And like survival of the fittest theory in nature, it is not which companies are best or strongest. Merely which ones are able to continue and live on. In nature this is done through reproduction in companies its through longevity and mergers.
Many charities have now evolved to follow this pattern of merely existing to survive.... they are considered a success if they raise larger amounts of money each year and find ways of spending that money. The actual beneficial results aren't overly important anymore.
Like peacocks and the disadvantageous trait they are sexually selected for (their tails) many organisations may find their decisions based on short term gains will have a hugely negative affect for their long term survival.... but thats my 2 pennies worth :)