Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Inherently Contested Nature of Nongovernmental Accountability: The Case of HAP International

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the principled case for humanitarian accountability is relatively straightforward, the practice is demonstrably more complicated, necessitating constant negotiation among stakeholders. However, despite the wave of research into nongovernmental accountability, few empirical studies have grappled with the phenomenon’s inherently contested nature. This paper foregrounds tensions arising in the elaboration of nonprofit accountability. Its approach is informed by critical constructivist theory, an international relations approach attuned to social power, identity and exclusion, and conceptual contestation; its conclusions are supported by interview data with key stakeholders. Focusing on the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) International, it finds that initial consensus on the desirability of beneficiary (downward) accountability quickly gave way to principled disagreements and operational difficulties. Specifically, the initiation stage of HAP was marked by two conflicts—a debate about enforcement and a turf war over control—culminating in rebranding and relocation. The implementation stage was characterized by tensions over certification and intra-organizational struggles over leadership. The contemporary practice of accountability is shown to be a contingent and contested social process, with humanitarian identity and practice ultimately at stake.

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. Action Aid, the British Red Cross Society, the British Refugee Council, CARE-UK, DFID, Merlin, ODI, Oxfam GB, RedR, Save the Children UK, and World Vision UK.

  2. On the pilots: “It wasn’t solid research. There was a fight with the consultant, who had different views; it wasn’t testing – it was conversations. But the other issue was that Kosovo was a moving conflict. It was meant to be done in Montenegro, but the refugees literally fled the day we flew out – which, in itself, suggests that it wasn’t a good model” (O3). Another Ombudsman figure characterized the research as “highly opportunistic” (O4).

  3. An Ombudsman staffer explained that the relocation to Geneva left the project vulnerable to forces with different interests, so it was not surprising that it fell apart. “In the UK, they could keep control” (O3).

  4. Selected examples: At the 2nd GA meeting in 2004, a member noted that the “business case” for beneficiary accountability “has not been properly developed” (HAP 2004b). At the 6th GA in 2006, a member proposed that a “research project for HAP would be to develop a business case on why it is good to be a HAP member” (HAP 2008a). In 2010, regarding the slow pace of certification, it was asked: “What is the impact of certification on beneficiaries?” (HAP 2010a).

References

  • Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (Eds.). (2005). Power in Global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bendell, J. (2006). Debating NGO accountability. Geneva: UN Non-Governmental Liaison (NGLS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berghmans, M., Simons, M., & Vandenabeele, J. (2017). What is negotiated in negotiated accountability? The case of INGOs. VOLUNTAS,28(4), 1529–1561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borton, J. (2004). The joint evaluation of emergency assistance to Rwanda. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine,26, 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borton, J. (2012). Draft chronology of the origins and early evolution of HAP and other Q&A Initiatives (unpublished manuscript).

  • Callamard, A. (2003). Humanitarian exchange Article 23. Humanitarian exchange magazine. March. 23. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/report.asp?id=2510.

  • Campbell, D. (1998). Writing security: United States foreign policy and the politics of identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, C. (2014). “Lost” causes: Agenda vetting in global issue networks and the shaping of human security. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christoplos, I. (1999). Humanitarianism, pluralism and ombudsmen: Do the pieces fit? Disasters,23(2), 125–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coule, T. M. (2015). Nonprofit governance and accountability: Broadening the theoretical perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,44(1), 75–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crack, A. M. (2018). The regulation of international NGOs: Assessing the effectiveness of the INGO accountability charter. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,29(2), 419–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, S. (2002). The accountable organisation. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. (2003). Accountability and humanitarian actors: Spectulations and questions. Humanitarian exchange magazine. July. 24. Available at: http://www.odihpn.org/report.asp?id=2563.

  • Deloffre, M. Z. (2016). Global accountability communities: NGO self-regulation in the humanitarian sector. Review of International Studies,42(4), 724–747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2015). Non-governmental organizational accountability: Talking the talk and walking the walk? Journal of Business Ethics,129(3), 613–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doane, D. (1999). Briefing papers: Background document for the steering committee retreat, 15th–16th September 1999. Royal Chace Hotel, Enfield: Humanitarian Ombudsman Project.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1995). NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world. Journal of International Development,7(6), 849–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, J. (1996). The international response to conflict and genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda experience. Synthesis Report. Copenhagen: Steering Committee of the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett, J., & Friesen, C. (2010). Humanitarian accountability and performance in the Théâtre de l’Absurde. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,21, 468–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gugerty, M. K., & Prakash, A. (2010). Voluntary regulation of NGOs and nonprofits: an introduction to the club framework. In M. K. Gugerty & A. Prakash (Eds.), Voluntary regulation of NGOs and nonprofits: An accountability club framework (pp. 3–38). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2003a). 1st Board meeting minutes. 12 December 2003. Geneva: HAP International.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2003b). Board and advisory committee meeting. 11–12 september. Meeting and decisions. Geneva: HAP International.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2004a). 2nd Board meeting minutes. 11 June 2004. Geneva: HAP International.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2004b). 2nd General assembly: Approved minutes. 8 December 2004′. Geneva: HAP International.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2004c). Accreditation: The HAP way forward. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2006). The humanitarian accountability report 2005. Geneva, Switzerland: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2007). The humanitarian accountability report 2006. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2008a). 6th General assembly: Approved minutes. 23–24 April 2008. Geneva: HAP International.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2008b). The guide to the HAP standard: Humanitarian accountability and quality management. London: Oxfam GB.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2008c). HAP international statute. 11 December 2003, revised 8 December 2004 and 24 April 2008.

