[zo1]

Most non-profit organizations are in some way biased toward maintaining their own existence alongside their actual goal. I would reckon that would be a good place to start looking for "follow the money".

I'm sure I could come up with one, though without thinking too deeply, it'd probably end up being a little too contrived, far-fetched or conspiratorial. Not as a way to boast, but more to illustrate that if we accept that money is a huge factor in the things that revolve around us, then we can start seeing patterns previously hidden because we had a bit of a "rosy" world-view.

E.g.:

WHO helps Glyphosate to be banned -> Less food production due to ineffective pesticide alternatives -> More people in the 3rd world countries starving -> More funding for "world Health" due to "poor starving people" -> WHO gets more funding and ensures its survival.

In contrast with:

WHO drives an amazing worldwide initiative to get 50 billion USD in funding -> WHO funds and deploys employees and equipment in starving areas to generate free food -> Solves 3rd world hunger -> Existing WHO mandate no longer exists -> The (Happy) End.

[glofish]

Some might call this a jaded and a cynical view but is one that I have also observed and concluded that is more realistic than we care to admit.

It is not a conspiracy, it is not a predetermined plan, it just happens that certain kinds of people get promoted to leadership positions in these organizations. It is a survival phenomenon, an evolutionary principle at work. The organization does its best to ensure the future of the organization.

[perl4ever]

I don't disagree in principle, but this sort of "realist" commentary tends to be advanced whenever people get too out of sorts about a for-profit company to whom the same logic applies.

There's a reason big companies defend hundreds of lawsuits at any given time, and it's simply because they do a lot of bad stuff and society doesn't shut them down for it. I've worked in litigation support, and you know what? Non-profits were not the ones paying us $$$. It may be that the sort of companies (banks, drug companies, chemical companies) people love to hate are still a net benefit to society. But they don't have the all the slings and arrows aimed at them because of a conspiracy of plaintiffs' lawyers and whatnot, but because they do harm on a daily basis.