Business Review that “the word ‘profit’ comes from the Latin noun profectus for ‘progress’ and the verb proficere for ‘to advance’”. The term nonprofit therefore means, etymologically, nonprogress. In the same article Pallotta cited Allen Grossman of the Harvard Business School, who noted that the nonprofit sector is the only one with a name starting with a negative and “it apologises for itself before it begins. It communicates only what it is against, and is silent about what it is for”.
Considering the possibility of relabelling an entire sector of society, doesn’t a spade remain a spade, even if you call it a shovel? Will rebranding the sector really cause it to have more impact? Does it even matter what the community of NPOs, philanthropists and other actors in the third sector are called?
Psychology and sociology research tell us it does. Something as simple as preparing a resume proves that how you sell yourself matters. How you perceive yourself signals, not only to others but to yourself, what you are capable of. Another example is that of politics. Names have a big influence on how the public perceives an idea, and in SA everyone can attest to this. The same thus goes for how the third sector labels itself.
Will rebranding the sector really cause it to make more of an impact? I think it will. But not in the way one might think. The third sector is already making an immense impact on society.
My colleague, Armand Bam, head of social impact at the University of Stellenbosch Business School, recently noted that “NPOs are important for upholding and ensuring democracy and social justice. Their recognition as a key partner alongside the public and private sectors must be acknowledged and supported. We need to ensure that the social contract that exists is maintained. Failure to safeguard this will inevitably destabilise our democracy.”
It is the lack of recognition and support from the public and private sector that holds NPOs back. It has caused a reiterative snowball effect: with the lack of support in the first instance, both funding and otherwise, the sector fails to grow and professionalise, which in turn continues to prove public and private sectors right: NPOs cannot be regarded as efficient role players (in the subjective opinion of public and private entities).
Should we succeed in rebranding the sector to reflect the dramatic social progress it’s making and remove the negative connotations implied by public and private institutions, the possibility remains that NPOs, or perhaps social impact organisations from the social impact sector, can transform their own label and become a valid role player in transformational partnerships with public and private organisations. Perhaps then these institutions will be more inclined to provide substantial support to a sector that deserves it.
First published in Business Day Live, 16 September 2020.
Anika Berning
Anika Berning is a lecturer in the Department of Business Management at Stellenbosch University (SU) and is also the module leader for Management Control in NPOs which forms part of the Post-Graduate Diploma in NPO Leadership Development offered by Stellenbosch University Business School (USB). She is busy with her PhD focusing on management systems and strategy for NPOs in collaboration with SU and the Vrije University Amsterdam in the Netherlands. She has also recently launched consulting services specifically for NPOs and social sector acceleration. Email:
Related articles
Half of non-profit organisations are failing to comply with the law
Reading crisis unveiled: 81% of Grade 4 learners in South Africa struggle with reading for comprehension
The Wrong Reasons to Start a Non-profit Organisation