  • HAP. (2008d). The humanitarian accountability report 2007. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2009). The humanitarian accountability report 2008. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2010a). 8th General assembly: Draft minutes. 6–7 May 2010. Geneva: HAP International.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2010b). The 2009 HAP secretariat report. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2010c). HAP 2010 standard in accountability and quality management. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2010d). Strategy 2010–2012: Making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2011). The humanitarian accountability report 2010. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • HAP. (2013). 2013 Humanitarian accountability report. Geneva: HAP International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havercroft, J., & Duvall, R. (2017). Challenges of an agonistic constructivism for international relations. Polity,49(1), 156–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilhorst, D. (2002). Being good at doing good? quality and accountability of humanitarian NGOs. Disasters,26(3), 193–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security,23(1), 171–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P. J., & Seybert, L. A. (2018). Protean power: Exploring the uncertain and unexpected in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D. (2019). Humanitarianism, governed: Rules, identity, and exclusion in relief work. Humanity,10, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox-Clarke, P., & Mitchell, J. (2011). Reflections on the accountability revolution. Humanitarian Exchange,52, 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, M. (2014). The good project: Humanitarian relief NGOs and the fragmentation of reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawday, A. (2006). Accountability: A report card. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine,36, 39–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, R. (2005). The role of NGO self-regulation in increasing stakeholder accountability. London: One World Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, R., & de las Casas, L. (2006). NGO self-regulation: Enforcing and balancing accountability. London: One World Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattern, J. B. (2004). Power in realist-constructivist research. International Studies Review,6(2), 343–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, R., & Gaventa, J. (2011). Shifting power? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J., & Doane, D. (1999). An ombudsman for humanitarian assistance? Disasters,23(2), 115–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemann, H., & Schillinger, H. (2017). Contestation ‘all the way down’? The grammar of contestation in norm research. Review of International Studies,43(1), 29–49.

    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), 801–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ombudsman Project. (1998a). DRAFT project proposal [unpublished manuscript, 24 November 1998]. London: Ombudsman Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ombudsman Project. (1998b). Steering committee meeting minutes. 2 December 1998. 16 September 2005. London: British Red Cross.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ombudsman Project. (1999). Consultation report to project steering committee. 24 Sept–7 Oct 1999. London: Ombudsman Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallas, C. L., & Guidero, A. (2016). Reforming NGO accountability: Supply vs. demand-driven models. International Studies Review,18(4), 614–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramalingam, B., Scriven, K., & Foley, C. (2009). Innovations in international humanitarian action. In ALNAP 8th review of humanitarian action.

  • Salkeld, G. (2009). Report on an evaluation of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership-International. Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, H. P., Raggo, P., & Bruno-van Vijfeijken, T. (2012). Accountability of transnational NGOS: Aspirations vs. practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,41(6), 1175–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, J. G. (2008). Humanitarian organizations: Accountable-why, to whom, for what, and how? In M. Barnett & T. Weiss (Eds.), Humanitarianism in question: Politics, power, ethics (pp. 124–142). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockton, N. (2000). The ‘code of conduct’ in practice: A personal view. In N. Leader & J. Macrae (Eds.), HPG report 6: Terms of engagement: Conditions and conditionality in humanitarian action (pp. 17–21). London: HPG (ODI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockton, N. (2005). Complaints and redress-the HAP experience. Presentation to one world trust. http://www.hapinternational.org/pool/files/complaints-and-redress-the-hap-experience.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2011.

  • Stroup, S. S. (2012). Borders among activists: International NGOs in the United States, Britain, and France. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry, F. (2002). Condemned to repeat? The paradox of humanitarian action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zyl, H., & Claeyé, F. (2018). Up and down, and inside out: Where do we stand on NGO accountability? The European Journal of Development Research. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-018-0170-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanRooyen, M. (2013). Effective aid: Ensuring accountability in humanitarian assistance. Harvard International Review,35(2), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. (1999). A Social theory of international politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. P., & Taylor, J. A. (2013). Resolving accountability ambiguity in nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,24(3), 559–580.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article benefited from the financial support of the Andrew Dickinson Memorial Fellowship (University of Minnesota) and the Individual Faculty Development Account (College of the Holy Cross). For helpful discussions and feedback on drafts, I thank Michael Barnett, John Borton, Elizabeth Heger Boyle, Brooke Coe, Lisa Disch, Ralitsa Donkova, Raymond (Bud) Duvall, Moira Lynch, Giovanni Mantilla, and Veronica Michel. I am also grateful to the reviewers and editors at VOLUNTAS for constructive suggestions. All errors and omissions are my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of the Holy Cross, 1 College Street, Worcester, MA, 01610, USA

    Denis Kennedy

Authors
  1. Denis Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Kennedy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The interviews conducted for this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota as IRB #0906E68221.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kennedy, D. The Inherently Contested Nature of Nongovernmental Accountability: The Case of HAP International. Voluntas 30, 1393–1405 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00134-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00134-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation