RESEARCH ARTICLE
The multiplicity of logics, trust, and interdependence in donor-imposed reporting practices in the nonprofit sector
Galina Goncharenko,
Corresponding Author
Galina Goncharenko
Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
Correspondence
Galina Goncharenko, Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SL, United Kingdom.
Email: g.goncharenko@sussex.ac.uk
Search for more papers by this authorGalina Goncharenko,
Corresponding Author
Galina Goncharenko
Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
Correspondence
Galina Goncharenko, Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SL, United Kingdom.
Email: g.goncharenko@sussex.ac.uk
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Institutional donors occupy a privileged position among nongovernmental organization (NGO) stakeholders, which enables them to satisfy their accountability demands via donor-imposed reporting in addition to official NGO information disclosures. This study explores the rationale behind the accountability demands of institutional donors and the utilization of donor-imposed reporting for building, keeping, and strengthening NGO–donor relationships by examining a case of a Norwegian advocacy NGO and its five institutional donors. Real-life constructs embedded in interview design are employed to contextualize the accounting data and expand the respondents’ perceptions by providing visibility to alternative scenarios of information provision. By approaching the topic through multi-organizational perspectives, the study reveals the confluence and interdependence in symbiotic relationships of NGOs and their long-term institutional donors, which are built through regular interorganizational interactions around imposed accountability demands and reporting requirements. The findings demonstrate that donors’ accountability demands are motivated by their vested interests in controlling, mitigating risk, legitimating grants’ provision, influencing NGO agendas, and obtaining trustworthy partners in the nonprofit sector. The analysis reveals that the types of demands donors impose are determined by institutional logics embedded in their own organisational practices, ideologies, and patterns of governance. The multiplicity of implied donor logics requires NGOs to adjust their identities as the notions of familiarity, compliance, and consonance with these logics would signal NGOs’ trustworthiness and reliability and assist in securitization of long-term funding. Finally, the study discusses the implications of the multiplicity of donors’ logics and imposed requirements for the accountability and reporting practices in the nonprofit sector.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data available on request from the author.
REFERENCES
- Angell, O. H. (2008). From market to state networking: The case of a Norwegian voluntary organization. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(3), 296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-008-9064-x
10.1007/s11266-008-9064-x Google Scholar
- Arnaboldi, M., & Azzone, G. (2004). Benchmarking university activities: An Italian case study. Financial Accountability & Management, 20(2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.2004.00193.x
10.1111/j.1468-0408.2004.00193.x Google Scholar
- Assad, M. J., & Goddard, A. R. (2010). Stakeholder salience and accounting practices in Tanzanian NGOs. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(3), 276–299. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011032482
10.1108/09513551011032482 Google Scholar
- Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9–21.
- Boomsma, R., & O'Dwyer, B. (2019). Constituting the governable NGO: The correlation between conduct and counter-conduct in the evolution of funder-NGO accountability relations. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 72, 1–20.
- Breen, O. B., Cordery, C. J., Crawford, L., & Morgan, G. G. (2018). Should NPOs follow international standards for financial reporting? A multinational study of views. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(6), 1330–1346.
- Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2003). Donor-funded government—NGO partnership for public service improvement: Cases from India and Pakistan. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 14(1), 105–122.
10.1023/A:1022997006704 Google Scholar
- Brown, E., & Caughlin, K. (2009). Donors, ideologues, and bureaucrats: Government objectives and the performance of the nonprofit sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 25(1), 99–114.
- Brown, Ebrahim, A., & Batliwala, S. (2012). Governing international advocacy NGOs. World Development, 40(6), 1098–1108.
- Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2013). Sleeping with the enemy? Strategic transformations in business–NGO relationships through stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 505–518.
- Chen, J., Dyball, M. C., & Harrison, G. (2019). Stakeholder salience and accountability mechanisms in not-for-profit service delivery organizations. Financial Accountability & Management, 36(1), 50–72.
- Connolly, C., Hyndman, N., & McConville, D. (2013). UK charity accounting: An exercise in widening stakeholder engagement. The British Accounting Review, 45(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2012.12.006
- Cordery, C. J., Crawford, L., Breen, O. B., & Morgan, G. G. (2019). International practices, beliefs and values in not-for-profit financial reporting. Paper presented at the Accounting Forum.
- Cordery, C. J., & Sim, D. (2018). Dominant stakeholders, activity and accountability discharge in the CSO sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 34(1), 77–96.
- Cordery, C. J., Sim, D., & Zijl, T. (2017). Differentiated regulation: The case of charities. Accounting & Finance, 57(1), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12131
- Crawford, L., Morgan, G. G., & Cordery, C. J. (2018). Accountability and not-for-profit organisations: Implications for developing international financial reporting standards. Financial Accountability & Management, 34(2), 181–205.
- Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2015). Non-governmental organizational accountability: Talking the talk and walking the walk? Journal of Business Ethics, 129(3), 613–637.
- Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7
- Ebrahim, A. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 101–121). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
- Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–267). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Garrow, E. E., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2014). Institutional logics, moral frames, and advocacy: Explaining the purpose of advocacy among nonprofit human-service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 80–98.
- Goddard, A., & Assad, M. J. (2006). Accounting and navigating legitimacy in Tanzanian NGOs. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 377–404.
