The Business of Care: Why It Doesn't Always Align with Typical Business Practices

In the modern world, businesses across industries generally share a common set of goals: maximizing profit, improving efficiency, and achieving scalability. While these objectives have become the cornerstone of success in fields such as technology, manufacturing, and retail, they are not always suited to the "business of care," such as healthcare, eldercare, or social work. The intrinsic goals of care—supporting well-being, nurturing relationships, and prioritizing the individual—often conflict with typical business practices. This divergence becomes even more evident when we consider the ethical, human-centered nature of care industries.

Care Is Relationship-Driven, Not Transactional

At its core, the business of care revolves around relationships, empathy, and the holistic well-being of individuals. These attributes make it inherently distinct from industries that thrive on transactions. In a hospital, nursing home, or counseling office, the primary goal is to provide support to vulnerable individuals in a compassionate and personalized manner. This goal clashes with the transactional nature of traditional businesses, where success is often defined by metrics like volume of sales or client throughput.

When care is reduced to a series of transactions, patients and clients risk being treated as mere numbers. This dehumanization can lead to declining quality of care, as the time needed to establish trust, offer emotional support, or address unique needs is eroded in favor of efficiency and profit. A healthcare provider, for instance, might be pressured to see as many patients as possible in a given day, leaving little room for meaningful interaction, proper diagnosis, or thoughtful follow-up. While in business, time efficiency equates to higher revenue, in care, it often translates into compromised outcomes.

Profit Incentives Conflict with Ethical Care

Typical business practices prioritize profitability. In industries like retail or manufacturing, this focus on profit drives innovation, encourages cost-cutting measures, and ensures a competitive edge. In the context of care, however, the drive for profit can lead to ethical dilemmas. For example, in a for-profit healthcare system, decisions about patient care may be influenced by financial concerns rather than what is in the best interest of the patient.

There are numerous examples where the drive for profit has compromised care. Privatized nursing homes have come under scrutiny for understaffing, resulting in inadequate care for residents. Hospitals may be encouraged to push elective procedures or more expensive treatments, even when they may not be the best option for the patient. In contrast, the foundational ethos of care is rooted in altruism—ensuring the dignity, health, and well-being of others—regardless of their ability to pay or how much revenue their care generates.

The Inefficiency of High-Quality Care

Efficiency is a hallmark of successful business operations. Streamlined processes, reduced labor costs, and scalable models are lauded in traditional business settings. However, the business of care is often inherently inefficient by these standards. High-quality care takes time, attention to detail, and flexibility. In nursing, for example, a patient may need extra time to express concerns that aren’t easily articulated, requiring patience and attentiveness from their caregiver. In a therapeutic setting, a counselor’s time isn’t always predictably scheduled—sessions may need to be extended based on the emotional state of the patient.

Attempting to impose strict efficiency models on care can lead to what experts call "assembly line medicine," where caregivers are rushed, and the uniqueness of each patient or client is disregarded. While standardizing processes can work in some contexts, in care, it can strip away the nuance and attention needed for proper treatment. The inherent inefficiencies in care are a reflection of its deeply human nature, and any attempt to force these inefficiencies into a business model risks diluting the quality of care.

Scalable Models Don't Fit Care

In business, scalability—the ability to grow while maintaining or reducing per-unit costs—is a primary objective. But the highly personalized nature of care makes it difficult, if not impossible, to scale without sacrificing quality. Each person in need of care presents a unique set of needs, preferences, and circumstances, meaning that care solutions must be tailored to the individual. This level of customization is labor-intensive and often requires a deep understanding of the patient or client, which cannot be achieved through automated processes or mass production.

Efforts to scale care often result in diminishing returns. As companies grow larger, they may cut corners, leading to understaffing or reliance on standardized protocols that cannot address the complexity of individual cases. For example, telemedicine may allow healthcare providers to expand their reach, but it can lack the personal touch of in-person consultations, leading to poorer patient outcomes. The human touch that defines caregiving simply cannot be scaled in the same way as products or services.

Care as a Public Good, Not a Commodity

Finally, the business of care raises important questions about whether care should be treated as a commodity at all. Traditional business practices treat goods and services as products to be bought and sold. In contrast, care is often seen as a fundamental human right—access to health, safety, and well-being should not be limited by one's ability to pay. When care is treated as a commodity, it leads to inequalities in access and quality of care, exacerbating social disparities.

Many experts argue that care should be viewed as a public good, like education or clean air, with the government stepping in to ensure that everyone receives the care they need, regardless of market dynamics. In this model, care is not subject to the typical market forces of supply and demand, but instead prioritized as a social responsibility.

Conclusion

The business of care does not align with typical business practices because its foundational principles—relationship-building, ethical responsibility, personalization, and treating care as a public good—are fundamentally at odds with profit-driven models, scalability, and efficiency. The care industry demands a different approach, one that centers the needs of individuals rather than metrics of business success. If we are to provide meaningful and compassionate care, we must resist the urge to subject it to the same rules that govern traditional business sectors. Instead, care must be allowed to thrive within its own framework, where the well-being of the individual takes precedence over the pursuit of profit.