<aside>
This page explains how GOAL 3 is legally structured and governed, how funding flows between GOAL 3 Social Enterprise and GOAL 3 Foundation, and the safeguards that keep the two entities independent, transparent and accountable to funders and partners.
</aside>
<aside>
<aside>
</aside>
GOAL 3 uses different sources of capital for different purposes. A core principle of the operating model is that funding follows the activity it is intended to finance, while the Foundation and Social Enterprise maintain separate finances and accountability.
The Social Enterprise receives commercial revenue from hospitals, governments, NGOs and institutional partners for IMPALA products, implementation and ongoing services. It can also raise investment capital to finance product development, working capital, organisational capacity and infrastructure for scale.
The Foundation separately raises philanthropic funding for activities with a clear public-benefit purpose, including implementation subsidies in high-need settings, research and evidence generation, innovation, and other catalytic projects that would otherwise not be financed. Where these projects require products or implementation services from the Social Enterprise, the Foundation contracts and pays the relevant GOAL 3 entity for clearly defined activities and costs, subject to the governance and related-party safeguards described in section 5.
| Funding source | Typically pays for | Why it matters | Primary recipient |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospitals and ministries of health | Product, implementation, service, sensors and accessories | Builds local ownership | Social Enterprise |
| Development agencies, NGOs and institutional grants (ODA) | Implementation projects, research, evidence generation | Enables larger implementation projects | Social Enterprise |
| Philanthropy (foundations, philanthropic funds, individuals) | Subsidised implementation in high-need settings, research, catalytic projects | Reaches high-need settings that cannot pay the full cost | Foundation |
| Investment | Product development, team, working capital, infrastructure for scale | Builds the operational capacity to deliver and improve IMPALA | Social Enterprise |
| Service revenue | Maintenance, support, software updates | Sustains long-term use | Social Enterprise |
Philanthropic capital unlocks access and de-risks activities that cannot yet be financed locally, while commercial and service revenues provide the recurring financing that sustains and scales implementation over time. This matches GOAL 3’s established hybrid model, in which project funding supports initial adoption and local hospitals or governments increasingly finance recurring service costs. For examples of how these funding flows work on real projects, see section 5 of Hybrid model explained
For detailed pricing, see The costs of IMPALA
<aside>
</aside>
The Foundation aims to make both the use of philanthropic funding and its relationship with the Social Enterprise understandable to funders and partners. The objective is not only financial compliance, but credible accountability for whether philanthropic capital created the public benefit for which it was provided.
This means being transparent about:
<aside>
</aside>
The Foundation maintains separate financial administration and accountability for philanthropic funding. Depending on the project and funder requirements, this includes annual accounts, project-level budgets, funder reports, deployment and implementation reporting, and impact reporting.
For Foundation-funded projects, the aim is to maintain a traceable chain from:
funding received → funding allocated → expenditure → implementation → project results.
Where the Foundation fully funds a discrete activity, the link between expenditure and implementation is relatively direct. In co-funded projects, Foundation funding sits alongside hospital, government, NGO, Social Enterprise or other funding, and it is generally not possible or meaningful to attribute a share of clinical results to the Foundation's contribution alone. Reporting therefore separates financial accountability from impact reporting. The Foundation accounts for how its funds were used and what part of the implementation they enabled, while health outcomes are reported at the level of the project, hospital or ward, with the Foundation's contribution described as part of the financing package.
All in all, reporting should clearly distinguish relevant cost categories and explain payments made to the Social Enterprise or other implementing partners.
<aside>
</aside>
Because the Foundation may procure products and services from the Social Enterprise, these transactions require additional safeguards. The central principle is that Foundation resources must be used for public benefit and should not create inappropriate private benefit for the Social Enterprise or its shareholders.
For Foundation-funded projects involving the Social Enterprise:
The governance purpose here is to ensure that payments to a related organisation are transparent, reasonable, documented and directly connected to achieving the Foundation's public-benefit objectives. These safeguards are part of the Foundation's governance development, which aims to keep the two entities clearly separate while retaining the practical benefits of working together.
<aside>
</aside>
As mentioned, the Social Enterprise and Foundation collaborate closely but have different responsibilities. Governance follows the same principle. The Social Enterprise decides whether and how it can operationally deliver a project. This includes product availability, technical feasibility, regulatory requirements, implementation capacity, staffing, logistics and service delivery. The Foundation decides whether philanthropic funding should be committed. It determines whether a proposed project fits its charitable objectives, whether philanthropic support is justified, how much subsidy is appropriate, and whether the expected public benefit warrants the investment.
Neither entity can commit the other without agreement. Before a joint proposal is submitted, both therefore confirm the relevant scope, budget, timeline and responsibilities. Additionally, the Foundation may use the Social Enterprise as an implementing partner, but is not required to do so. Equally, the Social Enterprise can undertake projects without involvement of the Foundation.