Head of Communications
Reading time: 5 minutes
“Formalising efficiency would not be compatible with a ‘for good’ approach.”
This is an idea that still circulates. As if rigour, moderation and structure were reserved for the commercial world, and inevitably suspect when it comes to solidarity.
However, this preconception is not only unfounded, it is counterproductive.
Because not trying to find out whether what we are doing really works means running the risk of not helping. Or even, in some cases, doing harm while thinking we are doing good.
It is time to set the record straight: yes, efficiency can be ‘for good’. Better still: it is a prerequisite for it.
Before explaining why formalisation can be a lever for social transformation, it is essential to dispel the misunderstandings surrounding it.
All too often, it is perceived as a cold, technocratic process that is incompatible with the human nature of community involvement.
However, these prejudices hinder useful dynamics. Let us deconstruct them.
The word can be intimidating. It conjures up images of Excel spreadsheets, cold indicators and rigid procedures. But this is a caricatured view. Formalising does not mean freezing life. It means making it legible.
It means explaining what works. Structuring what is successful so that it can be replicated. Clarifying the conditions for a quality human relationship: when to listen, how to build trust, how to ensure dignified follow-up.
Most human relationships are based on shared codes. Kindness, empathy, reciprocity. All these elements can be observed, modelled and reinforced.
Refusing to formalise does not protect people. It means accepting that they will be treated according to individual, sometimes biased, intuitions.
It is often believed that human warmth is lost in measurement. But it is not measurement that dehumanises. It is arbitrariness.
Many well-intentioned projects fail to have a real impact. Not because they lack heart, but because they lack structure. Because they are based on preconceived ideas, untested intuitions and ill-suited approaches.
When help is provided without a framework, those who provide it become exhausted. And when the effectiveness of the help is not monitored, those who receive it eventually lose hope.
The myth of benevolent spontaneity is appealing. But in the long run, it is dangerous. Because it masks areas of inefficiency.
Once misunderstandings have been cleared up, another reality emerges: that of efficiency, which is not only useful but necessary.
In a sector where every resource is precious and every decision can transform a life, not striving to be efficient means running the risk of being unfair.
Here’s why.
When we act on behalf of others, good intentions are not enough. We invest time, money and attention. We therefore have a moral duty to know whether what we are doing is really having an effect.
Peter Singer has forcefully reiterated that “not seeking to save lives when we have the means to do so is morally reprehensible.” The same applies to efficiency: not seeking to measure the impact of our actions means running the risk of wasting those resources.
Social impact is not measured by intention. It is measured by the effect produced.
Those who benefit from social welfare are often the most vulnerable. They do not always have the opportunity to say what is wrong. They do not always have the choice to refuse ill-conceived assistance.
Rigour in action is a way of respecting them. Of ensuring that we do not impose an unsuitable solution on them. Of checking that we do not repeat patterns that have already failed.
This is not a technocratic luxury. It is a requirement of justice.
Convinced that rigour and commitment can coexist harmoniously, we have chosen to pursue efficiency with a human face. Efficiency that is not seen as opposed to “for good”, but as its prerequisite. Here is how this vision translates into our approach in concrete terms.
At Mieux Donner, we do not believe in the cold mechanics of auditing. We believe in the visibility of impact.
We formalise for:
We are not imposing an external assessment grid.
We start with the beneficiaries: their needs, their experiences, and their own way of assessing what really helps them.
Our tools are built with the people who work in the field every day. We look for what works for them, with them, taking into account contexts, constraints, and possibilities.
This means being open to data that is sometimes complex and often qualitative. Listening to what is wrong. Accepting to question oneself.
This work requires time, dialogue and constant adjustments. But that is the price of fairness.
We do not seek to ‘maximise’ in order to optimise. We avoid that word. Because it often betrays a productivist vision.
What we are seeking is to ensure that every resource mobilised can change as many lives as possible, with as much dignity as possible.
Pitting efficiency against humanity is a false dichotomy. The real issue lies elsewhere: between what provides symbolic relief and what brings about real change.
Formalising does not mean betraying the spirit of association. It means extending it, making it sustainable, making it understandable. And sometimes, strengthening it.
So to those who think that efficiency is not ‘for good’, we ask this question:
What if the real privilege was never having to prove that what you do really helps?
Because for many others, this right to rigour is a vital necessity.
Finland, Iceland, Denmark lead the 2026 ranking. Full list of 147 countries, key findings on social media and wellbeing, and how your donations create happiness.
Human life is precious. It is natural to want to mobilise all our resources to save a life, even if it only prolongs a life by a week. But what happens when other people are also in danger, and our resources are not enough to help them all? As a society, we face practical limits that force us to make difficult decisions.
It’s easy to feel discouraged by the dramatic retreat of glaciers in the Alps and the scale of climate change can easily leave us feeling powerless. This article will equip you with the knowledge to take meaningful climate action, in both your personal life and through your charitable donations.
Assessing the climate impact of donations: between modelling and uncertainty At Mieux Donner, we sometimes use a calculation that is strikingly simple: “€1 = 1
When Greenpeace celebrated a court ruling against Golden Rice, scientists warned of thousands of preventable deaths. What this case reveals about evidence-based giving.
You want to donate to support biodiversity. You’re thinking about a rewilding project near you. However, in some cases, these local restoration efforts can do five times more harm to global biodiversity than good. So how can you avoid causing harm, and where will your donation have the greatest impact on the planet?
