Eko and Affiliate

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452513966
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
0034782646
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,057,646
Expenses
$9,336,728
Assets
$834,389
Liabilities
$785,162

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • EMMA RUBY-SACHS (EXECUTIVE DI): $301,390 total reported compensation
  • BENJAMIN BOYD (CHIEF TECHNO): $241,934 total reported compensation
  • REWAN AL-HADDAD (CAMPAIGN DIR): $176,465 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Eko is a global online community of consumers, investors, and workers holding corporations accountable and pushing the global economy in the direction of equity, sustainability and justice.

What it reported doing in 2024

Eko's 2024 program work consisted of a single program in which we mobilised millions of consumers and citizens around the world around issues of corporate accountability.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.3%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 64.2%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 66.3%; rating input score 66; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.3% of revenue deployed · 64.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $301K · 12 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $773K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.