Determining Factors in Online Transparency of NGOs: A Spanish Case Study

  • María del Mar Gálvez Rodríguez
  • María del Carmen Caba Pérez
  • Manuel López Godoy
Original Paper

Abstract

The social demand of transparency in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) has increased. This is due to their social and economic impact and the incidences of fraudulent behavior by some international NGOs managers. In this regard, an improved and abundant dissemination of information by NGO is essential. The Internet is considered a strategic communication tool in such dissemination. Following an explanatory research line, this article aims to identify the influence of the factors “organizational size”, “organizational age”, “public funding”, “legal form”, “internationalization”, “board size”, and “board activity” in the dissemination of web page information. The results show that only the factors of “organizational size”, “public funding,” and “organizational age” are statistically significant.

Keywords

Transparency NGOs Best practice The Internet Disclosure 

Résumé

La demande sociale pour une transparence au sein des Organizations non-gouvernementales (ONG) s’est accrue. Ceci est dû à leur impact social et économique ainsi qu’aux conséquences d’agissements frauduleux par certains responsables d’ONG internationales. À cet égard, une diffusion optimisée et abondante d’informations par l’ONG est essentielle. Internet est considéré comme un outil de communication stratégique pour une telle diffusion. Adoptant une ligne de recherche explicative, cet article s’attache à identifier l’influence des facteurs « taille organisationnelle », « âge organisationnel », « financement public », « forme légale », « internationalisation », « taille du conseil d’administration » et « activité du conseil d’administration » dans la transmission des informations d’une page Web. Les résultats indiquent que seuls les facteurs tels que « taille organisationnelle », « financement public » et « âge organisationnel » sont statistiquement importants.

Zusammenfassung

Die gesellschaftliche Forderung nach Transparenz in nicht-staatlichen Organisationen hat zugenommen. Grund dafür sind der soziale und wirtschaftliche Einfluss nicht-staatlicher Organisationen sowie Fälle betrügerischen Verhaltens seitens einiger Leiter internationaler nicht-staatlicher Organisationen. In diesem Zusammenhang ist eine verbesserte und ausgiebige Informationsweitergabe der nicht-staatlichen Organisationen ausschlaggebend. Das Internet gilt hierbei als ein strategisches Kommunikationsmittel. Einer erklärenden Forschungslinie folgend zielt dieser Beitrag darauf ab, den Einfluss der Faktoren „Organisationsgröße“, „Alter der Organisation“, „öffentliche Finanzierung“, „Rechtsform“, „Internationalisierung“, „Vorstandsgröße“ und „Vorstandstätigkeiten“ bei der Informationsweitergabe mittels Websites zu bestimmen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass lediglich die Faktoren „Organisationsgröße“, „öffentliche Finanzierung“ und „Alter der Organisation“ von statistischer Bedeutung sind.

Resumen

La exigencia social de transparencia en las Organizaciones No Gubernamentales (ONGs) ha aumentado. Esto se debe a su impacto económico y social y a la incidencia del comportamiento fraudulento de algunos directores de ONGs internacionales. En este sentido, resulta esencial una difusión mejorada y abundante de la información por parte de las ONGs. Internet se considera una herramienta de comunicación estratégica en dicha difusión. Siguiendo una línea de investigación explicativa, este documento tiene como objetivo identificar la influencia de los factores “tamaño de la organización”, “antigüedad de la organización”, “financiación pública”, “forma legal”, “internacionalización”, “tamaño del consejo” y “actividad del consejo” en la difusión de información en la página Web. Los resultados muestran que solamente los factores de “tamaño de la organización”, “financiación pública” y “antigüedad de la organización” son estadísticamente significativos.

摘要

社会大众对非政府机构(NGO)透明度的要求越来越高。这是因为,非政府机构的社会和经济影响力越来越大,而且也曾出现多起国际非政府机构管理人员欺诈行为,影响了其公信力。因此,非政府机构提升和增加其信息传播愈显关键。互联网被认为是开展这种传播工作的一大战略性沟通工具。在提出一段说明性的研究方法之后,本文重点关注“机构规模”、“机构年限”、“公共资金”、“法律形式”、“国际化”、“委员会规模”和“委员会活动”等基本因素在网上信息传播方面所起的影响。结果显示,仅有“机构规模”、“机构年限”和“公共资金”几项具有统计学上的重要意义。

要約

社会において非営利団体(NGO)が透明性を持つことの必要性が高まっている。これは社会的かつ経済的な影響、国際的なNGOの経営者の詐欺的事件によるためである。この点でNGOは改善を行い、豊富な情報を提供することが不可欠である。インターネットはそのような普及戦略のためのコミュニケーション・ツールであると考えられる。本論文では、説明的調査に従ってホームページ情報の普及による「組織の規模」、「組織の世代」、「公的資金」、「法的な形式」、「国際化」、「委員会の規模」、「委員会の活動」の影響を特定化することを目的としている。結果から、「組織の規模」、「公的資金」、「組織の世代」のみが統計的に重要であることがわかった。

ملخص

الطلب الاجتماعي للشفافية في المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) قد ازداد. هذا بسبب آثارهم الاجتماعية والاقتصادية وحالات السلوك الإحتيالي لبعض مديري المنظمات الغير حكومية الدولية. في هذا الصدد، تحسين و نشر معلومات وفيرة عن طريق المنظمات الغير حكومية أمر ضروري. تعتبر الإنترنت أداة إتصال إستراتيجية في هذا النشر بإتباع خط بحث تفسيري، فإن هذا البحث يهدف إلى التعرف على تأثير العوامل “الحجم التنظيمي” ، “العمر التنظيمي” ، “التمويل العام” ، “الشكل القانوني” ، “التدويل” ، “حجم مجلس الإدارة” ، و “نشاط المجلس” في مجال نشر المعلومات على شبكة الإنترنت. وأظهرت النتائج أن فقط عوامل “الحجم التنظيمي” ، “التمويل العام” و “العمر التنظيمي” ذات دلالة إحصائية.

References

  1. Aksartova, S. (2003). In search of legitimacy: Peace grant making of U.S. philanthropic foundations, 1988–1996. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(1), 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-allak, B. (2010). Evaluating the adoption and use of internet-based marketing information systems to improve marketing intelligence (the case of tourism SMEs in Jordan). International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(2), 87–101.Google Scholar
  3. Bies, A. L. (2010). Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1057–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonsón, E., & Flores, F. (2011). Social media and corporate dialogue: The response of global financial institutions. Online Information Review, 35(1), 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonsón-Ponte, E., Escobar-Rodríguez, T., & Flores-Muñoz, F. (2006). Online transparency of the banking sector. Online Information Review, 30(6), 714–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An exploration of the relationships among board structure, process, and effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, L. D., & Kalegaonkar, A. (2002). Support organizations and the evolution of the NGO sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(2), 231–258.Google Scholar
  8. Burger, R., & Owens, T. (2010). Promoting transparency in the NGO sector: Examining the availability and reliability of self-reported data. World Development, 38(9), 1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caba, C., Rodríguez, M., & López, A. (2008). E-government process and incentives for online public financial information. Online Information Review, 32(3), 379–400.Google Scholar
  10. Calderón, B. (2004). Fundaciones y asociaciones en españa: Realidad institucional, dimensión económica y factores determinantes de su tamaño. Mediterráneo Económico, 6, 160–191.Google Scholar
  11. Campos, L., Andion, C., Serva, M., Rossetto, A., & Assumpção, J. (2011). Performance evaluation in non-governmental organizations (NGOs): An analysis of evaluation models and their applications in Brazil. Voluntas, 22(2), 238–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choi, F. D. S. (1973). Financial disclosure and entry to the European capital market. Journal of Accounting Research, 2(00218456), 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chow, C. W., & Wong-Boren, A. (1987). Voluntary financial disclosure by Mexican corporations. The Accounting Review, 62(3), 533–541.Google Scholar
  14. Christensen, A. L., & Mohr, R. M. (2003). Not-for-profit annual reports: What do museum managers communicate? Financial Accountability & Management, 19(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooke, T. E. (1989). Voluntary corporate disclosure by Swedish companies. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 1(09541314), 171–195.Google Scholar
  16. Courtis, J. K. (1976). Relationships between timeliness in corporate reporting and corporate attributes. Accounting and Business Research, 6, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cramer, B. (2009). Using social media to advance your goals. Nonprofit World, 27, 20–21.Google Scholar
  18. De Andrés-Alonso, P., Azofra, V., & Lopez, F. (2005). Corporate boards in OECD countries: Size, composition, functioning and effectiveness. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 13(2), 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Andrés-Alonso, P., Azofra-Palenzuela, V., & Romero-Merino, M. (2009). Determinants of nonprofit board size and composition: The case of Spanish foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 784–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Andrés-Alonso, P., Cruz, N. M., & Romero-Merino, M. E. (2006). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Empirical evidence from nongovernmental development organizations in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 588–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deller, D., Stubenrath, M., & Weber, C. (1998). Investor relations and the internet. Background, potential application and evidence form the USA, UK and Germany. In 21st Annual congress of the European accounting association, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
  22. Denison, T. (2009). Barriers to the effective use of web technologies by community sector organisations. Prato: Monash University.Google Scholar
  23. Depoers, F., & Firth, M. (2000). A cost benefit study of voluntary disclosure: Some empirical evidence from French listed companies. The European Accounting Review, 9(2), 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dhaliwal, D. S. (1980). Improving the quality of corporate financial disclosure. Accounting and Business Research, 10(00014788), 385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eggert, A., & Helm, S. (2003). Exploring the impact of relationship transparency on business relationships: A cross sectional study among purchasing managers in Germany. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(2), 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eisenberg, T., Sundgren, S., & Wells, M. T. (1998). Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 48(1), 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ettredge, M., Richardson, V. J., & Scholz, S. (2002). Dissemination of information for investors at corporate web sites. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 21(4), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fafchamps, M., & Owens, T. (2009). The determinants of funding to African NGOs. The World Bank Economic Review, 23(2), 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Falkenbach, H., & Toivonen, S. (2010). International articles: Effects of international investments on the Finnish commercial real estate market. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 18(2), 313–328.Google Scholar
  30. Fisher, R., Laswad, F., & Oyelere, P. (2005). Determinants of voluntary internet financial reporting by local government authorities. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(2), 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Forman, C. (2005). The corporate digital divide: Determinants of internet adoption. Management Science, 51(4), 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3), 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Frumkin, P., & Kim, M. T. (2001). Strategic positioning and the financing of nonprofit organizations: Is efficiency rewarded in the contributions marketplace? Public Administration Review, 61(3), 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gallego, I., García, I. M., & Rodríguez, L. (2009). La eficacia del gobierno corporativo y la divulgación de información en internet. Investigaciones Europeas De Dirección y Economía De La Empresa, 15(1), 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gandía, J. L. (2008). Determinants of internet-based corporate governance disclosure by Spanish listed companies. Online Information Review, 23(6), 791–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. García Lara, J. M., García Osma, B., & Penalva, F. (2009). Accounting conservatism and corporate governance. Review of Accounting Studies, 14(1), 161–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gonedes, N. J. (1978). Corporate signaling, external accounting, and capital market equilibrium: Evidence on dividends, income, and extraordinary items. Journal of Accounting Research, 16(1), 26–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. González, M. J., & Cañadas, E. (2005). Un análisis empírico de la utilidad de la información contable en las entidades no lucrativas. Cuadernos De Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, 49, 43–65.Google Scholar
  39. Gowthorpe, C., & Amat, O. (1999). External reporting of accounting and financial information via the internet in Spain. European Accounting Review, 8(2), 365–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Granados, N., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2010). Information transparency in business-to-consumer markets: Concepts, framework, and research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(2), 207–226.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gul, F. A., & Leung, S. (2004). Board leadership, outside directors’ expertise and voluntary corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23(5), 351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gutiérrez-Nieto, B., Fuertes-Callén, Y., & Serrano-Cinca, C. (2008). Internet reporting in microfinance institutions. Online Information Review, 32(3), 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hart, T. R. (2002). ePhilanthropy: Using the internet to build support. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(4), 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hedlin, P. (1999). The internet as a vehicle for investor relations: The Swedish case. European Accounting Review, 8(2), 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holland, T. P. (2002). Board accountability: Lessons from the field. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hooper, K., Sinclair, R., Hui, D., & Mataira, K. (2008). Financial reporting by New Zealand charities: Finding a way forward. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(1), 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huang, C. (2010). Board, ownership and performance of banks with a dual board system: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Management and Organization, 16(2), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ingenhoff, D., & Koelling, A. M. (2009). The potential of web sites as a relationship building tool for charitable fundraising NPOs. Public Relations Review, 35(1), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Inglis, S., & Weaver, L. (2000). Designing agendas to reflect board roles and responsibilities: Results of a study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kang, S., & Norton, H. E. (2004). Nonprofit organizations’ use of the World Wide Web: Are they sufficiently fulfilling organizational goals? Public Relations Review, 30, 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Keating, E. K., & Frumkin, P. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Khanna, T., Palepu, K. G., & Srinivasan, S. (2004). Disclosure practices of foreign companies interacting with U.S. markets. Journal of Accounting Research, 42(2), 475–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leftwich, R. W., Watts, R. L., Zimmerman, J. L., Burton, J. C., & Schipper, K. (1981). Voluntary corporate disclosure: The case of interim reporting/discussion. Journal of Accounting Research, 19(00218456), 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lim, S., Matolcsy, Z., & Chow, D. (2007). The association between board composition and different types of voluntary disclosure. European Accounting Review, 16, 555–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lorca, C., Sánchez-ballesta, J. P., & García-meca, E. (2011). Board effectiveness and cost of debt. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 613–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Luo, Y., & Du, J. (2005). The internationalization speed of e-commerce companies: An empirical analysis. International Marketing Review, 22(6), 693–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Madsen, P. (2009). Dynamic transparency, prudential justice, and corporate transformation: Becoming socially responsible in the internet age. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(01674544), 639–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marcuello, C., & Salas, V. (2000). Money and time donations to Spanish non-governmental organizations for development aid. Investigaciones Económicas, 14, 51–73.Google Scholar
  61. Marston, C., & Polei, A. (2004). Corporate reporting on the internet by German companies. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 5(3), 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McIvor, R., McHugh, M., & Cadden, C. (2002). Internet technologies: Supporting transparency in the public sector. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(3), 170–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Melissa, M. S., Hager, M. A., & Griffin, J. J. (2001). Organizational characteristics and funding environments: A study of a population of united way-affiliated nonprofits. Public Administration Review, 61(3), 276–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1977), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Montserrat, L. (2008). El reto de la comunicación en el tercer sector no lucrativo. Revista Española Del Tercer Sector, 8, 17–38.Google Scholar
  66. Murtaza, N. (2011). Putting the lasts first: The case for community-focused and peer-managed NGO accountability mechanisms. Voluntas, 22, 1–17.Google Scholar
  67. Mutula, S., & Wamukoya, J. M. (2009). Public sector information management in east and Southern Africa: Implications for FOI, democracy and integrity in government. International Journal of Information Management, 29(5), 333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Naude, A. M. E., Froneman, J. D., & Atwood, R. A. (2004). The use of the internet by ten South African non-governmental organizations—a public relations perspective. Public Relations Review, 30(1), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. O’Hanlon, R., & Chang, V. (2007). Towards a model of internet technology adoption for not-for-profit organisations. In 18th Australasian conference on information systems not-for-profit organisations and the internet, Toowoomba.Google Scholar
  70. Oehler, J. E. (2000). Not-for-profit organizations can profit by investing in the internet. The CPA Journal, 70(12), 65.Google Scholar
  71. Okten, C., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets. Journal of Public Economics, 75(2), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Owusu-Ansah, S. (2000). Timeliness of corporate financial reporting in emerging capital markets: Empirical evidence from the Zimbabwe stock exchange. Accounting and Business Research, 30(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Oyelere, P., Laswad, F., & Fisher, R. (2003). Determinants of internet financial reporting by New Zealand companies. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting, 14(1), 26–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Paton, R., & Foot, J. (2000). Nonprofit’s use of awards to improve and demonstrate performance: Valuable discipline or burdensome formalities? Voluntas, 11(4), 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Putnam, R. (1992). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modem Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Robbins, W. A., & Austin, K. R. (1986). Disclosure quality in governmental financial reports: An assessment of the appropriateness of a compound measure. Journal of Accounting Research, 24(2), 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rodríguez, G. (2004). Factores explicativos de la revelación voluntaria de información sobre fuentes de ventaja competitiva empresarial. Revista Española De Financiación y Contabilidad, 33(122), 705–739.Google Scholar
  78. Romero, E., Azofra, V., & De Andrés, P. (2008). El gobierno de las fundaciones en españa. patronatos sin patrones. Universia Business Review, 86-103.Google Scholar
  79. Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Jay, E. (2007). The relational determinants of nonprofit web site fundraising effectiveness: An exploratory study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(2), 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Smythe, E., & Smith, P. J. (2006). Legitimacy, transparency, and information technology: The world trade organization in an era of contentious trade politics. Global Governance, 12(1), 31.Google Scholar
  82. Soto, M. (2009). Relations between dimensions of corporate governance and corporate performance: An empirical study among banks in the Lebanon. International Journal of Management, 26(3), 476–488.Google Scholar
  83. Steinberg, R. (1997). Overall evaluation of economic theories. Voluntas, 8(2), 179–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571.Google Scholar
  85. Szper, R., & Prakash, A. (2011). Charity watchdogs and the limits of information-based regulation. Voluntas, 22(1), 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tagesson, T., Blank, V., Broberg, P., & Collin, S. (2009). What explains the extent and content of social and environmental disclosures on corporate websites: A study of social and environmental reporting in Swedish listed corporations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(6), 352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Taylor, M., & Warburton, D. (2003). Legitimacy and the role of UK third sector organizations in the policy process. Voluntas, 14(3), 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Turilli, M., & Floridi, L. (2009). The ethics of information transparency. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2), 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vaccaro, A., & Madsen, P. (2009). Corporate dynamic transparency: The new ICT-driven ethics? Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vafeas, N. (1999). Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 53(1), 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Valor, C., & De la Cuesta, M. (2006). Estructura y gestión financiera de las entidades sin ánimo de lucro. Especial atención a la financiación privada. Revista Española Del Tercer Sector, 2, 125–150.Google Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wallace, W. A. (2006). Financial management in government entails evaluating nonprofits: Are you ready for the next natural disaster? The Journal of Government Financial Management, 55(1), 44–57.Google Scholar
  94. Wanderley, L. S. O., Lucian, R., Farache, F., & Sousa Filho, J. M. (2008). CSR information disclosure on the web: A context-based approach analysing the influence of country of origin and industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Weisbrod, B. (1977). The voluntary nonprofit sector. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  96. Xiao, J. Z., He, Y., & Chow, C. W. (2004). The determinants and characteristics of voluntary internet-based disclosures by listed Chinese companies. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23(3), 191–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Xie, B., Davidson, W. N., I. I. I., & DaDalt, P. J. (2003). Earnings management and corporate governance: The role of the board and the audit committee. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9(3), 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zarzuela, P., & Antón, C. (2008). Determinantes del compromiso social en los jóvenes: Una extensión de la teoría de la acción razonada. Working Paper “Nuevas Tendencias En Dirección De Empresas”, 7, pp. 12–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • María del Mar Gálvez Rodríguez
    • 1
  • María del Carmen Caba Pérez
    • 1
  • Manuel López Godoy
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Dirección y Gestión de EmpresasUniversity of AlmeríaAlmeríaSpain

Personalised recommendations