the purpose of any organization is for the group to act as a whole on behalf of the participants' interests. organizations don't have souls or consciences... they have people- who supposedly possess these- leading and guiding the group toward the agreed upon goal.
so, if you take the financial profit motive out of the equation, does a corporate entity act the same?
in other words, regardless of the definition of earnings or ROI (return on investment), will non-profits employ the same tactics as for-profits in terms of self preservation and desire to perpetuate their existence to achieve their goals? will non-profits resort to questionable tactics, gray-area ethics, accounting tricks, lawyer driven litigation and lobbying legislation in order to make sure they maintain the ability to function?
and if the same tactics are employed by all organizations, is it just human nature... and does adding financial profit (monetary gain) into the equation lead to stronger, worse, more damaging and more often employed questionable tactics, gray-area ethics, accounting tricks, litigation and lobbying?
seriously, if a non-profit measures ROI in number of people "helped", will it stop at nothing to help as many people as possible?
the sad thing is, the vast majority of humans value their currency (and the associated perceived power) MORE than they value helping others or keeping our living environment worth living in.
how did this happen?
answering these questions, and understanding why we do the things we do, may go a long way towards helping resolve what rules, parameters and regulations ARE NECESSARY in the game of business... and life.