University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

Because of this, any financial sustainability estimate of an NGO should be tailormade
for that particular sector. For instance, to get a sense of the stability of their
funds, “Annual donation variance” and “Annual donation growth”; to get a sense of
the efficiency with which the funds are being spent, an “Administrative costs to
Project costs ratio” would make sense; and “ratio of NGO’s funding from the private
sector” would already say something about where the NGO’s interests lie. Also,
some sort of satisfaction index on behalf of the donors, would say something about
whether or not funds are being spent in a satisfactory manner. However, this can of
course also be estimated from other, indirect numbers – such as “Donor fidelity” or
the number of years in a row a donor chooses to support an NGO. The customer
votes with their purchases, in a sense. These are only a few examples; there are
ample opportunities to find new indicators in this field. And the process of building a
“new” set of performance gauges for the Non- Government Organisation sector will
undoubtedly uncover even more potential candidates. The effort is sound.
Conclusion
So, as we have seen, there are many additional issues that need to be considered
when assessing the sustainability of an NGO as compared to that of an industrial
company. In ICRISAT’s case, their environmental and social sustainability stats are
high on the “classical” scale, and only in the financial side do they show weakness
against a hypothetical industrial producer. In fact, with their humanitarian aims and
mission, they would naturally seem to be at the very top of the sustainability index.
And this is true in many ways. They do devote their hearts and minds to helping the
poverty- and famine-stricken areas of the world, and do accomplish much to further
the lots of farmers and agriculture in these regions. The only question mark is their
methods in doing so. By focusing more and more on GMO research and
development, they are choosing a method with potentially high gains, but also with
relatively higher risks. And the fact that the same sort of experimentation is frowned
upon in many of the industrialized countries, makes its practise in the Semi-arid
Tropics dubious. The conclusion to be drawn from this case organisation is that new
sustainability indicators should be developed more specifically for the NGO:s, to
better reflect such possible concerns.
An “Environmental Impact” indicator reflecting more subtle issues than the classical
“Emission”, for instance, and an almost completely refurbished set of economic stats,
specific for the NGO’s fiscal situation. If this idea is realized, it is clear that the
image of ICRISAT – together with many other similar organisations – would become
more well-balanced, lowering its status in some areas and raising it in others.
Hopefully, its strength in humanitarian aid and strong financial backing would
become more obvious (and deservedly so), while at the same time, its environmental
sustainability rating would be negatively affected by its strong focus on GMO.
31