Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Web-Based Accountability Practices in Non-profit Organizations: The Case of National Museums

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

Abstract

Stakeholder theory posits that accountability systems depend on the strength and the number of their stakeholders. This paper aims to analyze the empirical validity of stakeholder theory, focusing on accountability systems in the museum sector. Based on Wikipedia resources, we have selected all of the “National Museums” (134 museums) in the major developed countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the US. After we control for type of activity (art or other), cost per visitor and country, the results of an OLS multivariate model show that size of the museum, which is assumed to represent the strength and number of stakeholders, and the amount of funds received, which represents the power of a particularly salient category of stakeholders (donors), are the two main determinants of the accountability level. We conclude that accountability, in the absence of shareholders, is driven by the number and the power of different stakeholders, validating the stakeholder theory.

Résumé

Le postulat de la théorie des parties prenantes est que les systèmes de responsabilité dépendent de la puissance et du nombre de leurs parties prenantes. Cet article a vocation à analyser la validité empirique de la théorie des parties prenantes, en s’intéressant aux systèmes de responsabilité dans le secteur des musées. Nous basant sur des ressources Wikipedia, nous avons sélectionné tous les « Musées nationaux » (134 musées) dans les principaux pays développés : Australie, Canada, France, Allemagne, Italie, le Royaume-Uni et les USA. Après un contrôle par type d’activité (art ou autre), coût par visiteur et pays, les résultats d’un modèle multivariable MCO (Moindres Carrés Ordinaires) indiquent que la taille du musée, dont on suppose qu’elle représente la puissance et le nombre des parties prenantes, et le volume des fonds reçus, qui illustre la puissance d’une catégorie particulièrement remarquable de parties prenantes (donateurs), sont les deux déterminants principaux du niveau de responsabilité. Nous concluons que la responsabilité, en l’absence d’actionnaires, est déterminée par le nombre et la puissance des différentes parties prenantes, validant ainsi la théorie des parties prenantes.

Zusammenfassung

Die Stakeholder-Theorie unterstellt, dass Rechenschaftssysteme von der Stärke und Zahl ihrer Stakeholder abhängig sind. Ziel des vorliegenden Beitrags ist es, die empirische Gültigkeit der Stakeholder-Theorie zu untersuchen, wobei wir uns hier auf die Rechenschaftssysteme im Museumssektor konzentrieren. Beruhend auf Wikipedia-Quellen haben wir sämtliche “Nationalmuseen” (134 Museen) aus den wichtigsten Industrieländern ausgewählt: Australien, Kanada, Frankreich, Deutschland, Italien, Großbritannien und den USA. Nach Prüfung der Tätigkeit (Kunst oder Sonstiges), der Kosten pro Besucher und des Landes zeigen die Ergebnisse eines multivariaten Modells nach der gewöhnlichen Kleinstquadrate-Methode (ordinary least squares, OLS), dass die Museumsgröße, von der angenommen wird, dass sie die Stärke und Zahl der Stakeholder darstellt, und die Höhe der erhaltenen Gelder, die die Einflussstärke einer speziell hervorgehobenen Stakeholder-Kategorie (Spender) repräsentiert, die zwei wesentlichen Bestimmungsgrößen für das Rechenschaftsmaß sind. Wir ziehen den Schluss, dass die Rechenschaft, sofern keine Anteilseigner vorhanden sind, durch die Zahl und Einflussstärke verschiedener Stakeholder bestimmt wird. Die Stakeholder-Theorie wird somit bestätigt.

Resumen

La teoría de las partes interesadas postula que los sistemas de responsabilidad dependen de la fortaleza y el número de sus partes interesadas. Este documento tiene como objetivo analizar la validez empírica de la teoría de las partes interesadas, centrándose en los sistemas de responsabilidad en el sector de los museos. Basándonos en recursos de Wikipedia, hemos seleccionado todos los “Museos Nacionales” (134 museos) en los principales países desarrollados: Australia, Canadá, Francia, Alemania, Italia, Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos de América. Después de controlar por tipo de actividad (arte u otro), coste por visitante y país, los resultados de un modelo multivariable OLS/MCO (mínimos cuadrados ordinarios) muestran que el tamaño del museo, que se asume que representa la fortaleza y el número de partes interesadas, y la cantidad de fondos recibidos, que representa el poder de una categoría particularmente sobresaliente de partes interesadas (donantes), son los dos principales determinantes del nivel de responsabilidad. Concluimos que la responsabilidad, en ausencia de accionistas, es impulsada por el número y el poder de las diferentes partes interesadas, validando la teoría de las partes interesadas.

