There are problems pretty much inherent in types of organisations. These are a consequence of the forces creating them, growing them & making them thrive.
Businesses as a complex are great at some things & problematic at some things. The defining characteristics are the drive to make money, responsibility towards shareholders, legal obligations etc. The ones that survived, had others modelled on them where those that made money, those that got big, etc. Pg & others talk about vestiges piling up, but that assumes traits being useful at some point. Businesses that go bankrupt, stay small, get sued to pieces... do not have much of a lasting impact. Positive social impacts is only a surviving trait inasmuch as it aids the others.
Governments & government organisations have other issues. A big part of what makes them survive is looking good to electorates/media etc. They're not as scrutinising as shareholders, but they know when a neighbouring country has better roads, lower taxes, or if things have been getting worse.
Charities have issues to do with the fact that 'survival,' growth & such are mostly to do with fund raising ability. Proficiency in whatever they're stated purpose may be helpful for fund raising. But it is not in itself a guarantee of success. At first glance you might think, businesses may make brilliant products & go out of business. But that misses the point a little.
A charity's job could be to help relieve rural poverty in remote P&G. OK, where do we go from here? Well, raise money & run poverty relief programs in P&G. Done. Of the 10 charities, which did a better job?
Similar working out who created the best portable music player, best sneakers, best film. You can argue that 'Alexandra Leaving' is far superior to 'Oops I did it Again'. You could argue the contrary. Not much fun arguing who made more money.
If your goal is make money, we have a clear winner. We can't tell who relieved more poverty per dollar. We can tell who raised more money. We can tell how (on what) they spent it, but we can't tell how well they spent it.
Governents are charged with the opposite. 'Educate Youth'. That is the goal. But since they have responsibility for the entire job, you can gauge their success. You can tell how educated the country is. Better then 20 years ago? Worse? Charities don't even have that. All they have is spending.
I'm sure there are many cases where charities could break through from the constraints of the conditions on their grants, donor public & thrive. But there is also a danger of charities overspending on fund raising or hitting all sorts of tragedies of the commons in spending over chasing an existing amount of money. It's really hard to tell.
So we shoot from the hip. What can you do?