Ok. I should have been clearer. Without a typical owner. The ultimate ownership of DNV GL rests with a Foundation. All the profits are re-invested into the organization. DNV GL also has a policy of investing 5% of it’s annual revenue in R&D. For 2018, it means approximately US$ 125,000,000.00 were allocated for R&D purposes.
Thanks for clarifying.
NOT specifically addressing DNV GL (about which I don't know a lot), but rather in general:
- Who owns such a Foundation? If it's owned "by itself", isn't it equivalent with a cooperative?
- The word "ultimate" in "The ultimate ownership" tells me that this ownership is some sort of legal/accounting technicality. For me the interesting question is what happens in the practical (not technical/legal) sense - where is the free income parked before it's spent?
- If there are no profits (in the accounting sense), or the org is officially tagged
non-profit, it doesn't mean that no one profits from the activity, and maybe even more than in a for-profit org, there's a chance that a large portion of the free income goes into the pockets of individuals on the org's payroll. That's a simple way to help ensure that there would be no accounting profit.
- R&D investment is mostly absorbed in the org itself (salaries for R&D personnel), and is otherwise just another input in the normal income-generation activity of most orgs above a certain size. I don't see it as especially noble. Other than these two aspects, the "human serving & advancement" aspect of R&D activity (if one is claimed to exist) is IMO mostly lip service towards the org's image, and it's also quite common that R&D spending is driven by government tax relief schemes. So, a big R&D spending figure in itself may be, IMO, more an indication of sound business management than an indication of the org's altruistic character.
To me, if an org survives for a very long time it simply indicates that maintaining the existence of that org has consistently been a goal prioritised over other goals (which, in itself, suggests that the org prioritises taking care of itself), and that the right decisions were consistently made (and implemented) to allow it. It tells me, directly, very little about whether that org is
in effect promoting anything but it's own good. It may, indirectly, indicate that that org may be perceived as doing good beyond its boundaries because its long survival suggests that it motivates external parties to support it (promote its survival).
