As I’ve argued many times, the word “nonprofit” is often used as shorthand for a tax status under the 501(c) Internal Revenue Code. To succeed, nonprofit organizations must generate positive net revenue (or, in other words, show a positive change in net assets on their income statement—known in the nonprofit world as the Statement of Activities. The corollary is that for-profit companies, to build a healthier, more durable, and peaceful planet, must not only yield financial gains but also generate positive social outcomes. In short, building something meaningful and building something financially successful should not be separate pursuits, regardless of corporate structure or tax code.

As PlanPerfect earned the trust of three experienced investors, I found myself learning a new language—term sheets instead of pledge forms, preferred shares instead of naming opportunities—but also talking in ways I knew well: about mission, impact, and why this work matters. Adam and I made a great team—building meaningful relationships with our investors while also having the numbers to back us up. We closed our fundraising round and are now forever connected to people who are aligned with our mission and who believe in our business model—not so different from raising philanthropic dollars for a nonprofit.

In the nonprofit sector, we talk about revenue as coming from three primary sources: earned (tickets, service contracts, events), contributed (donors, foundation grants, sponsorships), and government (tax levies, federal grants, contracts), along with a typically smaller portion from investment earnings (from an endowment or other savings-type accounts). When people contribute to a nonprofit, they are usually compelled by the impact of the mission—whether that’s advancing a cause they care about, being part of a community, leaving a legacy, or realizing tax benefits.

In a business, the revenue buckets parallel the nonprofit’s conceptually, but not from either a tax or ownership perspective. An investor in a for-profit company typically gains some ownership (equity) in the company and does not necessarily reap tax benefits from their investment. A donor to a nonprofit does not gain ownership in the organization and can, depending on current tax code and individual circumstances, take a tax deduction. Structurally, these are very different systems, but the people making the decisions are often motivated in similar ways.

As a historically “nonprofit person,” I never gave much thought to someone’s motivation for investing in a company, and I suspect some people unfamiliar with—or dubious of—capital investment might be drawn into a false dichotomy of “donation to a nonprofit = good”; “investment in a company = bad.” What I have learned in the last few months is that, despite the differences in ownership outcomes, tax implications, and potential future personal financial gain, both types of investment have the capacity to bring about tremendous social good. For-profit investors, yes, seek monetary gains (not a villainous trait), but many are also motivated by less measurable factors—positive social impact, connection to people they admire doing important work, community-building, and the desire to be part of something meaningful.

Investor fundraising for PlanPerfect made clear to me that the gap between these two worlds is smaller than we on the nonprofit “side” often assume. Whether someone is making a donation or making an investment, they are deciding to put their resources behind something they believe should exist—and trusting a team to bring it to life.

We at PlanPerfect are proud of this milestone not just because we raised capital, but because of what it represents: belief in our vision to support nonprofits and the nonprofit sector, belief in our model, and the understanding that building something financially successful and building something meaningful do not have to be separate pursuits.