Factors Influencing Voluntary Disclosure in the Annual Reports of Portuguese Foundations

  • Amélia Oliveira Carvalho
  • Lúcia Lima Rodrigues
  • Manuel Castelo Branco
Original Paper
  • 376 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine the influence of Portuguese Foundation’s characteristics on their annual report disclosure practices. Data were collected from 142 Foundations in Portugal, which represents 50.9% of the Portuguese foundational sector. Supported by a Structural Equation Model (SEM), this study evaluates cause–effect relationship between Voluntary Disclosure, Board Structure, Organizations’ Characteristics and the existence of Auditing. Findings reveal that Organizations’ Characteristics influence the forms of Auditing, and on its turn, Auditing has a positive indirect impact on Voluntary Disclosure. Contrary to expectations, Board Structure does not affect Voluntary Disclosure. This paper fills a void in the literature by examining the impact of Foundations’ characteristics on their voluntary disclosure of financial and non-financial information.

Keywords

Foundations Stakeholder-Agency Theory Structural Equation Model Voluntary Disclosure 

Résumé

Le présent article a pour but d’étudier l’influence des caractéristiques des fondations portugaises sur leurs pratiques de déclaration de rapport annuel. Des données ont été recueillies auprès de 142 fondations du Portugal, lesquelles représentent 50,9 % du secteur national. Appuyée par un modèle d’équation structurelle, la présente étude évalue la relation de cause à effet entre les déclarations volontaires, la structure des conseils d’administration, les caractéristiques des organismes et l’existence de processus d’audit. Les résultats démontrent que les caractéristiques des organismes influencent les formes d’audit en vigueur et que les processus d’audit ont à leur tour un impact positif indirect sur les déclarations volontaires. Contrairement aux attentes, la structure des conseils d’administration n’a pas d’incidence sur lesdites déclarations. Le présent article comble une brèche dans la documentation existante en étudiant l’impact des caractéristiques des fondations sur la déclaration volontaire de leurs renseignements financiers et non financiers.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es zu untersuchen, wie sich die Merkmale portugiesischer Stiftungen auf ihre Praxis zur Offenlegung ihrer Jahresberichte auswirken. Es wurden Daten von 142 Stiftungen in Portugal erfasst, was einem Anteil von 50,9% des portugiesischen Stiftungssektors entspricht. Beruhend auf einem Strukturgleichungsmodell bewertet diese Studie die Ursache-Wirkungs-Beziehung zwischen der freiwilligen Offenlegung, der Vorstandsstruktur, den Merkmalen der Organisation und der Durchführung von Wirtschaftsprüfungen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Merkmale der Organisationen die Form der Wirtschaftsprüfungen beeinflussen und sich die Wirtschaftsprüfungen wiederum indirekt positiv auf die freiwillige Offenlegung auswirken. Entgegen den Erwartungen steht die Vorstandsstruktur in keinem Verhältnis zur freiwilligen Offenlegung. Dieser Beitrag schließt eine Lücke in der Literatur, indem er untersucht, wie sich die Merkmale von Stiftungen auf die freiwillige Offenlegung ihrer finanziellen und nichtfinanziellen Informationen auswirken.

Resumen

El objetivo del presente documento es examinar la influencia de las características de la Fundación portuguesa sobre sus prácticas de divulgación del informe anual. Los datos fueron recopilados de 142 Fundaciones en Portugal, que representan el 50,9 % del sector fundacional portugués. Apoyadas por un Modelo de Ecuación Estructural (SEM, por sus siglas en inglés), el presente estudio evalúa la relación causa-efecto entre la Divulgación Voluntaria, la Estructura del Consejo, las Características de las Organizaciones y la existencia de Auditorías. Los hallazgos revelan que las Características de las Organizaciones influyen en las formas de Auditoría y, a su vez, la Auditoría tiene un impacto positivo indirecto sobre la Divulgación Voluntaria. Al contrario de lo que se esperaba, la estructura del Consejo no afecta a la Divulgación Voluntaria. El presente documento llena un vacío en el material publicado mediante el examen del impacto de las características de las Fundaciones en su divulgación voluntaria de información financiera y no financiera.

Chinese

本文的目的是,检查葡萄牙基金会的特点对其年报披露实践的影响。收集了葡萄牙的142家基金会的数据,这占葡萄牙基金会领域的50.9%。本研究由结构公式模型 (SEM) 支持,评估自愿披露、董事会结构、组织特点和是否存在审计的因果关系。调查结果表明,组织的特点会影响审计形式,同时审计反过来间接影响自愿披露。与预期相反的是,董事会结构不会影响自愿披露。通过检查基金会的特点对其自愿披露财务和非财务信息的影响,本文填补了此类文献的空白。

Japanese

本論文の目的は、ポルトガルの組織の影響を年間報告の開示の実施に基づいて調査することである。ポルトガルにおける組織のセクターの50.9%を占める142団体のデータが収集された。構造平均モデル(SEM)のサポートに基づいて、本研究ではボランティアの開示、重役組織、組織の特性、監査の存在の原因結果関係を評価する。結果から、組織の特性は監査の形式に影響を与えて、代わりに監査は間接的なプラスの影響をボランティアの開示に与えることがわかった。期待に反して、重役の構造はボランティアの開示に影響を与えない。本論文では、経済状的かつ非経済的な情報についてボランティアの開示が組織に与える影響を調査して空白の文献を充実させる。

Arabic

الهدف من هذا البحث هو دراسة تأثير خصائص المؤسسة البرتغالية على ممارسات الإفصاح عن التقرير السنوي. تم تجميع البيانات من 142 مؤسسة في البرتغال، تمثل 50.9 في المائة من القطاع البرتغالي الأساسي. بدعم من نموذج المعادلة الهيكلية (SEM)، هذه الدراسة تقوم بتقييم العلاقة بين السبب والنتيجة بين الإفصاح التطوعي،هيكل مجلس الإدارة، خصائص المنظمات ووجود مراجعة للحسابات. تكشف النتائج أن خصائص المنظمات تؤثر على أشكال مراجعة الحسابات، ومن ثم، فإن مراجعة الحسابات له تأثير إيجابي غير مباشر على الإفصاح التطوعي.على عكس التوقعات، فإن هيكل مجلس الإدارة لا يؤثر على الإفصاح التطوعي. يملأ هذا البحث الفراغ في الأدبيات من خلال دراسة تأثير خصائص المؤسسة على الكشف التطوعي عن المعلومات المالية وغير المالية.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported financially by the research unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy (Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006939), through funds provided by COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI); and Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia.

References

  1. Adams, R., & Ferreira, D. (2007). A theory of friendly boards. Journal of Finance, 62(1), 217–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alanezi, F. S., & Albuloushi, S. S. (2011). Does the existence of voluntary audit committees really affect IFRS-required daisclosure? The Kuwaiti evidence. International Journal of Disclosure & Governance, 8(2), 148–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, J. A., Morlock, L., & Gifford, B. (1998). The effects of corporate restructuring on hospital policymaking. Health Services Research, 23(2), 311–327.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, J. A., & Weiner, B. J. (1998). The adoption of the corporate governance model by nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 8(3), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrés-Alonso, P., Azofra-Palenzuela, V., & Romero-Merino, M. E. (2009). Determinants of nonprofit board size and composition: The case of Spanish foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 784–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anheier, H. K., Toepler, S., & Sokolowski, S. (1997). The implications of government funding of nonprofit organizations: Three propositions. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10, 190–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atan, R., Zainon, S., Nam, R. Y. T., & Aliman, S. (2010). Analyzing disclosure practice of religious nonprofit organizations using partial disclosure index. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 6, 1163–1169.Google Scholar
  9. Babío Arcay, M. R., & Muiño Vázquez, M. F. (2005). Corporate characteristics, governance rules and the extent of voluntary disclosure in Spain. Advances in Accounting, 21, 299–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Balser, D., & McClusky, J. (2005). Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15, 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Behn, B. K., DeVries, D. D., & Lin, J. (2010). The determinants of transparency in nonprofit organizations: An exploratory study. Advances in Accounting, 26(1), 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benjamin, L. M. (2008a). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Benjamin, L. M. (2008b). Bearing more risk for results—Performance accountability and nonprofit relational work. Administration & Society, 39(8), 959–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ben-Ner, A., & Van Hoomissen, T. (1991). Nonprofits in the mixed economy: A demand and supply analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 519–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ben-Ner, A., & Van Hoomissen, T. (1992). An empirical investigation of the joint determination of the size of the for-profit, nonprofit and government sectors. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 63(3), 391–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boesso, G., & Kumar, K. (2007). Drivers of corporate voluntary disclosure: A framework and empirical evidence from Italy and the United States. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(2), 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bogart, W. T. (1995). Accountability and nonprofit organizations: An economic perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bradley, B., Jansen, P., & Silverman, L. (2003). The nonprofit sector’s $100 billion opportunity. Harvard Business Review, 81(5), 94–103.Google Scholar
  19. 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(3), 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brickley, J. A., Van Horn, R. L., & Wedig, G. J. (2010). Board composition and nonprofit conduct: Evidence from hospitals. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(2), 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brown, W. A. (2002). Inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and implications for practice. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(4), 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Browne, M. W., & Shapiro, A. (1988). Robustness of normal theory methods in the analysis of linear latent variate models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Phychology, 41, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Brudney, J. L., & Nobbie, P. D. (2002). Training policy governance in nonprofit boards of directors. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(4), 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Byrne, Barbara M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees, and organizational efficiency: The case of nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 493–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cardinaels, E. (2009). Governance in non-for-profit hospitals: Effects of board members’ remuneration and expertise on CEO compensation. Health Policy, 93(1), 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Carvalho, A. (2010). Quantifying the third sector in Portugal: An overview and evolution from 1997 to 2007. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(4), 588–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Carvalho, A., & Blanco, D. I. (2007). Enquadramento Contabilístico e Política Informativa nas Entidades sem Fins Lucrativas Portuguesas: Estudo de Casos. X Congresso Internacional de Custos Contabilidade, Controlo, Auditoria, Gestão de Custos e Mundialização, Lyon, França, (pp. 311–326).Google Scholar
  29. Carver, J. (1997). Corporate governance model from an unexpected source-nonprofits. Corporate Board, 18(103), 18–23.Google Scholar
  30. Chaves, M., Stephens, L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2004). Does government funding suppress nonprofits’ political activity? American Sociological Review, 69, 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Chen, C. J. P., & Jaggi, B. (2000). Association between independent non-executive directors, family control and financial disclosures in Hong Kong. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 19(4–5), 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cheng, E. C. M., & Courtenay, S. M. (2006). Board composition, regulatory regime and voluntary disclosure. The International Journal of Accounting, 41, 262–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Chisolm, L. B. (1995). Accountability of nonprofit organizations and those who control them: The legal framework. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Chow, C. W. (1982). The demand for external auditing: Size, debt and ownership influences. The Accounting Review, 57(2), 272–291.Google Scholar
  35. 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), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Commission, Charity. (2005). Accounting and reporting by charities: Statement of recommended practice SORP. London: Charity Commission.Google Scholar
  37. Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2004). Performance reporting: A comparative study of British and Irish charities. The British Accounting Review, 36(2), 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Cornforth, C. (2002). The Governance of public and non-profit organizations: what do boards do? Routledge Studies in the Management of Voluntary and Non-Profit Organizations. Oxford, UK: Routledge, (pp. 7–11).Google Scholar
  40. Cornforth, C., & Simpson, C. (2002). Change and continuity in the governance of nonprofit organizations in the United Kingdom. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(4), 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. CSES (2013) – Contas Satélite da Economia Social, INE – Instituto Nacional de Estatística. Edição 2013, Lisboa.Google Scholar
  42. DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3, 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Dye, R. (2001). An evaluation of “essays on disclosure” and the disclosure literature in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32, 181–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ebrahim, A. (2003a). Accountability in Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ebrahim, A. (2003b). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2), 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ebrahim, A. (2016). The Many Faces of Nonprofit Accountability. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 102-123.Google Scholar
  47. Edwards, P., & Smith, R. (1996). Competitive disadvantage and voluntary disclosures: The case of segmental reporting. British Accounting Review, 28, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Eisenberg, P. (1997). A crisis in the nonprofit sector. National Civic Review, 86(4), 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Eng, L. L., & Mak, Y. T. (2003). Corporate governance and voluntary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(4), 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fernandes, N. (2008). EC: Board compensation and firm performance: The role of “independent” board members. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 18(1), 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) (1993), Statement of Financial Accounting Standard n. º 116 – Accounting for Contribuition Received and Contribuition Made.Google Scholar
  53. Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) (1999), Statement of Financial Accounting Standard n. º 136 – Transfers of Assets to a Not-for-Profit Organization.Google Scholar
  54. Fletcher, K. B. (1992). Effective boards: How executive directors define and develop them. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2(3), 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Fornell, C., & Lacker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  57. Fremont-Smith, M. R. (2007). The search for greater accountability of nonprofit organizations: Recent legal developments and proposals for change. Fordham Law Review, 76(2), 609–646.Google Scholar
  58. Friedman, A., & Phillips, M. (2004). Balancing strategy and accountability: A model for the governance of professional associations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(2), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Fry, R. E. (1995). Accountability in organizational life: Problem or opportunity for nonprofits? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gates, S., & Hill, J. (1995). Democratic Accountability and Governmental Innovation in the Use of Nonprofit Organizations. Review of Policy Research, 14(1–2), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gill, M., Flynn, R. J., & Reissing, E. (2005). The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Gordon, T., Fischer, M., Malone, D., & Tower, G. (2002). A comparative empirical examination of extent of disclosure by private and public colleges and universities in the United States. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 21(3), 235–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Gordon, T., Khumawala, S. B., Kraut, M., & Neely, D. G. (2010). Five dimensions of effectiveness for nonprofit annual reports. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21(2), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Greenlee, J. S. (1998). Accountability in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(2), 205–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Gronbjerg, K. A. (1993). Understanding nonprofit funding: managing revenues in social services and community development organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  68. Gross, M. J., Jr. (1975). Report on nonprofit accounting. Journal of Accountancy, 139(6), 55–59.Google Scholar
  69. Gross, M. J., Jr. (1997). Nonprofit accounting: The continuing revolution. Journal of Accountancy, 143(6), 66–74.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  72. Hammack, D. C. (1995). Accountability and nonprofit organizations: A historical perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. I. (2001). Information asymmetry, corporate disclosure, and the capital markets: a review of the empirical disclosure literature. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31, 405–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Helmig, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research overview. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hevesi, A. G., & Millstein, I. (2001). Nonprofit Governance in New York City. NY: The Comptroller of the City of New York.Google Scholar
  76. Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ho, S. S. M., & Shun Wong, K. (2001). A study of the relationship between corporate governance structures and the extent of voluntary disclosure. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 10(2), 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Holtfreter, K. (2008). Determinants of fraud losses in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(1), 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Hoyle, R. (1995). The Structural Equation Modelling Approach: Basic Concepts and Fundamental Issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  80. Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2010). The evolution of the UK charity Statement of Recommended Practice: The influence of key stakeholders. European Management Journal, 28(6), 455–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Iecovich, E. (2005). Environmental and organizational features and their impact on structural and functional characteristics of boards in nonprofit organizations. Administration in Social Work, 29(3), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Iyer, V. M., & Watkins, A. L. (2008). Adoption of Sarbanes-Oxley measures by nonprofit organizations: An empirical study. Accounting Horizons, 22(3), 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Jegers, M. (2009). “Corporate” governance in nonprofit organizations: A nontechnical review of the economic literature. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(2), 143–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Kaplan, S., Pany, K., Samuels, J., & Zhang, J. (2009). An examination of the association between gender and reporting intentions for fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kearns, K. P. (1995). Effective nonprofit board members as seen by executives and board chairs. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 5(4), 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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
  88. Krashinsky, M. (1997). Stakeholder theories of the non-profit sector: One cut at the economic literature. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 8(2), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Laksmana, I. (2008). Corporate board governance and voluntary disclosure of executive compensation practices. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4), 1147–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Lawry, R. P. (1995). Accountability and nonprofit organizations: An ethical perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Lee, M. (2004). Public reporting: A neglected aspect of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lei-Quadro das Fundações (2012), Lei n.º 24/2012 de 9 de julho, Diário da República, 1.ª série,n.º 131.Google Scholar
  93. LeRoux, K. (2009). Managing stakeholder demands balancing responsiveness to clients and funding agents in nonprofit social service organizations. Administration & Society, 41, 158–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lim, S., Matolcsy, Z., & Chow, D. (2007). The association between board composition and different types of voluntary disclosure. European Accounting Review, 16(3), 555–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Marôco, João (2010). Análise de Equações EstruturaisFundamentos Teóricos, Software e Aplicações, Report Number, Pêro Pinheiro.Google Scholar
  96. Matsunaga, Y., Yamauchi, N., & Okuyama, N. (2010). What Determines the Size of the Nonprofit Sector? A Cross-Country Analysis of the Government Failure Theory. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 180–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Meek, G. K., Robert, C. B., & Gray, S. (1995). Factors influencing voluntary annual report disclosures by US UK and Continental European multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 3, 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Meyer, M., Buber, R., & Aghamanoukjan, A. (2013). In search of legitimacy: Managerialism and legitimation in civil society organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(1), 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Milofsky, C., & Blades, S. D. (1991). Issues of accountability in health charities: A case study of accountability problems among nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(4), 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Murray, V., Bradshaw, P., & Wolpin, J. (1992). The Nature and Impact of Nonprofit Boards of Directors in Canada: A Preliminary Report. York, Canada: York University.Google Scholar
  101. Nobbie, P. D., & Brudney, J. L. (2003). Testing the implementation, board performance, and organizational effectiveness of the policy governance model in nonprofit boards of directors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 571–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Lei n.º 1/2012, de 3 de janeiro e da Resoluções do Conselho de Ministros.Google Scholar
  103. Decreto-Lei n.º 36-A/2011 de 9 de Março – Sistema de Normalização Contabilística para as Entidades do Sector Não Lucrativo (SNC - ESNL).Google Scholar
  104. Decreto-Lei n.º 64/2013, de 13 de maio. Ministério da Solidariedade e Segurança Social.Google Scholar
  105. Olson, D. E. (2000). Agency theory in the not-for-profit sector: Its role at independent colleges. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Parsons, L. M. (2007). The impact of financial information and voluntary disclosures on contributions to not-for-profit organizations. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19(1), 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Persons, O. S. (2009). Audit committee characteristics and earlier voluntary ethics disclosure among fraud and no-fraud firms. International Journal of Disclosure & Governance, 6(4), 284–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Pestana, M. H., & Gagueiro, J. N. (2003). Análise de Dados para as Ciências Sociais – A Complementaridade do SPSS, 3º Edição – Revista e Aumentada. Lisboa: Edições sílabo.Google Scholar
  109. Petrovits, C., Shakespeare, C., & Shih, A. (2011). The causes and consequences of internal control problems in nonprofit organizations. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Pfeffer, J. (1973). Size composition and function of hospital boards of directors: A study of organizational environment linkage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(3), 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Pridgen, A., & Wang, K. J. (2012). audit committees and internal control quality: Evidence from nonprofit hospitals subject to the single audit act. International Journal of Auditing, 16, 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Prior, D., Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. A. (2008). Are socially responsible managers really ethical? exploring the relationship between earnings management and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 16(3), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Prybil, L. D. (2006). Size, composition, and culture of high-performing hospital boards. American Journal of Medical Quality, 21(4), 224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Rey, M., & Martin, J. (2011). Buen gobierno y rendición de cuentas en las fundaciones empresariales españolas: Un análisis comparativo de prácticas de transparencia. Revista de Responsabilidad Social de la Empresa, 7(1), 129–163.Google Scholar
  116. Robinson, M. K. (2001). Nonprofit boards that work: The end of one-size-fits-all governance. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  117. Ruppel, Warren. (2002). Not-For-Profit Accounting Made Easy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  118. Rutherford, B. (2005). Genre analysis of corporate annual report narratives. Journal of Business Communication, 42(4), 349–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Saidel, J. R., & Harlan, S. L. (1998). Contracting and Patterns of Nonprofit Governance. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 8(3), 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Salamon, M. L., Sokolowski, S. W., Haddock, M., & Tice, S. H. (2012). Portugal’s Nonprofit Sector In Comparative Context. Baltimore: John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  121. Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 270–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Smith, G. S. (1988). Performance evaluation for nonprofits. Nonprofit World, 6(1), 24–26.Google Scholar
  124. Jöreskog KG. & Sörbom, D. (1993). In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park (CA): SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  125. Speckbacher, G. (2008). Nonprofit versus corporate governance: An economic approach. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(3), 295–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Steinberg, R. (2010). Principal–agent theory and nonprofit accountability. In K. J. Hopt & T. Von Hippel (Eds.), Comparative corporate governance of non-profit organizations (pp. 73–125). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Stone, M. M., Bigelow, B., & Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations. Administration and Society, 31(3), 378–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Stone, M. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Taylor, B. E., Chait, R. P., & Holland, T. P. (1991). Trustee motivation and board effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20(2), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Thorne, L., Mahoney, L. S., & Manetti, G. (2014). Motivations for issuing standalone CSR reports: A survey of Canadian firms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(4), 686–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Torres, L., & Pina, V. (2003). Accounting for accountability and management in NPOs. A comparative study of four countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, the USA and Spain. Financial Accountability & Management, 19(3), 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. TremblayBoire, J., & Prakash, A. (2015). Accountability.org: Online Disclosures by U.S. Nonprofits. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 693–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Verbruggen, S., & Christiaens, J. (2012). Do non-profit organizations manage earnings toward zero profit and does governmental financing play a role? Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 29(3), 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Vermeer, T. E., Raghunandan, K., & Forgione, D. A. (2006). The composition of nonprofit audit committees. Accounting Horizons, 20(1), 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wagenhofer, A. (1990). Voluntary disclosure with a strategic opponent. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 12(4), 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Wallace, O., Naser, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1978). Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting standards. The Accounting Review, 53(1), 112–134.Google Scholar
  138. Weisbrod, B. A., & Dominguez, N. D. (1986). Demand for collective goods in private nonprofit markets: Can fundraising expenditures help? Journal of Public Economics, 30(1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Wood, M. M. (1992). Is governing board behavior cyclical? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 3(2), 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Yermack, D. (1996). Higher market valuation of companies with a small board of directors. Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Young, D. R. (2002). The influence of business on nonprofit organizations and the complexity of nonprofit accountability. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Young, D. R., Bania, N., & Bailey, D. (1996). Structure and accountability a study of national nonprofit associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(4), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Zhuang, J., Saxton, G., & Wu, H. (2011). Publicity vs. impact in nonprofit disclosures and donor preferences: A sequential game with one nonprofit organization and N donors. Annals of Operations Research, 221(1), 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Zimmermann, J. A. M., & Stevens, B. W. (2008). Best practices in board governance: Evidence from South Carolina. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amélia Oliveira Carvalho
    • 1
  • Lúcia Lima Rodrigues
    • 2
  • Manuel Castelo Branco
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Technology and ManagementPolytechnic of Porto, CIICESIPortoPortugal
  2. 2.GOVCOPPUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations