Over the last decade, social good organizations, and the nonprofit sector as a whole, have changed profoundly. The sector has grown well beyond the old charity scheme, the wealthy giving to the poor, even if some in the nonprofit-industrial complex still think in those terms. At thedotgood, we consider that the words charity (still used in the official British register), nonprofit organization and nongovernmental organization no longer cover the reality we observe. We prefer “social good organization,” or SGO. We explain why in The Definition of an NGO.
SGOs are a special kind of organization, because they combine an unusual mix of features. They are often undercapitalized and underfunded. They do not distribute financial profits. They aim to deliver social profit, an objective as demanding as any quarterly earnings report. And their relative freedom and capacity to adapt push them to think harder about the most effective answer to the problems they address. Being an SGO can be both exciting and stressful.
Innovation is familiar territory for business, where research and development, innovation and disruption have long been core to the narrative, and have found their place in organizational charts. For SGOs, innovation has entered their DNA out of the need to survive, even though most of them do not build a narrative around the word. Very few SGOs can introduce you to their director or vice president of innovation. Yet SGOs do innovate, and more than many other types of organizations.
Our assumption is that the discipline of innovation in the social profit world takes many forms. So where should we look for evidence of it: on the problem side, or on the opportunity side?
The sources of innovation are many. A genius out of a lamp can make it happen, and sometimes does. But mostly, innovation comes from hard work on a few kinds of opportunity: unexpected occurrences, incongruities, process needs, and changes in context. Those include changes in an industry or a market, in the social, political and intellectual environment, and in demography and migration. Peter F. Drucker described these sources in “The Discipline of Innovation” (Harvard Business Review). He defined innovation as the means by which one “either creates new wealth-producing resources or endows existing resources with enhanced potential for creating wealth.” Replace “wealth” with “social benefit,” and we have a definition for the social good sphere.
Innovation is one of the three pillars through which thedotgood assesses social good organizations, with impact and governance (see our methodology). It carries the largest share of points. That is a deliberate choice. An organization’s ability to innovate plays a critical role in its ability to thrive over time. It also means that size and big numbers alone do not decide who leads our rankings, from the World 200 to our national lists.
These are the questions we find useful when looking at an organization’s innovative approaches, ideas, processes and assets. Each answer is stronger when backed by data.
If your organization wants to share how it innovates, write to us at info@thedotgood.net.
In June 2012, The Global Journal commissioned an independent review of its own NGO ranking methodology — a candid, self-critical examination of how the Top 100 NGOs list was built, what it could and couldn’t claim, and where its real limitations sat.
Published in February 2013 and authored by Cecilia Cannon, then completing her PhD in Political Science/International Relations at Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID), the paper situates the ranking within a broader shift: after decades of largely unquestioned goodwill, NGOs entered a period of genuine public scrutiny in the years following the 2010 Haiti earthquake, as their scale, credibility, and accountability came under closer examination.
The paper outlines four stated aims behind the ranking: to showcase the genuine diversity of organisations operating under the “NGO” label; to evaluate them comparatively, across geography and activity; to stimulate real debate around impact, innovation, and sustainability; and to track how the sector changes year over year.