Good point on (i). I’d been (somewhat inconsistently) thinking of for-profit ventures.
I realise that there is an interpretation of impact under which issue (ii) could disappears. Donors have given money to the charity to make use to further their charitable objectives. It’s generally fine for charities to do things like fundraising with some of this money. Performing charitable activities and selling the certificates of impact if they think they can make better use of the money would just be another form of fundraising. This is analogous to a company issuing more shares—although it dilutes the ownership of existing shareholders, it is balanced by the extra value the company now holds.
Of course you’d also need to resolve the employer/employee issue.
Good point on (i). I’d been (somewhat inconsistently) thinking of for-profit ventures.
I realise that there is an interpretation of impact under which issue (ii) could disappears. Donors have given money to the charity to make use to further their charitable objectives. It’s generally fine for charities to do things like fundraising with some of this money. Performing charitable activities and selling the certificates of impact if they think they can make better use of the money would just be another form of fundraising. This is analogous to a company issuing more shares—although it dilutes the ownership of existing shareholders, it is balanced by the extra value the company now holds.
Of course you’d also need to resolve the employer/employee issue.