Not-for-Profit and governmental entities use all their funds provided to broaden their services and help those in need. At times that means they will spend more on administrative activities, and they don't have to watch every penny by doing so. They are entitled to spend their money that way, because their donors want not-for-profit and governmental agencies employees and their offices to be well taken care of to provide best services to those in need.

However, for profit entities are in business to provide return on investments to their shareholders; they operate "lean", they are very stringent and watchful of any unnecessary expenses, all for their income statement to show hefty profits. You guessed it; this often means cutting administrative activities to a bare minimum. I have many examples about Admin expenses from both, not-for-profits, and for-profit entities, but would like to hear your thoughts on the topic as well.

Below is an example that may shed some additional light. Please review and share any thought you have...

ADARC is a not-for-profit AIDS (and lately Covid-19) research center located in New York. ADARC, as well as other not-for-profit organizations have a common end goal of complete curing of the AIDS disease.

How would you compare GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) approach in selling its HIV drugs at cost to some 60 countries around the world, to the not-for-profit's goal of complete curing of the disease? Do they have the same goals? What can happen to GSK and what can happen to the not-for-profit if their expenses exceed their revenues?

Please include some references....