10.1108/09513570610670343 Google Scholar
- Goncharenko, G. (2019). The accountability of advocacy NGOs: Insights from the online community of practice. Paper presented at the Accounting Forum.
- Hellstrom, C., & Lapsley, I. (2016). Humour and happiness in an NPM world: Do they speak in jest? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 37, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.04.010
- Höhn, S. (2012). Accounts and accountability: Global norms and codes of conduct in Namibian advocacy NGOs. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 50(3), 367–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/14662043.2012.692927
10.1080/14662043.2012.692927 Google Scholar
- Hopgood, S. (2006). Keepers of the flame: Understanding amnesty international. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- Hyndman, N. (1990). Charity accounting—an empirical study of the information needs of contributors to UK fund raising charities. Financial Accountability & Management, 6(4), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.1990.tb00335.x
10.1111/j.1468-0408.1990.tb00335.x Google Scholar
- Hyndman, N., & McKillop, D. (2018). Public services and charities: Accounting, accountability and governance at a time of change. The British Accounting Review, 50(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2018.01.001
- Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96–108.
- Keating, E. K., & Frumkin, P. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00260
- Keating, V. C., & Thrandardottir, E. (2017). NGOs, trust, and the accountability agenda. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 19(1), 134–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148116682655
- Khieng, S., & Dahles, H. (2015). Resource dependence and effects of funding diversification strategies among NGOs in Cambodia. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(4), 1412–1437.
- Knutsen, W. L. (2012). Adapted institutional logics of contemporary nonprofit organizations. Administration & Society, 44(8), 985–1013.
- Kreander, N., & McPhail, K. (2019). State investments and human rights? The case of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund Global. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(6), 1742–1770.
- Krishnamurti, J. (1950). Action and relationship. Colombo Ceylon radio talk. Retrieved from https://selfdefinition.org/krishnamurti/Jiddu_Krishnamurt_Action_and_Relationship.pdf
- Lapsley, I., & Llewellyn, S. (1995). Real life constructs: The exploration of organizational processes in case studies. Management Accounting Research, 6(3), 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1995.1013
10.1006/mare.1995.1013 Google Scholar
- Lloyd, R. (2005). The role of NGO self-regulation in increasing stakeholder accountability. London, UK: One World Trust.
- Luhmann, N. (2018). Trust and power. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
- Lukka, K., & Modell, S. (2010). Validation in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(4), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.10.004
- Mayston, D. (1992). Capital accounting, user needs and the foundations of a conceptual framework for public sector financial reporting. Financial Accountability & Management, 8(4), 227–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0408.1992.tb00441.x
10.1111/j.1468-0408.1992.tb00441.x Google Scholar
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Monsen, N. (2015). RAFTOstiftelsen: Offisielle og alternative regnskap for 2011 – 2013. Bergen, Norway: NHH.
- Mourey, D., Eynaud, P., & Cordery, C. (2013). The impact of governmental policy on the effective operation of CSOs: A French case study. Paper presented at the Nonprofit Policy Forum.
- O'Dwyer, B., & Boomsma, R. (2015). The co-construction of NGO accountability: Aligning imposed and felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability relationships. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(1), 36–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-1488
- O'Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). From functional to social accountability: Transforming the accountability relationship between funders and non-governmental development organisations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 446–471.
10.1108/09513570710748580 Google Scholar
- O'Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2008). The paradox of greater NGO accountability: A case study of Amnesty Ireland. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(7–8), 801–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.02.002
- Reheul, A.-M., Van Caneghem, T., & Verbruggen, S. (2014). Financial reporting lags in the non-profit sector: An empirical analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 352–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9344-3
- Ryan, C., Mack, J., Tooley, S., & Irvine, H. (2014). Do Not-for-profits need their own conceptual framework? Financial Accountability & Management, 30(4), 383–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12044
10.1111/faam.12044 Google Scholar
- Saidel, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 543–553.
- Saxton, G. D., Kuo, J.-S., & Ho, Y.-C. (2012). The determinants of voluntary financial disclosure by nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011427597
- Schlesinger, M., Mitchell, S., & Gray, B. H. (2004). Restoring public legitimacy to the nonprofit sector: A survey experiment using descriptions of nonprofit ownership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 673–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004269431
- Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.
- Sinclair, R., & Bolt, R. (2013). Third sector accounting standard setting: Do third sector stakeholders have voice? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(3), 760–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9356-7
- Suárez, D. F., & Hwang, H. (2013). Resource constraints or cultural conformity? Nonprofit relationships with businesses. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(3), 581–605.
- Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.1515/9781503619098 Google Scholar
- Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.4135/9781849200387.n4 Google Scholar
- Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Tvedt, T. (2007). International development aid and its impact on a donor country: A case study of Norway. The European Journal of Development Research, 19(4), 614–635.
10.1080/09578810701667672 Google Scholar
- Verbruggen, S., Christiaens, J., & Milis, K. (2011). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009355061
- Yetman, M. H., & Yetman, R. J. (2012). Do donors discount low-quality accounting information? The Accounting Review, 88(3), 1041–1067. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50367
- Young, J. J. (2006). Making up users. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(6), 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2005.12.005
