> Surely once for-profit companies get involved there is a conflict of interest between poverty alleviation efforts and the interests of share holders/investors.
Hint - "not for profit companies" also have interests that may have nothing to do with their supposed clients.
"not for profit" merely means that the investors don't get explicit ownership or dividends. (Many US "not for profits" do special things for their funders and their children.) "not for profit" doesn't mean that the enterprise doesn't make money.
Not-for-profits are often run to benefit the folks working for them. (The higher-education bubble in the US is feeding that right now.)
Hint - "not for profit companies" also have interests that may have nothing to do with their supposed clients.
"not for profit" merely means that the investors don't get explicit ownership or dividends. (Many US "not for profits" do special things for their funders and their children.) "not for profit" doesn't mean that the enterprise doesn't make money.
Not-for-profits are often run to benefit the folks working for them. (The higher-education bubble in the US is feeding that right now.)