Search results

This paper describes an empirical research study on the first year of compliance by a set of “major” UK charities with the Charity SORP that came into force in 1996 and replaced the previous SORP, which had been recommended since 1988. This new Charity SORP, unlike its predecessor is prescriptive and has the authority of the Charities (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 1995. From a sampling frame of top charities the accounts and financial statements of 125 major charities were selected for analysis (all of which were statutorily required to comply with the new SORP through the regulations). Additionally these top charities were selected as they were all subject to full professional audit, which should mean that the auditors would ensure compliance. Previous studies on charity accounts have recorded variations in accounting treatments. The new Charity SORP is mandatory for charities with an income of more than 250,000 and is designed to provide consistency in accounting by charities and a transparency to their affairs. The research found that there continues to be significant variation in the presentation of charity accounts and questions recent published research that claims significant improvements. The research also found that auditors, including those with charity expertise were failing in either advising or ensuring that charities complied with the SORP.

We outline the history of a distinct accounting standard for charities. It charts the development of the first charity SORP and its subsequent failure. The paper explains the development of the current second charity SORP, and reviews three philosophical schools of accounting ‐ positivism, interpretive and critical. We critique how each perspective would define the SORP’s development. We conclude that all three philosophies provide a context which validates the purpose of the new charity accounting statement and subsequent regulation. The interpretative school, however, provides fusion between theory and current professional practice.

This paper aims to explore the governance and performance reporting practices of Scottish charities at a time of unprecedented legislative and regulatory reform. Such reforms include the revision of the SORP governing charity reporting and the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act which led to the establishment of the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.

This paper provides a descriptive examination of the Trustees' Reports (TRs) produced by a sample of Scottish charities; this assessment was facilitated by means of a content analysis of these documents following the introduction of the new regulatory regime.

The findings indicate that the regime change had a significant impact on the provision of performance, governance and accountability-related information in Scottish charities' TRs.

The paper provides the first detailed descriptive account of reporting practices across a range of charities in Scotland at a time of unprecedented regulatory change.

This paper seeks to explore the way charity accountants understand, interpret and legitimate or delegitimate the introduction of accounting and reporting changes (embedded in the extant charity statement of recommended practice), before these are actually implemented.

Drawing on 21 semi-structured interviews with accountants in large UK and Republic of Ireland charities, the manner and extent to which forthcoming changes in charity accounting are legitimated (justified) or delegitimated (criticised) is explored.

Acceptance of accounting changes in the charity sector by formal regulation may not be necessary for future required adjustments to practice to be legitimated. Using interviews carried out before the implementation of required changes, the results suggest that other factors, such as national culture, identity and mimetic behaviours, may play a major role in the homogenisation and acceptance of accounting and reporting rules. In particular, it is argued that mimetic pressures can be much more influential than regulative pressures in legitimating change in the charity sector and are more likely to lead to the embedding of change.

The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, it explores rhetoric and legitimation strategies used before changes are actually implemented. Second, it contributes to filling a gap in charities’ research related to intra-organisational legitimation of managerial and accounting changes, illustrating institutional-field identity at work to preserve shared organisational values and ideas. Finally, the research illuminates the importance of particular contextual pressures and individual legitimation arguments during accounting-change processes.

This paper aims to explore a narrative disclosure by Muslim charity organisations (MCOs) in the UK.

Using content analysis, this study assesses disclosure in MCOs’ trustee annual reports against the Statement of Recommended Reporting Practices (SORP) for charities using perspectives from accountability including the Islamic concept of accountability.

The findings suggest disclosure to be limited in showing how transactions and activities comply with the mandatory reporting requirements. Hence, MCOs need to increase their awareness of regulatory and sector challenges, as well as self-scrutiny of their current narrative reporting practices, especially in showing their mandatory reporting and hence religious accountability.

The paper provides important empirical data on the status quo of reporting practice by this important sub-sector. The paper provides a systematic analysis of the way trustee annual reports (TARs) are presented by MCOs and also provides a comprehensive framework for a better understanding of the minimum accountability requirements incumbent upon all charity organisations.

There has been limited research on why football clubs contribute to charity. This paper examines how football clubs and their charitable conduits report information when discussing their connectedness. In addition, it explores reasons why, and the extent to which, football clubs support altruism via such charitable vehicles.

Case studies of four major football teams (Manchester City/Manchester United in England and AC Milan/Inter Milan in Italy) are discussed, with formal reports of the clubs and their associated charitable conduits being analysed.

Boundaries between the clubs and their charitable conduits are frequently blurred. Evidence suggests that acknowledging the co-existence of different factors may help to understand what is reported by these organisations and address some of the caveats in terms of autonomy and probity of their activities and reporting practices.

The research uses case studies of four major ‘powerhouses’ of the game and their associated charitable spinoffs. While this is innovative and novel, expanding the research to investigate more clubs and their charitable endeavours would allow greater generalisations.

The study provides material that can be used to reflect on the very topical subject of ‘sportswashing’. This has the potential to input to deliberations relating to the future governance of the game.

The paper explores relationships between businesses and charities/nonprofits in a sector so far little investigated from a charitable accountability perspective. It suggests that motives for engaging in charitable activity and highlighting such engagement may extend beyond normal altruism or warm-glow emotions.

This paper contributes to risk management research with reference to disclosure of risk specific information within the oil and gas industry. This paper provides empirical evidence regarding voluntary and mandatory disclosure behaviour from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective.

A longitudinal empirical study examines probabilistic reserve quantum reporting of UK companies, over a time-period spanning voluntary and mandatory disclosure. The researchers analyse disclosure behaviour under voluntary and mandatory time spans using a logistical regression approach to measure determinants of risk reporting. Form of regulation is considered as the fundamental driver for disclosure whilst controlling for other relevant variables. Implications for developing international regulation are presented with suggestions for further research.

Mandatory reporting is not seen as a significant influence to disclosure. Degree of risk, quality of audit firms, level of stock exchange and organisational visibility each impact on disclosure. The findings indicate that a mandatory disclosure approach is ineffective, partially explained by mimetic and normative forces and a balancing of agency-related costs and benefits. There is an inverse relationship between level of risk and risk reporting.

Generalisation of the findings is limited due to the specific context of the extractive industry.

The paper seeks to inform the International Accounting Standards Board's (IASB) on-going consideration of risk reporting and also its extractive industries deliberations.

The paper provides original insight into the area of risk management with particular focus on risk specificity and quantitative metrics for risk profiling not previously tested. The paper introduces risk profiling as a variable in risk disclosure.

The purpose of this paper is to examine charity regulatory systems, including accounting standard setting, across five jurisdictions in varying stages of adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards, and identifies the challenges of this process.

Using a regulatory space approach, this paper relies on publicly available archival evidence from charity regulators and accounting standard setters in five common‐law jurisdictions in advanced capitalist economies, all with vibrant charity sectors: the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The study reveals the importance of co‐operative interdependence and dialogue between charity regulators and accounting standard setters, indicating that jurisdictions with such inter‐relationships will better manage the transition to IFRS. It also highlights the need for those jurisdictions with not‐for‐profit or charity‐specific accounting standards to re‐configure those provisions as IFRSs are adopted.

The study is limited to five jurisdictions, concentrating specifically on key charity regulators and accounting standard setters. Future research could widen the scope to other jurisdictions, or track changes in the jurisdictions longitudinally.

This paper provides a timely international perspective of charity regulation and accounting developments for regulators, accounting standard setters and charities, specifically of regulatory responses to IFRS adoption.

The paper contributes fresh insights into the dynamics of charity accounting regulation in an international context by using regulatory space as an organising framework. While accounting regulation literature provides a rich interpretation of regulatory issues within the accounting arena, little attention has been paid to charity accounting regulation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore accountability from the perspective of charity donors.

The research utilises semi-structured interviews with a range of donors. In addition, it summarises the main findings from key related research (that uses document content analysis and questionnaire surveys) as a basis for better appreciating donor engagement.

This research offers evidence that while donors are viewed as the key stakeholder to whom a charity should be accountable, the relevance of the information commonly disclosed in formal charity communications is questionable. This is viewed as significant in terms of small dependent donors, although less critical in the case of non-dependent large donors who have power to demand individualised information. However, although all donors do not particularly engage with these formal communications, they are viewed by them as having significance and their production and publication serves as an important legitimising tool in the sector (enhancing trust and reputation).

This research is based on semi-structured interviews with individual small donors and large institutional donors to large UK charities and therefore any generalising of the conclusions beyond large charities, and beyond the UK, should be undertaken with care. In addition, it focuses solely on the perceptions of donors, and other stakeholder groups are also important in this process.

Despite the widespread acceptance that charities have a duty to discharge accountability to their stakeholders, there is limited knowledge of their information needs and whether the performance information currently being disclosed fulfils them. This study provides a unique insight into the perspective of a key stakeholder group (donors) with respect to accountability.

This paper aims to examine the accountability practices of large United Kingdom (UK) charities through public discourse.

Based on the ethical model of stakeholder theory, the paper develops a framework for classifying not‐for‐profit (NFP) accountability and analyzes the content of the annual reports and annual reviews of a sample of large UK charities using this framework.

The results suggest that contrary to the ethical model of stakeholder theory, the sample charities' accountability practices are motivated by a desire to legitimize their activities and present their organizations' activities in a positive light. These results contradict the raison d'être of NFP organizations (NFPOs) and the values that they espouse.

Understanding the nature of accountability reporting in NFPOs has important implications for preparers and policy makers involved in furthering the NFP agenda. New research needs to examine shifts in accountability practices over time and assess the impact of the recent self‐regulation developed to enhance sector accountability.

This paper contributes to the NFP accountability literature by: first, developing a framework of NFP accountability through public discourse using the ethical model of stakeholder theory; and second, advancing the understanding of the accountability practices of large UK charities.