Skip to main content
Log in

Resolving Accountability Ambiguity in Nonprofit Organizations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accountability is a much studied subject in the social sciences and is known for its complexity, context dependence, and ambiguity. By conducting a comprehensive literature review and analysis across nonprofit, public, and private sector literatures, this article identifies the causes of ambiguities present in many accountability frameworks and describes the trend toward understanding accountability as a constructed concept combining both instrumental and interpretive elements. The relationship between legitimacy and accountability is considered. The authors develop a holistic accountability framework that facilitates defining and implementing accountability in complex, multi-stakeholder environments, by providing a means to operationalize commonly encountered but ambiguous accountability goals through a social process of deliberative dialogue. The authors conclude by summarizing limitations of the approach and describing future research needed.

Résumé

La responsabilisation est un sujet abondamment étudié dans les sciences sociales, et connue pour sa complexité, sa dépendance contextuelle et son ambiguïté. Par la conduite d’une étude et d’une analyse exhaustives à travers les publications des secteurs sans but lucratif, public et privé, cet article s’attache à identifier les causes des ambiguïtés présentes au sein de nombreux cadres de responsabilisation. Il décrit la tendance en faveur d’une compréhension de la responsabilisation en tant que concept construit associant tant des éléments instrumentaux qu’interprétatifs. La relation entre légitimité et responsabilisation fait l’objet d’une étude. Les auteurs développent un cadre holistique de responsabilisation facilitant la définition et la mise en œuvre de cette dernière dans des environnements complexes, aux parties prenantes multiples. Une méthode est proposée pour opérationnaliser les objectifs de responsabilisation couramment rencontrés mais ambigus, par le biais d’un processus social de dialogue délibératif. Les auteurs concluent par une synthèse des limitations de l’approche et la description de la recherche future nécessaire.

Zusammenfassung

Die Rechenschaftspflicht ist ein viel untersuchtes sozialwissenschaftliches Thema, das für seine Komplexität, Kontextabhängigkeit und Ambiguitätbekannt ist. Mittels einer umfassenden Literaturstudie und -analyse der vorhandenen Literatur in den Nonprofit-, öffentlichen und privaten Sektoren werden in dem vorliegenden Beitrag die Gründe der Unklarheiten, die in zahlreichen Rahmenwerken zur Rechenschaftspflicht vorliegen, herausgestellt, und es wird der Trend beschrieben, der sich in Richtung Verständnis der Rechenschaftspflicht als ein erstelltes Konzept, das instrumentelle und interpretative Elemente verbindet, bewegt. Weiterhin wird die Beziehung zwischen Legitimität und Rechenschaftspflicht betrachtet. Die Autoren entwickeln ein ganzheitliches Rahmenwerk, das die Definition und Implentierung der Rechenschaftspflicht in einem komplexen Umfeld mit mehreren Stakeholdern ermöglicht, indem ein Mittel zur Operationalisierung von allgemein vorherrschenden, aber nicht eindeutigen Zielen zur Rechenschaftspflicht durch einen sozialen Prozess beratender Dialoge bereitgestellt wird. Am Ende fassen die Autoren die Grenzen dieser Vorgehensweise zusammen und beschreiben notwendige zukünftige Forschungen.

Resumen

La responsabilidad es un tema muy estudiado en las ciencias sociales y es conocido por su complejidad, dependencia del contexto y ambigüedad. Mediante la realización de una revisión y un análisis integral del material publicado en los sectores sin ánimo de lucro, público y privado, este documento identifica las causas de las ambigüedades presentes en muchos marcos de responsabilidad, y describe la tendencia hacia la comprensión de la responsabilidad como un concepto construido que combina tanto elementos instrumentales como interpretativos. Se considera la relación entre la legitimidad y la responsabilidad. Los autores desarrollan un marco de responsabilidad holístico que facilita definir e implementar la responsabilidad en entornos complejos y con múltiples partes interesadas, proporcionando un medio de operacionalizar las metas sobre responsabilidad encontradas comúnmente pero ambiguas mediante un proceso social de diálogo deliberativo. Los autores concluyen resumiendo las limitaciones del enfoque y describiendo la investigación futura necesaria.

摘要

问责制是社会科学中研究较多的话题,其特点有复杂性、背景依赖性和模糊性。通过对非营利、公共和私人部门的文献进行综合审阅和分析,本文指出许多问责框架出现模糊之处的原因,提出结合了工具性元素和诠释性元素的理解问责制这一概念,并对理解问责制这一发展趋势进行阐述。本文分析了合法性和问责制的关系。审慎对话的社会过程使得常见而又模糊的问责目标具有可落实性。通过提供实现这种可落实性的一种方法,作者提出整体性的问责框架,该框架有利于在复杂、有多个利益相关者的情况下界定和实施问责制。作者在文末总结了这种方法的局限性,并指出将来所需研究的内容。

ملخص

المساءلة موضوع تم دراسته كثيرا في مجال العلوم الإجتماعية و هو معروف بتعقيداته ، الإعتماد على السياق ، والغموض. من خلال إجراء مراجعة أدبية شاملة وتحليل عبر قطاع غير ربحي، و آداب عام وخاص ، هذه المقالة تحدد أسباب الغموض الحالي في كثير من إطارات المساءلة، وتصف الإتجاه نحو فهم المساءلة كمفهوم بناء يجمع بين عناصر فعالة وتفسيرية. تعتبر العلاقة بين الشرعية والمساءلة. المؤلفون وضعوا إطار شامل للمساءلة التي تسهل تحديد وتنفيذ المساءلة في بيئات معقدة ، أصحاب المصلحة المتعددين، من خلال توفير وسيلة لتفعيل مواجهة شائعة ولكنها مساءلة غامضة الأهداف من خلال عملية الحوار الاجتماعي التداولي. إختتم المؤلفون بتلخيص أوجه القصور في النهج ووصف البحوث اللازمة في المستقبل.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abeles, M. (2008). Rethinking NGOs: The economy of survival and global governance. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 15(1), 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackerman, J. (2004). Co-governance for accountability: Beyond “exit” and “voice”. World Development, 32(3), 447–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African cases. The Journal of Developing Areas, 33(4), 473–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avina, J. (1993). The evolutionary life cycle of non-governmental development organizations. Public Administration and Development, 13(5), 453–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, D. (2009). Protecting the protectors: NGO action and the responsibility to protect. International Journal on World Peace, 26(1), 31–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsteiner, H., & Avery, G. C. (2008). A generic multiple constituency matrix: Accountability in private prisons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 631–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgon, J. (2007). Responsive, responsible and respected government: Towards a new public administration theory. International Review of Administrative Science, 73(1), 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., Van de Donk, W., & Putters, K. (2005). Griffins or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(9/10), 749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, N., & Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: An overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 885–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. D. (2008). Creating credibility: Legitimacy and accountability for transnational civil society. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. D., & Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H. (2005). Business economic impacts: The new frontier for corporate accountability. Development in Practice, 15(4), 413–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carman, J. G. (2010). The accountability movement: What’s wrong with this theory of change? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 256–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carman, J. G., & Fredericks, K. A. (2010). Evaluation capacity and nonprofit organizations: Is the glass half-empty or half-full? American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 84–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnovitz, S. (2006). Accountability of non-governmental organizations in global governance. In L. Jordan & P. van Tuijl (Eds.), NGO accountability: Politics, principles and innovations. Earthscan: Sterling, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R. A., & Ebrahim, A. (2006). How does accountability affect mission? The case of a nonprofit serving immigrants and refugees. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(2), 195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J., & Anderson, B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving not steering. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In P. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–31). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M. J. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of mechanisms. Public Performance and Management Review, 28(3), 376–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003a). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003b). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for Northern and Southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2), 191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A., & Weisband, E. (Eds.). (2007). Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, public ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, P. (2005). What is the future for the nonprofit world? The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 8(1), 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fay, B. (1975). Social theory and political practice. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1(1), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. Public Policy, 1, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2001). Very public scandals: Nongovernmental organizations in trouble. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(1), 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibelman, M., & Gelman, S. R. (2004). A loss of credibility: Patters of wrongdoing among nongovernmental organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(4), 355–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gjølberg, M. (2010). Varieties of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR meets the “Nordic Model”. Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnow, F. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenlee, J., Fischer, M., Gordon, T., & Keating, E. (2007). An Investigation of fraud in nonprofit organizations: Occurrences and deterrents. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 676–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gugerty, M. (2009). Signaling virtue: voluntary accountability programs among nonprofit organizations. Policy Sciences, 42(3), 243–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanberger, A. (2009). Democratic accountability in decentralised governance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohnen, P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: An implementation guide for business. Winnipeg, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/csr_guide.pdf.

  • Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills. New York, NY: Guildford.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, E. (2003). Commercialism and the mission of nonprofits. Society, 40(4), 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, L., & van Tuijl, P. (2000). Political responsibility in transnational NGO advocacy. World Development, 28(12), 2051–2065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, L., & Van Tuijl, P. (Eds.). (2006). NGO accountability: Politics, principles and innovations. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, K. P. (1994). The strategic management of accountability in nonprofit organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. F. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 488–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knutsen, W. L., & Brower, R. S. (2010). Managing expressive and instrumental accountabilities in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A qualitative investigation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 588–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of multiple accountabilities disorder. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppell, J. G. (2008). Global governance organizations: Legitimacy and authority in conflict. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 177–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. (2004). Public Reporting: A Neglected Aspect of Nonprofit Accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, R. (2000). Comparing accountability in the public and private sectors. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 59(1), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14, 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P., & Dorsey, E. (2008). New rights advocacy: Changing strategies of development and human rights NGOs. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, L. (2005). Program accountability as an emergent property: The role of stakeholders in a program’s field. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 85–93.

    Article  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, 801–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2004). Principles of corporate governance. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved 10 October, 2011, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf.

  • Ospina, S., Diaz, W., & O’Sullivan, J. (2002). Negotiating accountability: Managerial lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peruzzotti, E. (2006). Civil society, representation and accountability: Restating current debates on the representativeness and accountability of civic associations. In L. Jordan & P. Van Tuijl (Eds.), NGO accountability: Politics, principles and innovations. Earthscan: Sterling, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C., & Hupe, P. (2011). Talking About Government The role of magic concepts. Public Management Review, 13(5), 641–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, R., Dorn, L., & Sutton, S. (2009). Anything goes: Approval of nonprofit status by the IRS. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.stanford.edu/~sdsachs/AnythingGoesPACS1109.pdf.

  • Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B. S., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabeti, H. (2009). The emerging fourth sector: Report. Washington, DC and Aspen, Colorado: The Aspen Institute, Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrage, M. (2005). Ethics, shmethics; CIOs should stop trying to do the “right thing” when implementing IT and focus instead on getting their implementations right. CIO, 18(11), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). Disaggregated sovereignty: Towards the public accountability of global government networks. Government & Opposition, 39(2), 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorens, J. (2009). The partisan logic of decentralization in Europe. Regional & Federal Studies, 19(2), 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, M. L. (2008). Backlash hits business ethics: Finding effective strategies for communicating the importance of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1–2), 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strandberg, C. (2005). The convergence of corporate governance and social responsibility. Burnaby, Canada: Canadian Co-operative Association. Retrieved 10 October, 2011, from http://www.corostrandberg.com/pdfs/Corporate_Governance.pdf.

  • Swift, T. (2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berghe, L., & Louche, C. (2005). The link between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility in insurance. The Geneva Papers, 30(3), 425–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, K., Wyatt, E., Craib, C., Harris, M., Wilson, M., & Chow, C. (2010). CSR Trends 2010: Stacking up the results. Toronto, ON: Craib Design & Communications and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Retrieved January 18, 2011, from http://www.csrwire.com/reports/1189-CSR-Trends-2010.

  • Weisband, E. (2007). Conclusion: Prolegomena to a postmodern public ethics: Images of accountability in global frames. In A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband (Eds.), Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisband, E., & Ebrahim, A. (2007). Introduction: Forging global accountabilities. In A. Ebrahim & E. Weisband (Eds.), Global accountabilities: Participation, pluralism, and public ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A. (1997). The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(4), 541–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. (1887/1987). The study of administration. In J. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration (2nd ed., pp. 10–25). Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Old Dominion University colleagues, John C. Morris, and Robert Kenter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew P. Williams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, A.P., Taylor, J.A. Resolving Accountability Ambiguity in Nonprofit Organizations. Voluntas 24, 559–580 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9266-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9266-0

Keywords

Navigation