Lessons on Money and Mission

Shades of Us Team in Abuja, Nigeria

By Sanyaolu Oluwatamilore Oluwabusola

I recently came across a webinar hosted by Hexa Media Africa, titled “Income Diversification in the African NGO Sector — Exploring Social Enterprise Models,” and it truly left me with quite a number of things to think about, one of which particularly speaks to the question of how financial sustainability can actually start to shift the original vision behind why certain missions start in the first place.

The panel brought together four great personalities with on-the-ground experience in social impact work: John Obuaba of Celdar Foundation, Semerian Sankori of Patinaai Osim, Lelethu Ngapi of Ubuntu Pathways, and Elizaphan Ongechi of Nguzo Africa Community Foundation, moderated by Tonia Dabwe of SoVenture and Mineke Foundations.

One thing that particularly caught my attention when listening to these individuals was how differently they all brought up innovations to tackle the same problem: funding!

One of the key takeaways for me was a statement made by Tonia that captures the fact that running a business alongside a non-profit initiative can somewhat create a focus shift away from the need to support vulnerable populations. 

This, of course, seems to contradict the core values that make up the non-profit sector, which aims at helping others in need. 

In the course of the webinar, this issue is significantly raised to answer a question many other NGO leaders may or may not have already started grappling with in their own work: mission drift.

The panel helped me see the concept of a social enterprise as an idea that can be broken into three models: the first being one where the business is the mission, the second being one where the business extends the mission, and lastly, one where the business is deliberately kept separate — existing purely to generate profit that goes back to funding the non-profit work.

All these make up the three faces, or preferably, models, of social enterprise. What I appreciated about this framing is that it pushes back on the assumption that non-profits have to choose between staying pure and making money. You can actually design how commercial activity relates to your mission, and that design choice changes everything about risk, structure, and even how your team thinks.

When listening to Semerian Sankori speak about Patinaai Osim's work, referencing the collaborations made with the rural women of the community they operate in,  I specifically paid attention to the reasoning behind the business model they adopted. 

The women in the community already possessed diverse skills across beading, tailoring, and more, and these were skills the organization simply had to leverage, training them to become professionals over time. 

This eventually allowed for the creation of an actual social enterprise called Titeeyio. Through this collaboration, they were able to generate revenue, with 80% poured back to the community and the remaining 20% going to the organization to fund further social impact work.

On the other hand, what John shared about Cedar Foundation's approach was largely shaped by the policies existing in Ghana. Unlike Patinaai Osim, Cedar Foundation built its social enterprise as an internal program designed specifically to serve low-income earners, vulnerable populations, and informal micro-entrepreneurs, offering them capacity building, coaching, and training. 

The difference in structural choices between both organizations highlights the importance of understanding one's environment and developing a model that specifically addresses existing issues while aligning with the policies that govern it.

For Ubuntu Pathways, where Lelethu described registering fully separate business entities (like Ubuntu X and Ecoonogas) that are legally distinct from the non-profit, we see that inflows from these different entities not only fund the social work Ubuntu Pathways does but are also subject to South Africa's tax laws.

This shows the realities of distinct countries, and how different policies can impact model choices for organizations alike.

Three organizations. Three completely different answers to the same question. For me, that is a very important lesson from the whole session: there is obviously no single correct model. The right structure depends on your context, your regulatory environment, your team's capacity, and, of course, your disposition toward risk.

Moving on, another question posed that resonates quite well with me centers around the threat to organizational values. 

As the webinar progressed, one thing was said several times – something anybody beyond the panelists would have paid close attention to –  is the underlying fear of mission drift. What happens when the pursuit of revenue starts to quietly reshape who you are as an organization? That question is really the heart of mission drift as a threat, more so than the business itself.

To answer it, Lelethu talked about building boards specifically designed to keep the non-profit mission at the center, regardless of what business activity sits underneath it. John spoke about establishing policies that tie any commercial arm directly back to the non-profit's purpose, precisely so that regulatory compliance doesn't become an excuse to drift from the mission.

What both responses did for me was genuinely reassuring, because they weren't abstract, theoretical suggestions but rather structural ideas that could actually be put into practice.

This conversation is also a big part of why we now have Shades of Us Media (SOU Media). At Shades of Us, we recognise that sustainability cannot remain a conversation we observe from the outside. We have to build it into how we operate. 

SOU Media is our strategic storytelling and communications arm, created to turn the skills, experience, and creative assets we have built through our non-profit work into earned income that strengthens and sustains our mission. By utilizing the core skill sets we have at Shades of Us, this not only reflects the mission-extending model we have now adopted since 2025, but also helps to keep us grounded well enough to avoid the path of mission drift as well. 

Overall, what I understood from their answers, while looking at our own organisation as well, is that mission drift isn't prevented simply by the decision to avoid it. But through structures of governance that serve as guardrails — structures that can also be used for accountability, even when the pressure to crack eventually comes in.

So, what does this mean beyond our own walls? For founders and CEOs of social enterprises across Africa, the takeaway is both practical and urgent. The question is no longer whether non-profits should explore revenue generation, but how deliberately and structurally they do so, especially with existing risks like mission drift. 

Organizations that take the time to understand the regulatory environments they cohabit with, choose models that align with their missions, and build governance structures that protect their “why” before chasing their “how”.  These are the ones most likely to remain both impactful and sustainable in the long run. Thus, the existence of Shades of Us Media is primarily an extension of the organisation as a whole. 

The grant may not be dead, but it can no longer be the only lifeline. The webinar reinforced for us that sustainability is not about moving away from social impact. It is about building the capacity to keep doing the work. 

So while SOUMedia continues to operate as an extension of Shades of Us, we see that this social enterprise model not only keeps the organization at the center of the business that runs beneath it, as Lelethu said. But it has also tied itself back to the organization's initiative for regulatory compliance to never be a reason for mission drift, just as John also said. 

To conclude, I understand through this webinar that regardless of whatever shades of us we may get to see in the field of social work, one thing that will continue to remain constant is the topic of money, and how significant funding is to the course of non-profit organizations. With different shades come different perspectives, community needs, government policies, and so much more.

However, taking these into consideration allows every single organization to properly integrate the model that works best for them, while ensuring that the structures needed to prevent the quest for revenue from overtaking the original cause for the mission are firmly in place.

Because at the end of the day, a mission that cannot sustain itself cannot save anyone. And so building the means to keep going is just as sacred as the work itself.