Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide an empirical analysis on aid-related misconduct and sectoral regulatory failures. Via a series of Oxfam revelations, this paper aims to highlight potential civil and administrative remedies to rectify wrongdoings and increase accountability in aid organizations.

Chronicling recent revelations of misconduct by aid workers, this paper begins with an overview of moral and legal responsibilities of the entrusted; then it illustrates how the Oxfam misconduct violates those moral and legal responsibilities in aid delivery. The author draws upon legal and administrative dilemmas on regulating the aid sector and aid workers’ behavior. Finally, this paper offers practical civil remedies for the harmed and administrative remedies for long-term institutional reforms.

The damage – across a broad spectrum of interests, caused by aid workers engaging in exploitative conduct – not only is a betrayal of the trust reposed by vulnerable people in these individuals but also a failure with far-reaching implications on the part of the donor organizations. The use of the criminal law in aid-related misconduct is highly problematic, assuming a specific offense is committed (which, in many cases, it may not have). There are jurisdictional limitations on the ability of donor countries and international regulations other than in regard to peacekeepers are almost nonexistent. Given such context, civil and administrative remedies provide a viable alternative for the harmed who seek justice.

Legal remedies can be highly jurisdictional contingent. Depending on the specific jurisdiction where misconduct takes place, there are potentially other suited remedies not mentioned in this paper to address aid workers’ unethical behavior.

This paper provides tips on using existing legal channel (the civil law) and available pro bono resources to hold transgressors and their employers accountable.

Effective regulating aid-related conduct prevents further harm on vulnerable people and restores public trust in the aid sector.

This paper addresses the regulatory blind spot on aid workers’ exploitative conduct through the context of Oxfam revelations. Second, it provides practical policy recommendations for navigating legal and administrative dilemmas on regulating aid workers’ behavior.

This paper aims to generate new research directions at the intersection of accounting, whistleblowing and publicness: defined as the attainment of public goals, interests and values.

A problematising review is used to challenge and rethink the existing accounting and whistleblowing literature by incorporating readings from the public interest and public value literature. The paper draws on the work of Dewey (1927), Bozeman (2007) and Benington (2009) to open up new ways of theorising relations between accounting, whistleblowing and publicness.

Firstly, the paper develops a public interest theoretical framework which shows whistleblowing is a public value activity that moves organisational wrongdoing into the public sphere where it is subject to democratic debate and dialogue required to reconcile the public's interests with what the public values. Secondly, this framework provides one answer to continuing questions in the literature of how to define accountings relationship to the public interest. Finally, the paper suggests this conceptual framework be used to stimulate debate on whether and how one should expand existing accounting and accountability knowledge boundaries to incorporate the broader social, political and moral concerns highlighted by whistleblowers acting in the public interest.

Accounting and whistleblowing research has ignored the theoretical implications of whistleblowing in the public interest. The paper shows how accounting and accountability can respond to the challenges of a shifting and intangible public interest by providing a conceptual framework to guide current and future theoretical questions of how accounting is connected to the public interest.

Despite increasing public attention and media coverage of the Covid-19 pandemic, little research was conducted on how the crisis affected accountability practices in the not-for-profit sector. This study focusses on international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) that operate in emerging economies worldwide but are registered in England and Wales and examines how their online accountability practices changed after the Covid-19 pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to address these issues.

The authors use the theoretical lens of the situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) and a contingency approach to not-for-profit governance in order to assess how accountability practices have been shaped by the response given by INGOs to preserve their reputation which is argued to be damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic. They use Dumont's (2013) nonprofit virtual accountability index (NPVAI) for statistical analysis. They examine whether the five dimensions of the NPVAI have changed significantly as a policy of response to the Covid-19 pandemic. They also examine the documents used to disclose information on performance, governance and mission to understand if their content was affected by the pandemic.

The authors found two of the NPVAI dimensions: accessibility and engagement to be statistically different compared to before the pandemic. They also examined the documents used to disclose information on performance, governance and mission in order to understand if their content were affected by the pandemic. Their findings suggest that INGOs focussed on keeping their donors' attention and their fund flow rather than informing how they performed and how their governance has changed as a result of the pandemic. No statistically significant change was found regarding the dimensions of performance, governance and mission.

INGOs which focus on humanitarian relief and crises management mainly in emerging economies were also affected by the pandemic. However little attention has been given to how accountability was being shaped by the Covid-19 pandemic. An analysis of how not-for-profit sector accountability practices were affected by the pandemic is, therefore, needed. Due to the nature of the pandemic online accountability practices is an area where research could focus on, until now few studies have been conducted on online accountability. The study contributes methodologically by assessing the applicability of the NPVAI for comparisons across different time periods rather than across different types of organisation at a specific point in time. The authors conclude that the NPVAI must be supplemented by some analysis of the content of key online documents and other material.

The authors’ findings provide important implications for crisis management and its effect on accountability practices in INGOs that operate in emerging economies and the not-for-profit sector in general. The findings suggest that the crisis led to only limited changes in mission and governance as changes in these dimensions tend to occur over the long term. Although they expected the pandemic to lead to more performance information being released, this did not happen. The enhancement of online accountability practice in the engagement and accessibility dimensions shows that INGOs focussed more on maintaining their fund flow rather than on actions to target the pandemic. This is especially apparent as regardless of size the donation and fundraising links have increased throughout the pandemic. Overall, the study provides important findings specific to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on online accountability practices in the not-for-profit sector. The study's empirical contribution is to assess how not-for-profit organisations shape their online accountability practices to preserve their reputation and legitimacy.

The authors have expanded the discussion of the paper's contribution to theory, methodology and knowledge about online accountability and crisis management in the conclusion section of the paper. They found that INGOs have reacted to the pandemic by becoming more anxious about their ability to generate funds, and content analysis showed that there was little additional information about how INGOs' performance had been affected by the pandemic, which suggests that INGOs need to pay more attention to how they manage accountability in times of crisis.

The authors construct a conceptual framework using theories that have the potential to explain how external factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic can affect online accountability practices. Their paper also responds to the call for studies of the effectiveness of various accountability mechanisms in NGOs (Unerman and O’ Dwyer, 2006). Unlike previous studies they did not compare various sectors at a single point in time, but rather they assessed the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the reaction of INGOs by comparing online disclosures across time. This is a novel use of Dumont's NPVAI and therefore provides an important contribution to the literature.

This study aims to examine whether and how voluntary accounting disclosures can repair individual donors’ trust in a charity after negative events.

The authors adopt a qualitative research approach and conduct 32 semi-structured interviews with active Australian individual donors, with a hypothetical vignette design. Hypothetical negative events and corresponding accounting disclosures are presented to participants during interviews.

Three types of individual donors are identified based on their decision-making patterns after negative events and primary trust relations with a charity-reasoned donor (giving-decision based on their analysis of the situation, competence-based trust), generalist donors (giving-decision based on trust in the charitable sector, institution-based trust) and emotional donors (giving-decision based on feelings and emotions about the charity, integrity-based trust). The research suggests that accounting disclosures can repair trust damage for reasoned donors and support institution-based trust for generalist donors, but do not seem able to repair trust damage for emotional donors and can potentially damage trust further.

Overall, the findings suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach to communicating with individual donors after negative events is not likely to be very effective in repairing trust. Instead, charities may need to adapt disclosures to their different types of individual donors.

While prior accounting studies have largely focussed on how charity managers themselves grapple with accountability or how negative events impact charitable donations, the authors demonstrate how accounting disclosures can play different roles in the trust-repairing process for different types of individual donors.

This chapter reviews ethical challenges confronting nonprofit administration in relation to organizational managerial practices and leadership behaviors. Through a theoretical model of nonprofit-specific toxic leadership, it reviews the dynamics of destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments in cases of unethical and corrupt nonprofit organizational behaviors. It provides a case for prioritizing oversight responsibilities of the board of directors, board supervision, promoting ethical culture in organizational leadership, and implementing policies for addressing destructive and corrupt nonprofit leaders. It reflects on how nonprofit toxic leadership primarily erodes public trust in the nonprofit sector and concludes with practical recommendations for recentering positive behaviors congruent with the nonprofit's social and public good mission.