摘要

利益相关者理论假定,问责制度依赖于其利益相关者的实力与数量。本文旨在分析利益相关者理论的实证效度,重点关注博物馆界的问责制。 根据维基百科上的资源,我们挑选了主要发达国家,如澳大利亚、加拿大、法国、德国、意大利、英国以及美国的所有“国家博物馆”(134 座博物馆)。在限定了活动类型(艺术或其它)、每个参观者的成本与所在国家之后,OLS 多变量模型结果显示,博物馆的规模——假定其代表了利益相关者的实力与数量,以及所收到的资金数额——代表了特定突出类别的利益相关者的能力,是问责水平的两个主要因素。我们总结出,在没有股东的情况下,问责水平是由不同利益相关者的数量与能力所决定的,从而验证了利益相关者理论。

ملخص

نظرية أصحاب المصلحة تفترض أن نظم المساءلة تعتمد على قوة وعدد أصحاب مصالحهم. هذا البحث يهدف إلى تحليل الشرعية التجريبية لنظرية أصحاب المصلحة، مع التركيز على أنظمة المساءلة في قطاع المتحف.إستنادا إلى موارد ويكيبيديا، قد اخترنا كل “المتاحف الوطنية” (134 متحف) في البلدان المتطورة الرئيسية: أستراليا، كندا، فرنسا، ألمانيا، إيطاليا، المملكة المتحدة، والولايات المتحدة الأمريكية.بعد تحكمنا لنوع النشاط (فن أو غيره)، التكلفة لكل زائر والبلد، نتائج أقل المساحات العادية (OLS) لنموذج متعدد المتغيرات بينت أن حجم المتحف، الذي يفترض أنه يمثل قوة وعدد أصحاب المصلحة، وحجم الموارد المالية التي تم إستلامها، الذي يمثل السلطة التي يتمتع بها فئة بارزة من أصحاب المصلحة (الجهات المانحة)، هما المحددتان الرئيسيتان لمستوى المساءلة. نحن نستنتج أن المساءلة، في غياب المساهمين، يتم دفعها من قبل عدد وقوة من مختلف أصحاب المصلحة ، تؤكد سريان فعالية نظرية أصحاب المصل.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_museums.

  2. For instance, six Scottish museums are part of the same website. The same is true for eight museums in Wales and five in Northern Ireland.

  3. We also tried to represent SIZE using total cost or revenues, but these variables appear to be strictly correlated with the variable FUND.

  4. Natural log transformation is used to reduce the skewness of the data set (Hossain et al. 1995).

  5. The General Linear Model (GLM) was used to fit the data based on the characteristics of the dependent variables. The GLM analysis yields similar results. Hence, we conclude that the results are not sensitive to the estimation technique used.

References

  • Ambrose, T., & Paine, C. (1993). Museum basics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association of Museums. (1990). Museum accreditation: A handbook for the institution. Washington, DC: Museum and Gallery Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association of Museums. (2007). Code of ethics. Retrieved November 24, 2010 from http://www.aam-us.org/aboutaam/coe.cfm.

  • Ames, J. A. (1994). Measuring museums’ merits. In K. Moore (Ed.), Museum management. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, G. (2004). Reinventing the museum: Historical and contemporary perspectives on the paradigm shift. Lanham: Rowman Altamira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beattie, V., et al. (2004). A methodology for analyzing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: A comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes. Accounting Forum, 28(3), 205–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, V. (1994). The problem and promise of museum goals. In K. Moore (Ed.), Museum management. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, L. M. (2008). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 201–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowsher, C. (1999). Total quality management in museums: An investigation into the adaptive relevance of TQM in the museums sector. In K. Moore (Ed.), Management in museums. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2001). Taking account of accountability: A conceptual overview and strategic options. Bethesda: Derick W. Brinkerhoff. Abt Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkerhoff, D. W. (2004). Accountability and health systems: Toward conceptual clarity and policy relevance. Health Policy and Planning, 19(6), 371–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bud, R., et al. (1991). Measuring a museum’s output. Museums Journal, 91(1), 29–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzby, S. L. (1975). Company size. Listed versus unlisted stocks, and the extent of financial disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 13(1), 16–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnegie, G. D., & Wolnizer, P. W. (1996). Enabling accountability in museums. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(5), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerf, R. A. (1961). Corporate reporting and investing decisions. Berkeley: The University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow, C. W., & Wong-Boren, A. (1987). Voluntary financial disclosure by Mexican corporations. The Accounting Review, 62(3), 533–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, P. M. (2008). Stakeholder accountability. A field study of the implementation of a governance improvement plan. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 933–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, T. E. (1989). Disclosure in the corporate annual reports of Swedish companies. Accounting and Business Research, 19(74), 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C. (2003). The governance of public and non-profit organizations. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., Lucas, H., & Pasteur, K. (2000). Introduction: Accountability through participation: Developing workable partnership models in the health sector. IDS Bulletin, 31(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, E. T., Ramus, T., & Andreau, M. (2011). Accountability as a managerial tool in non-profit organizations: Evidence from Italian CSVs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3), 470–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. (1996). Practical evaluation guide. Tools for museums and other informal educational settings. Boston: Altamira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003a). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2), 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2003b). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGO’s. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edson, G., & Dean, D. (1996). The handbook for museums. London: Routledge.

    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 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (2002a). Beyond the magic bullet? Lessons and conclusions. In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), NGO management. Earthscan: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (2002b). NGO performance and accountability: Introduction and overview. In M. Edwards & A. Fowler (Eds.), NGO management. Earthscan: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, M. (1979). The impact of size, stock market listing, and auditors on voluntary disclosure in annual corporate reports. Accounting and Business Research, 9(36), 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallhofer, S., & Haslam, J. (2006). Online reporting: Accounting in cybersociety. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(5), 625–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilhespy, I. (1999). Measuring the performance of cultural organizations: A model. International Journal of Art Management, 2(1), 68–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Bebbington, J., & Collison, D. (2006). NGOs civil society and accountability: Making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 319–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackler, D., & Saxton, G. D. (2007). The strategic use of information technology by nonprofit organizations: Increasing capacity and untapped potential. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 474–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. (2001). Information asymmetry. Corporate disclosure, and the capital market: A review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 405–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M., Perera, M., & Rahman, A. R. (1995). Voluntary disclosure in the annual reports of New Zealand companies. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 6(1), 69–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inchausti, B. G. (1997). The influence of company characteristics and accounting regulation on information disclosed by spanish firms. The European Accounting Review, 6(1), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Council of Museums (ICOM). (2006). Code of ethics for museums. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://archives.icom.museum/ethics.html.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl, A., & Belkaoui, A. (1981). Bank annual report disclosure adequacy internationally. Accounting and Business Research, 11, 189–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, G. (1991). The museums profession: Internal and external relations. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, K. (1996). Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keating, E., & Frumkin, P. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, M. H., & Lundholm, R. J. (1993). Cross sectional determinants of analysts rating of corporate disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 246–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawry, R. P. (1995). Accountability and nonprofit organizations: An ethical perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, B., & Lord, G. D. (1991). The manual of museum planning. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayston, D. (1993). Principals agents and the economics of accountability in the new public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 6(3), 68–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNutt, J. G., & Boland, K. M. (1999). Electronic advocacy by nonprofit organizations in social welfare policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 432–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. L. (2002). The board as a monitor of organizational activity: The applicability of agency theory to nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 429–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, M. (2008). The accountability paradigm: Standards of excellence. Theory and research evidence from Hungary. Public Management Review, 10(1), 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, R. (2000). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, V. (1997). Three booklets and three books on nonprofit boards and governance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7(4), 439–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountability: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review, 14(4), 339–353.

    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(7–8), 801–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto-Rodríguez, J., & Fernández-Blanco, V. (2006). Optimal pricing and grant policies for museums. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30(3), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, A. H. (2000). Cash in! Funding and promoting the arts. Lincoln: iUniverse.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rentschler, R., & Potter, B. (1996). Accountability versus artistic development: The case for non-profit museums and performing arts organizations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(5), 100–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, G., & Dhaliwal, D. (1980). Company size and financial disclosure requirements with evidence from the segmental reporting issue. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 7(4), 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of non profit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 270–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, J. A. (2003). Small, minority-based nonprofits in the information age. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(4), 383–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikka, P. (2006). The internet and possibilities for counter accounts: Some reflections. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(5), 759–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, J. A. (2004). Reconciling effectiveness and equity in performance management, a stakeholder synthesis approach to organization systems design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16(5), 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhvi, S. S., & Desai, H. B. (1971). An empirical analysis of the quality of corporate financial disclosure. The Accounting Review, 46(1), 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, A. M. (1974). Competitive and optimal responses to signals: Analysis of efficiency and distribution. Journal of Economic Theory, 7(3), 296–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G. (2001). The impact of New Zeland’s public sector accounting reforms on performance control in museums. Financial Accountability & Management, 17(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanstraelen, A., Zarzeski, M. T., & Robb, S. (2003). Corporate non-financial disclosure practices and financial analyst forecast ability across european countries. Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting, 14(3), 249–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenhofer, A. (1990). Voluntary disclosure with a strategic opponent. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 12(4), 341–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. S. O., Nasser, K., & Mora, A. (1994). The relationship between the comprehensiveness of corporate annual reports and firm characteristics in Spain. Accounting and Business Research, 25(97), 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, R. D. (2008). Applying relationship management theory to the fundraising process for individual donors. Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. P. (1999). The question of accountability in historical perspective: From Jackson to contemporary grassroots ecosystem management. Administration and Society, 31(4), 451–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West Midlands Regional Museum Council. (2000). Fast forward. Priorities for museum development in the West Midlands. West Midlands Regional Museum Council: West Midlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, S., & Marshall, S. (2004). Reforming not-for-profit regulation. Melbourne: Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation-The University of Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, School of Economics, University of Florence, Via delle Pandette, 9-Building D6, 50127, Florence, Italy

    Francesco Dainelli, Giacomo Manetti & Barbara Sibilio

Authors
  1. Francesco Dainelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giacomo Manetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara Sibilio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Dainelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dainelli, F., Manetti, G. & Sibilio, B. Web-Based Accountability Practices in Non-profit Organizations: The Case of National Museums. Voluntas 24, 649–665 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9278-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9278-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation