Why don’t we talk more about nonprofit mergers?

When Egos, Logos and Structures Get in the Way

Dear Reader

In the private sector, we expect mergers.
Tight margins, overlapping missions? Combine forces.

But in the nonprofit world?
Mergers, consolidation - even thoughtful closures are still the exception, not the norm.

Yes, there’s truth in the phrase “egos and logos.” Especially when founders have poured years of energy, sacrifice, and identity into what they’ve built. Letting go can feel like letting go of self.

But the barriers run deeper:

Boards are often volunteers - committed, yes - but not always equipped or inclined to challenge whether the current model is still fit for purpose. Too often, they focus on making the existing strategy work harder, rather than asking: Is this still the right model? Are we still the best vehicle to deliver this mission?
Board members should be among the first to raise these questions but it requires courage, data, and a willingness to zoom out from the day-to-day.
Funders unintentionally reinforce fragmentation. Many funders support multiple organisations working in overlapping spaces. But when two of those organisations merge or align, they’re often treated as a single entity and the combined funding drops. Rather than maintaining both funding streams to support scaled or integrated work, the merged organisation typically receives less than the sum of its parts. This sends a clear (if unintended) message: stay separate to stay funded.
Incentives for collaboration are weak. And there’s rarely dedicated infrastructure to explore what real alignment or shared operations could look like.

And yet—there’s so much untapped potential.

💡 What if more NGOs explored shared service models - not just during the startup phase, but as they scale? Imagine advocacy support like health financing or HR functions, joint MEL systems, or collaborative fundraising infrastructure. How many leadership teams are still building their own systems from scratch, long after proving impact?

💡 What if governments and donors actively encouraged shared resources not just better coordination?
We often hear calls for alignment with government partners, but what’s really needed is pooled investment in shared infrastructure: one MEL system, one technical support partner, one policy team jointly funded by multiple actors.

I am starting to see more of this, especially in health systems work where multiple actors are coming together to influence financing, delivery, and accountability. But even there, collaboration tends to stay in the realm of advocacy coalitions, rather than shared operations or resources.

Why? Because real alignment requires real trust.
Not just formal partnerships or contracts but trust in shared mission, mutual contribution, and fair attribution.
And still, there’s the lingering fear that if you collaborate too closely, your uniqueness disappears - and with it, your funding. That by blending into the collective, you lose the distinct identity funders once backed.

So what if we redefined success?
Not by the number of organisations operating but by the depth of collaboration, the systems change achieved, and the collective impact delivered?

None of this is easy. There's a reason 70–90% of private sector mergers fail, often due to cultural misalignment and weak integration. In the social impact sector, we don’t track failure rates as well but we know the emotional and operational stakes are just as high.

Still, these conversations are worth having. And they may already be happening just quietly, behind closed

📚 Want to go deeper?
Here are some recent insights worth reading: