1062856

research-article2021
NVSXXX10.1177/08997640211062856Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyChu and Luke

Article
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

NPO Web-Based
2023, Vol. 52(1) 75­–105
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Accountability: How Can We sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/08997640211062856
https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211062856
Know If NPOs Are Doing journals.sagepub.com/home/nvs

Good Things?

Vien Chu1 and Belinda Luke2

Abstract
This study develops a comprehensive but practical framework for not-for-profit
organization (NPO) web-based accountability involving (a) disclosure of operations,
financial performance, and social performance, and (b) dialogue; and investigates it
in the practices of five Australian NPO award finalists and 160 NPOs more broadly.
The findings highlight NPOs’ web-based accountability focused on operational
disclosure, promoting NPOs’ activities and mission. However, financial and social
performance disclosure was lacking, despite financial performance information
being publicly available on the government regulator’s website. Furthermore, the
use of online platforms to promote dialogue and exchange was limited. The study
suggests that regulatory requirements play an important role in strengthening NPOs’
accountability, and the lack of social performance reporting means it is still unclear
what “good things” NPOs are doing.

Keywords
disclosure, framework, not-for-profit organizations, web-based accountability

Introduction
Not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) often operate to address inequality and disadvan-
tage for specific groups of beneficiaries or broader public benefit purposes. NPOs are

1
University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
2
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Vien Chu, Business School, University of Newcastle, 409 Hunter Street, Newcastle, New South Wales
2300, Australia.
Email: vien.chu@newcastle.edu.au
76 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

accountable to various stakeholders (e.g., donors, government, beneficiaries, public)

for the effectiveness and efficiency of their operations and programs (Brown & Moore,
2001; Dumont, 2013). However, NPO accountability has long been criticized due to
limited and inconsistent public reporting. Nicholls (2009) raised the question “we do
good things, don’t we?” examining the variation in third sector reporting. More than
10 years later, we reexamine this question to consider what progress has been made.
The development of web-based technology provides a valuable and cost-effective
opportunity for organizations to improve their communication with a broad range of
stakeholders and enhance their accountability. Within the NPO sector, studies have
examined underlying patterns and motivations in NPOs’ online disclosure practices
(Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Lee & Joseph, 2013), or NPOs’ use of social networks
(e.g., Facebook) in facilitating dialogue with their stakeholders (Eimhjellen et al.,
2014; Waters et al., 2009). Other studies have identified various frameworks with
indicators for web-based accountability (Saxton & Guo, 2011; Slatten et al., 2016),
and indexes for quality web-based presentation (Dumont, 2013; Gandia, 2011; Waters,
2007). Although there are inconsistencies in the literature regarding frameworks for
web-based accountability, these frameworks focus on operational and financial perfor-
mance disclosure, but ignore the importance of social performance (AbouAssi &
Trent, 2016; Connolly & Hyndman, 2013; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014; Saj, 2013).
Furthermore, there is limited application of these frameworks in practice, with disclo-
sure often used to promote the organization’s image, mission, specific events, or activ-
ities, rather than providing broader performance information for stakeholders to
understand and evaluate these organizations’ operations (Lee & Joseph, 2013; Saxton
& Guo, 2011). These issues suggest further work is required to facilitate more effec-
tive web-based reporting and dialogue.
Accordingly, within the context of NPOs operating in Australia, this study aims to
develop a web-based accountability framework providing a comprehensive yet practi-
cal tool for NPOs to strengthen both individualizing (disclosure) and socializing (dia-
logue) accountability. Based on a review of the literature, a framework is developed
including indicators for (a) disclosure of operations, financial and social performance,
and (b) dialogue. This framework provides a basis for transparency and dialogue,
through disclosure of a range of decision-useful indicators to communicate NPO
accountability. The framework is then examined based on the online disclosure of (a)
five NPO award finalists selected from Social Impact Measurement Network
Australia’s (SIMNA’s) 2019 Awards (hereafter SIMNA NPOs) (SIMNA, 2019), and
(b) 160 NPOs more broadly (hereafter broader NPOs) engaging in activities that help
people with social and economic disadvantage (e.g., Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders, migrants, people with disabilities or unemployed). An examination of these
organizations is important as the first group has been publicly recognized for their
performance, and thus might be expected to have strong public reporting. The second
group are important as they represent the broader NPO sector, operating with a public
benefit purpose (supporting those in need), and typically seeking public support,
financial, and/or nonfinancial. Accordingly, examining these organizations’ web-
based disclosures and communication helps to understand the nature and extent of
information being publicly communicated online, and areas that require attention.
Chu and Luke 77

By developing a web-based accountability framework, the findings of this study

help to identify what financial and nonfinancial (operational, social performance)
information might reasonably be disclosed by NPOs and how this information could
be presented (e.g., in NPOs’ reports, websites) as an effective tool to communicate
accountability to a range of stakeholders. The framework developed potentially assists
policymakers in understanding and improving NPO reporting. The adoption of a com-
prehensive yet practical framework has the potential to change the norms of NPO
disclosure and dialogue. The study shows that operational disclosure remains domi-
nant in NPOs’ practices of web-based accountability. However, voluntary disclosure
of financial and social performance on NPOs’ own websites was lacking. Although
NPOs’ size and type may affect the quality of web-based accountability, attention and
direction from policymakers seems most important in improving NPOs’ disclosure
practices. Furthermore, the findings show that NPOs use online platforms to interact
and engage with stakeholders in an informal manner, with the potential for open-dia-
logue and meaningful exchange with the public.

Literature Review
Theoretical Perspectives on NPO Web-Based Accountability
NPOs are typically defined as (financially) dependent, values-based organizations,
existing to provide support to communities in need (Benjamin, 2013; Ebrahim, 2005).
Therefore, legitimacy is important for NPOs’ funding, operations and survival
(Andrews, 2014; Atack, 1999; Baur & Palazzo, 2011; Lister, 2003; Ossewaarde et al.,
2008), and accountability is a crucial tool for NPOs to establish legitimacy (Bovens,
2007; Edwards & Hulme, 1996; Lister, 2003).
Issues and concerns with NPOs’ legitimacy (and accountability) have been dis-
cussed in the literature (Ebrahim, 2003; Najam, 1996; O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2010;
O’Leary, 2017) in terms of the limited publicly available information regarding NPO
activities and outcomes (both social and financial). Although moral legitimacy is
granted to NPOs based on their intentions, pragmatic legitimacy (in terms of effective-
ness, making a difference) is rarely reported in a comprehensive manner. As noted by
Lister (2003), proven successful performance can transform an NPO from being a
morally good idea to being a very practical moral pursuit. Hence, it is important that
NPO legitimacy progresses beyond moral to pragmatic, by reporting not only on
financial but also social performance to a range of stakeholders. Although financial
performance can be measured or communicated through financial reports, tools for
communicating and assessing social performance remain a major challenge in both
theory and practice (Dash, 2012; Durden, 2008). The absence of reporting on social
outcomes challenges NPO accountability and legitimacy, particularly from the per-
spective of the broader public (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2007; Roberts, 1991).
Financial and social performance reporting represents individualizing accountabil-
ity, providing information to reflect organizational images or performance (Ebrahim,
2005; O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2015; O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2007). Dialogue (and call-
ing on stakeholders’ feedback) focusing on engaging and interacting with others has
78 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

been considered an effective way for NPOs to strengthen their socializing account-
ability. This accountability dimension is often considered as strategic (Ebrahim, 2003)
or social (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2007), long-term in orientation, acknowledging inter-
dependencies between an organization and its constituencies (Roberts, 1991) for the
achievement of mission (Ebrahim, 2003, 2005; O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2007). It is also
consistent with dialogic accounting theory, which promotes pluralism, meaningful
exchange and engagement with stakeholders, and critical reflection on stakeholder
voice by an organization (Bebbington et al., 2007; Dillard & Vinnari, 2019). When
done through online platforms, this provides an opportunity for public input, such that
accountability can be enhanced (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2010; O’Leary, 2017). Despite
the essential role of dialogue in enhancing NPO accountability, there is very limited
application of it in NPOs’ practices (Connolly & Hyndman, 2017). However, online
dialogue and feedback is a simple way to begin to address this, opening communica-
tion to a range of stakeholders.
Although resource dependency theory highlights NPOs’ ongoing need for financial
and nonfinancial support from both donors and the general public, there is also a need
(dependence) by these stakeholders for information that details the activities of NPOs
conduct, and the achievements or progress made. This is particularly so for stakehold-
ers who lack power to command tailored reports from NPOs, and thus rely on publicly
available information (Connolly & Hyndman, 2013). Hence, the role of online report-
ing and dialogue relates not only to NPOs’ legitimacy but also the issue of securing
resources (Connolly & Hyndman, 2013).

A Web-Based Accountability Framework

In response to the need for strengthening NPOs’ accountability and communication,
web-based accountability has been developed in the literature (Brouard & Glass, 2017;
Costa & Goulart da Silva, 2019; Dumont, 2013; Lee & Joseph, 2013; Saxton & Guo,
2011). Waters (2007), by investigating fundraising organizations, suggests various
forms of communication through NPO websites including annual report, tax form,
mission statement, and request for information. Saxton and Guo (2011) outline a more
detailed framework of NPOs’ web-based accountability involving, (a) disclosure con-
cerning key indicators on organizational finance and (social) performance, and (b)
dialogue encompassing the solicitation of input from and interactive engagement with
core stakeholders. Later research (Lee & Joseph, 2013; Slatten et al., 2016) reinforces
the importance and application of these indicators. Focusing on disclosure for fund-
raising purposes, Gandia (2011) suggests a disclosure index classified into four cate-
gories: ornamental web presence, informational web presence, navigation and
presentation, and relational web presence. Other studies suggest various disclosure
indexes, such as a framework classified into five components: accessibility, engage-
ment, performance, governance, and mission (Dumont, 2013), or four types of
accountability disclosure: fiduciary, financial, strategic, procedural accountability dis-
closure (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012). However, in practice these frameworks seem to
have limited application; see for example Nazuk and Shabbir (2018), investigating
Chu and Luke 79

Dumont’s (2013) index in the fundraising practices of NPOs operating in Pakistan.

Table 1 summarizes indicators for web-based accountability detailed in the literature.
As can be seen from Table 1, while providing various indicators for web-based
accountability, the literature considers information regarding NPOs’ operations (such
as activities, policies, or strategies) as financial or “performance” disclosure.
Overlooked, however, is clarity and the importance of expressly considering social
performance (e.g., outputs, outcomes, impacts) (AbouAssi & Trent, 2016; Connolly &
Hyndman, 2013; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014) as a discrete aspect of NPOs’ account-
ability. Accordingly, examining the key indicators highlighted in the literature and
current limitations of web-based accountability in practice, this study suggests a prac-
tical yet relatively comprehensive framework, for guiding and assessing NPOs’ web-
based accountability. The framework includes (a) disclosure of operations, financial
and social performance and (b) dialogue, reflecting both individualizing and socializ-
ing dimensions of NPOs’ accountability. Indicators within the first dimension (disclo-
sure) are essential as an organization can appear transparent by having a website that
provides extensive information, but may not demonstrate accountability without com-
municating details on operations, financial and social performance. The second dimen-
sion (dialogue) is important to allow for exchange in that communication (Dumont,
2013).

Operational disclosure.  As mentioned above, operational disclosure is not explicitly or

separately considered in the literature on web-based accountability, yet its indicators
are often classified under financial or performance disclosure (e.g., mission and val-
ues, activities, projects, strategies). Although operational disclosure can serve as an
important channel for promoting or advertising an organization (Saxton & Guo, 2011;
Slatten et al., 2016), such disclosure highlights NPOs’ aims and activities, providing
benchmarks and a basis against which NPOs’ achievements can be evaluated regard-
ing financial and social performance. Based on a review of the literature, we contend
the four most useful indicators to communicate this are mission, values, and goals
(Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Saxton & Guo, 2011; Waters, 2007); activities, programs,
and projects (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Saxton & Guo, 2011; Slatten et al., 2016),
details of board directors and key staff (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Lee & Joseph,
2013), and fundraising policies (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Gandia, 2011); given
these indicators collectively provide useful information regarding the purpose, profile,
and practices (operations) of an organization.

Financial performance disclosure.  Financial performance information is considered the

most commonly expected disclosure on NPOs’ websites (Anderson, 2009; Brouard &
Glass, 2017; Burger & Owens, 2010; Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Lee & Joseph, 2013)
and generally involves financial reports (audited or unaudited) or annual reports. It
“signals organizational efficiency and provides a tool for the general public to evaluate
the overall financial health of the organization” (Lee & Joseph, 2013, p. 2219). Mainly
concerned with accounting for resources and their use, it is considered a tool for func-
tional accountability (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2007).
 Table 1.  Indicators for Web-Based Accountability Based on the Literature.

80
Authors Disclosure Dialogue
Waters (2007) Suggests indicators for communications:  
Annual report
990 Tax form
Mission statement
Request for information
Gandia (2011) Suggests disclosure index for fundraising, classified into four categories:  
•  Ornamental web presence: contains information oriented to the promotion and
diffusion of the activities and nature of the NPO
•  Informational web presence: helps stakeholders know the economic situation
of their NPO and can judge the use of the funds administered by the board of
trustees
•  Navigation and presentation: usually refers to the elegance and clarity with which
the interaction with a computer program or a web site is designed
•  Relational web presence: uses web site as a portal of services for the stakeholders
Saxton & Guo Financial disclosure Performance disclosure • Contact Us, Feedback,
(2011) •  Annual report •  Mission statement Ask a Question
•  Audited financial statement •  List of recent grants awarded • Grant Recipient
•  Privacy policy • Dollar amounts of individual grants Evaluation Forms
• Data on investment pool awarded • Guestbook
performance • Description of community • Online Stakeholder
•  Investment policy and/or strategy foundations’ general purpose Survey
• Information on administrative costs •  Summaries of funded projects • Message Forum
for funds • Reporting on program or grant • Online Needs Assessment
•  IRS990 form impact • Add Links
•  Community impact reporting • Interactive Message
•  Grantee success stories Center
(continued)
 Table 1.  (continued)

Authors Disclosure Dialogue

Dhanani & Fiduciary accountability Strategic accountability  
Connolly (2012) • Governance •  Aims and objectives
- Organizational structure and • Charitable activities, programs, and
decision-making projects
•  Risk management •  Performance and achievements
•  Trustee recruitment policies - Program results/outcomes/impact
•  Financial policies - Program efficiency
- Investment - Program effectiveness
- Reserves Procedural accountability
Financial accountability •  Ethical operational policies
•  Financial position/stability - Investment
- Income - Trading
- Expenditure - Fundraising
- Surplus/deficit levels - Advocacy
- Trading activities - Environmental
• Performance of financial policies • Staff
- Investment • Volunteers
- Reserves •  Downward stakeholders
•  Organizational efficiency
- Program spend
• Fundraising
Dumont (2013) Suggest a comprehensive framework based on five components of accessibility,  
engagement, performance, governance, and mission
Lee & Joseph Financial disclosure Performance disclosure  
(2013) •  Annual report • Mission
•  IRS Form 990 •  Performance outcomes
•  IRS Form 1023 •  Success stories/testimonials
•  Audited financial statement •  Boarder community impacts
•  IRS Letter of Determination •  Staff list
•  Board list

81
(continued)
82
Table 1.  (continued)

Authors Disclosure Dialogue

Slatten et al. Financial disclosure Performance disclosure • Contact us information/
(2016) •  Annual operating budget • Programs, grant, or community link
•  IRS form 990 impact •  Links to social media
•  Donor privacy policy •  Grant/client stories • Provide information on
•  Audited financial statements •  Dollar amounts of grants awarded how to donate
•  Annual report •  List of recent grant awards •  Donate Now button
•  Mission statement •  Online survey
• Names and contact
information of board and
staff members
Connolly & Formal communication Performance disclosure • Opportunities for
Hyndman •  Compliant annual report • Reporting personal stories for feedback and involvement
(2017) • Magazines and leaflets containing demonstrating impacts
stories relating to the NPOs’ work • Narrative explanations clarifying the
• Regular reports relating to funded stories behind the figures
projects

Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations.

Chu and Luke 83

Although financial performance disclosure is an important part of web-based

accountability, various studies find NPOs disclose minimal financial-related informa-
tion (Saxton & Guo, 2011; Slatten et al., 2016). In addition, the majority of NPOs
adopt reporting practices where positive disclosure outweighs negative disclosure, by
a ratio much larger than that recorded by for-profit organizations (Dhanani & Connolly,
2012). This raises concerns regarding the bias or selective nature of NPO reporting,
and whether it is more about advertising or impression management than stewardship
or accountability. Based on a review of the literature, we contend three indicators are
particularly important to understand financial performance: annual report (Dhanani &
Connolly, 2012; Slatten et al., 2016; Waters, 2007), audited/unaudited financial state-
ments (Lee & Joseph, 2013; Slatten et al., 2016), and fundraising details (funds
received and costs of fundraising) (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Saxton & Guo, 2011;
Slatten et al., 2016). Collectively, these details provide useful information regarding
resource acquisition and use.

Social performance disclosure.  Social performance disclosure is important as it focuses

on “for what” and “how” NPOs use the funds available to them, and has been identi-
fied and discussed in the literature in different contexts (Connolly & Hyndman, 2013;
Gamble & Beer, 2017; Saj, 2013; van Zyl & Claeyé, 2019; Waweru & Spraakman,
2012; Yang & Northcott, 2019). Essentially, there are two elements relevant to NPOs’
social performance: The goals and activities pursued by an organization, and the actual
outputs, outcomes, and impacts achieved relative to those goals (Saxton & Guo, 2011).
Providing details of NPOs’ social value creation and impacts within the community
(Costa & Goulart da Silva, 2019; Dhanani & Connolly, 2012) is often considered a
form of social accountability.
Social performance disclosure generally involves narratives (e.g., success stories)
(Connolly & Hyndman, 2013), reports on projects funded, and outputs (focusing on
immediate results, for example, number of people assisted), outcomes (medium and long-
term results, for example, increased income) and impacts of these projects (focusing on
the root causes of issues, for example, improvements in human development) (Ebrahim
& Rangan, 2014). Collectively, these dimensions provide a basis to evaluate the effective-
ness of NPOs’ programs (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014; Yang & Northcott, 2019). As such,
each of these disclosures is important social performance indicator, to signal organiza-
tional effectiveness and provide “a tool for donors and beneficiaries to evaluate how well
an organization is achieving its social mission” (Lee & Joseph, 2013, p. 2219).
Although social performance disclosure emphasizes NPOs’ achievements, these
achievements are self-reported and there are concerns that they are limited to convey-
ing intentions rather than results. As such, positive stories about the programs and
services serve as publicity material, and negative information is withheld (Dhanani &
Connolly, 2012). Dhanani and Connolly (2012) report that over 80% of nonprofit
organizations’ annual reviews were exclusively positive and only 6% of the organiza-
tions disclosed negative information relating to social performance.
Another issue is that social performance disclosure mainly focuses on quantitative
performance measures and short-term outputs (e.g., amount of funds distributed,
84 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

number of beneficiaries), and lacks information on actual achievements in terms of

outcomes and impacts (Benjamin, 2013; Ebrahim, 2005; van Zyl & Claeyé, 2019).
Saxton and Guo (2011) reported that 80% of disclosure classified as (social) perfor-
mance involved mission statements (operations) and achievements in fundraising
(finance). Only 11% of NPOs disclosed program or grant impacts, and there was no
clear indication of what the actual or specific impacts were. While reporting personal
stories may be a valid means of demonstrating “impact,” arguably it should be one
element of a larger reporting framework, and driven by information value rather than
strategic purposes such as reducing the possibility of being audited or investigated
(Slatten et al., 2016). Accordingly, we contend that social performance indicators
should include outputs, outcomes, and impacts (Dhanani & Connolly, 2012; Ebrahim
& Rangan, 2014; Saxton & Guo, 2011), success stories (Lee & Joseph, 2013; Saxton
& Guo, 2011; Slatten et al., 2016), and narrative explanations of the stories behind the
figures (Connolly & Hyndman, 2017), in order to provide meaningful information on
how well an NPO is achieving its mission.

Dialogue.  Although disclosure is largely one-way communication from an organiza-

tion to users, dialogue is a two-way interaction between NPOs and stakeholders, help-
ing an organization to engage or exchange information with its stakeholders
(specifically the general public who may not have other communication channels
available to them) (Dumont, 2013; Waters, 2007). As noted previously, principles
associated with dialogic accounting theory include pluralism, meaningful exchange,
and critical reflection by an organization on stakeholders’ input (Bebbington et al.,
2007). Hence, for online dialogue to occur in a meaningful manner, it should involve
platforms (NPO’s website or social media networks) where NPOs can be contacted,
feedback is encouraged, and questions or concerns can be raised; such that NPOs have
the opportunity to respond to these (Ebrahim, 2003, 2005; O’Dwyer & Unerman,
2007). Such dialogue allows users themselves to evaluate, contribute to (produce), and
distribute content. Thus, users become consumers and content creators (Eimhjellen
et al., 2014), influencing NPOs’ conduct and performance in an online context (Benja-
min, 2013; O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2015; Yang & Northcott, 2019). Furthermore,
when NPOs engage in dialogue with users, they can monitor, evaluate, and learn from
users to improve their operations (Ebrahim, 2003; Uddina & Belal, 2018).
Dialogue with stakeholders has been widely emphasized in the literature as a means
of strengthening NPOs’ accountability (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2010), recognizing the
importance of a direct, unmediated, and participatory relationship between an organi-
zation and its constituents (Guo & Musso, 2007). Through dialogue, questions about
NPOs’ effectiveness and outcomes can be raised (Costa & Goulart da Silva, 2019),
highlighting that accountability is an ongoing process rather than an end-stage activity
(Global Accountability Project, 2005, cited by Saxton & Guo, 2011).
Although dialogue or information exchange with stakeholders is a key aspect of
web-based accountability, it remains very limited in NPOs’ practice. The most domi-
nant indicator of dialogue is Contact Us, Feedback, Ask a Question. Very few NPOs
have and use an interactive message center, discussion forum, or live chat capability
Chu and Luke 85

(Saxton & Guo, 2011; Slatten et al., 2016), potentially reflecting the limited resources
of NPOs.
The literature criticizes NPOs for not using internet-based technologies to establish
rapport and/or build effective relationships with donors and other persons, groups, or
interested organizations (Saxton & Guo, 2011; Slatten et al., 2016). However, for key
stakeholders such as donors and beneficiaries, NPOs are likely to have close personal
relationships with them, so they may not rely on (publicly available) online platforms
to engage with NPOs. However, as public benefit organizations, it is important NPOs
are open to dialogue with the broader public (including donor and beneficiary repre-
sentatives), from whom they seek support and legitimacy. Accordingly, we contend
that online functions such as Contact Us, Feedback, Ask a question (Saxton & Guo,
2011), and links to social media networks (Slatten et al., 2016) are important features
NPO websites should adopt.
Based on the discussion above, Table 2 presents an alternative web-based account-
ability framework that expressly considers (a) disclosure in terms of operations, finan-
cial, and social performance, and (b) dialogue. It draws from Saxton and Guo’s (2011)
three main dimensions of online reporting, while also incorporating theoretical per-
spectives on NPO accountability reflecting both individualizing and socializing
accountability (Roberts, 1991).
Within the framework, indicators in each category are supported by, yet consoli-
date, a range of different literature on NPOs reporting, providing useful information
about NPOs’ operations and performance to a wide range of users (general public).
The framework also provides important conceptual clarity on NPOs’ disclosure, dis-
tinguishing operations from financial and social performance (see Table 2). The indi-
cators suggested balance comprehensive yet manageable detail (with a limited number
of variables) considered central to addressing NPO accountability. As such, reporting
on each of the variables in the proposed framework is considered appropriate for all
NPOs, irrespective of size. This framework will be investigated in the context of two
NPO sample groups: A small number of Australian NPOs publicly recognized for their
performance (being finalists in the 2019 SIMNA awards), and a larger sample of
Australian NPOs conducting a range of different activities.

Research Approach
Using the framework presented in Table 2, the research approach was designed to
investigate NPOs’ practices of web-based accountability. Content analysis of regulator
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) websites, NPOs’ web-
sites, and NPOs’ use of social media platforms was conducted as it is an effective
methodology used in the social sciences to study the content of online communication
(Krippendorff, 2004).
In Australia, charities must register with ACNC (ACNC). As at November, 2019
(the time data collection commenced), there were 73,730 such organizations regis-
tered. When registering, NPOs classify their activities within a range of categories
(e.g., preventing or relieving the suffering of animals, advancing culture, advancing
86
Table 2.  A Proposed Framework for Web-Based Accountability.
Dimensions
Operational disclosure
1. Mission statement, values, and goals
2. Activities, programs, and projects
3. Board of directors and key staff
4. Fundraising policies
Financial performance disclosure
5. Annual report
6. Audited/unaudited financial statements
- Profit and loss
- Balance sheet
7. Fundraising
- Funds received and dispersed
- Administrative costs of fundraising
Social performance disclosure
8. Outputs (e.g., number of people benefited)
9. Program outcomes and impacts on
community
10. Success stories
11. Narrative explanations detailing the story
behind the figures
Dialogue
12. Contact Us, Feedback, Ask a Question
13. Links to social media networks (Facebook,
Twitter, Blogs)
Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations.
Justification/rationale
- Provides useful information
to the general public about an
NPO’s purpose, profile, and
practices
- Provides useful information to
the general public about how
NPOs account for resource
acquisition and use
- Provides useful information to
the general public regarding
how well NPOs are achieving
their social mission.
-  C onsistent with socializing
accountability and dialogic
accounting theory
-  Provides the general public
with opportunities for
feedback and involvement
Key references
Dhanani & Connolly (2012); Dumont (2013); Lee & Joseph
(2013); Saxton & Guo (2011); Slatten et al. (2016);
Waters (2007)
Dhanani & Connolly (2012); Lee & Joseph (2013)
Dhanani & Connolly (2012); Gandia (2011); Saxton & Guo
(2011); Slatten et al. (2016)
Connolly & Hyndman (2017); Dhanani & Connolly (2012);
Lee & Joseph (2013); Saxton & Guo (2011); Slatten et al.
(2016); Waters (2007)
Dhanani & Connolly (2012); Saxton & Guo (2011);
Slatten et al. (2016)
Saxton & Guo (2011); Connolly & Hyndman (2017);
Dhanani & Connolly (2012); Ebrahim & Rangan (2014);
Lee & Joseph (2013); Slatten et al. (2016)
Connolly & Hyndman, (2017); Lee & Joseph (2013);
Saxton & Guo (2011); Slatten et al. (2016)
Connolly & Hyndman (2017); Roberts (1991);
Saxton & Guo (2011); Slatten et al. (2016)
Chu and Luke 87

Table 3.  Descriptive Analysis of the Two NPO Samples by Size and Activity Type.
Sample and size Advocacy Development Education Health Welfare Total

SIMNA NPOs
 Large 2 (100%) 2 (40%)
 Medium 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 (40%)
 Small 1 (100%) 1 (20%)
 Total 2 3 5
Category as a % of (40%) (60%) (100%)
the total sample
Broader NPOs
 Large 1 (1%) 28 (34%) 2 (3%) 11 (13%) 41 (49%) 83 (52%)
 Medium 6 (17%) 8 (22%) 2 (6%) 3 (8%) 17 (47%) 36 (23%)
 Small 10 (24%) 8 (20%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%) 19 (46%) 41 (25%)
 Total 17 44 6 16 77 160
Category as a % of (11%) (28%) (4%) (10%) (47%) (100%)
total sample

Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations; SIMNA = Social Impact Measurement Network Australia.

education, etc.), and voluntarily provide their website addresses. They also indicate
their size (based on annual revenues) as small (under AUD250,000), medium (over
AUD250,000 but under AUD1 million), or large (over AUD1 million). All NPOs reg-
istered with the ACNC, regardless of their size, are required to submit an Annual
Information Statement (AIS) via the ACNC website. The AIS includes details about
the organization, its activities, and basic financial information (ACNC, 2020). Medium
and large organizations are also required to submit a financial report (including profit
and loss and balance sheet), and large organizations must have their financial report
audited (ACNC, 2020).
For the SIMNA NPOs, 5 of the 13 award finalists in 2019 were registered with
ACNC, and thus were examined in this study.1 These organizations included two large,
two medium, and one small organization, and were involved in welfare and education
(see Table 3). For NPOs more broadly, a sample of 160 NPOs registered with the
ACNC and providing website addresses were randomly selected. These NPOs focused
on those suffering social and financial disadvantage, including Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islanders, migrants, people with disabilities, and those unemployed.
The 160 NPOs selected were categorized as large, medium, or small with varied
activities (e.g., economic, social and community development, mental health and cri-
sis intervention, education, social services, emergency and relief, religious activities).
These NPOs were classified into five major categories: (a) development (focusing on
support for social and economic development), (b) education, (c) health, (d) welfare
(sports, legal support, social services, food, emergency help) and, (e) advocacy (reli-
gion, politics, culture). Collectively, these organizations generated approximately
AUD2.22 billion in the 2018 financial year. Descriptive statistics of these organiza-
tions are presented in Table 3.
Data were hand-collected from late 2019 to late 2020 and focused on disclosure and
dialogue based on the indicators listed in Table 2. Two people were involved in coding
88 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

the data, a research assistant and the lead author, with regular cross-checking, com-
parison, and verification, as well as discussion of any issues arising. Findings from the
investigation of SIMNA NPOs were compared with the web-based accountability
practices of the second sample (160 NPOs), analyzed by size (small, medium, and
large) and activity type. For each item in the disclosure component of the framework,
a score of 1 was recorded where a relevant indicator was disclosed by the NPOs, and
0 if no disclosure was identified. For the dialogue component of the framework, con-
sideration was initially given to the availability of the dialogue indicators listed in
Table 2. Although NPOs may use various social media platforms (e.g., Facebook,
Twitter, Instagram), Facebook was the dominant platform for most NPOs. As such, the
quality of visible (publicly available) dialogue on Facebook was considered by exam-
ining NPOs’ Facebook posts and exchanges during the 12 month period from July
2019 to June 2020. Type of dialogue examined ranged from (a) basic tokenistic
exchanges (e.g., awesome, amazing work, congratulations, etc.); to (b) more meaning-
ful interactions such as exchanging thoughts and ideas, feedback, comments, ques-
tions, and queries among users and with NPOs. Specifically, we examined the number
of posts by each NPO, the number of tokenistic versus meaningful exchanges, and the
extent of that engagement (based on the number of people involved in an extended
online exchange).

Findings
SIMNA NPOs
The framework identified in Table 2 was used as a guide to investigate SIMNA NPOs’
web-based accountability practices, and the findings are presented in Table 4.
The findings show that most disclosure indicators detailed in Table 2 were adopted
by SIMNA NPOs in practice. Of note, however, is that large NPOs (being those with
more resources) did not demonstrate a higher level of web-based accountability com-
pared with other NPOs, particularly regarding social performance reporting.
Importantly, although these NPOs were award finalists for their social impact, only
two out of five SIMNA NPOs publicly reported on how they measured and valued the
impacts of their projects over a period of time. Notably, the NPOs doing so were
medium, not large.
Regarding dialogue, although indicators detailed in Table 2 (e.g., Contact us)
appeared on SIMNA NPOs’ websites, evidence regarding the use of these indicators
was not publicly available. However, social media networks were widely used among
all five NPOs. In particular, Facebook was the main social media platform used by
NPOs, typically to promote their projects and fundraising activities, values and mis-
sion, and achievements directly to users. The average number of posts during the
review period was 241 per NPO, however, there were limited examples of meaningful
exchange among users and between users and NPOs (average of 16% of total posts).
Through NPOs’ posts, users shared/discussed thoughts on the topics posted, provided
suggestions, and asked questions, facilitating the opportunity for users to exchange
Chu and Luke 89

Table 4.  SIMNA NPOs’ Web-Based Accountability Indicators.

Dimensions No. Indicators S (%) M (%) L (%) Total (%)

Operational 1 Activities, programs and 100 100 100 100
disclosure projects, products selling
2 Mission statement, values, 100 100 100 100
and goals
3 Board of directors and 100 100 100 100
key staff
4 Fundraising policies 50 20
a
5 List of supporters and 100 100 50 80
donors/partners
a
6 Other legal documents/ 0 50 0 20
forms (constitution)
Financial 7 Annual report 100 100 50 80
performance 8 Details of revenue/ 100 100 50 80
disclosure expenditure
9 Funds received and 100 50 60
dispersed
10 Administrative costs for 50 50 40
funds
a
11 Funding components 100 50 50 60
a
12 Auditor’s report 50 50 40
Social 13 Outputs (e.g., number of 100 100 100 100
performance people benefited, funds
disclosure spent, consulting hours
provided)
14 Success stories, positive 100 100 100 100
experiences
15 Program outcomes and 100 40
impacts on community
16 Narrative explanations 50 50 40
detailing the story behind
the figure
a
17 Outcome/impact 100 40
measurement
a
18 Donor say (positive 50 20
feedback and experience)
Dialogue 19 Contact Us, Feedback, Ask 100 100 100 100
a Question
20 Social media networks 100 100 100 100
(Facebook, Twitter)
a
21 Blogs 100 100 100 100
a
22 Get involved: Give, 100 100 100 100
volunteer, fundraise,
purchase

Note. SIMNA = Social Impact Measurement Network Australia; NPO = not-for-profit organizations.
a
Additional indicators.
90 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

information or for NPOs to publicly respond to users’ queries in an online forum (see
details in Panel A of Table 5).
The findings also showed new indicators not suggested in the literature (marked
with an asterisk in Table 4), highlighting that all SIMNA NPOs attempted to enhance
transparency in some way (e.g., through disclosing partners/donor, audit reports, and
specific measurement of their program impacts). Although SIMNA NPOs’ practices
challenge assumptions regarding disclosure differences in large versus small NPOs
and raise questions regarding whether less common or emergent indicators should be
removed from or added to the framework, it is important to further investigate online
disclosure practices within the broader sample of 160 NPOs in order to consider this.

NPOs
Operational disclosure.  Indicators for operational disclosure identified in Table 4 were
investigated and compared with the practices of 160 NPOs more broadly, and the find-
ings are shown in Table 6.
Table 6 shows that operational disclosure was strong among NPOs, detailing an
organization’s activities and programs (95%), mission and values (86%), and listing
staff and donors (approximately 75%). However, disclosure of legal documents/forms
(potentially being considered private documents, thus accounting for the low level of
disclosure), and fundraising policies was very limited or nonexistent. Although this
approach is consistent with the findings from SIMNA NPOs, such information is
important for users to understand how NPOs intend to fund their operations and pro-
vides a basis for assessing NPOs’ accountability. As such, communicating fundraising
policies is important to gain an understanding of NPOs’ operations.

Financial performance disclosure.  As mentioned above, an AIS is required for all NPOs
while a financial report is only required for medium and large NPOs, and these reports
serve as compulsory financial performance disclosure, made publicly available
through the ACNC website. An investigation of the ACNC’s website showed that
almost all NPOs fulfilled this obligation with 99% providing an AIS (only one large
NPO did not do so), and 100% of large and medium NPOs providing a financial report
as shown in Table 7.
Importantly, the findings showed that NPOs went beyond compulsory requirements
and attempted to increase their online accountability, such that 75% of medium NPOs
had their financial reports audited, and a high percentage (85%) of small NPOs pro-
vided financial reports on the ACNC’s website, 41% having them audited. However,
the investigation of NPOs’ websites presented very different findings, as shown in
Table 8.
Although 96% of NPOs disclosed their financial reports on the ACNC’s website
(either audited—78% or unaudited—18%), Table 7 shows that only 51% provided
annual reports on their own websites (74% of large NPOs, 36% of medium NPOs,
20% of small NPOs). Furthermore, only 46% of NPOs provided details of their
revenues and expenditure (similar to financial reports), with the remaining NPOs
 Table 5.  Descriptive Analysis of Online Dialogue Based on SIMNA NPOs and Broader NPOs.

Panel A: SIMNA NPOs Panel B: Broader NPOs

Indicators N Minimum Maximum M SD N Minimum Maximum M SD

1. Total posts in 1 year (July 5 62 427 241.40 133.30 129 0 1,677 236.57 222.34
2019—June 2020)
2. Number of NPO posts 5 6 76 37.60 28.01 129 0 149 25.19 47.66
involving sharing information,
stories, thoughts, and so on.
3. P roportion of posts that 5 7% 28% 16% 10% 129 0% 54% 9% 9%
involved meaningful exchange
(sharing information, stories,
thoughts, etc.)
4. Largest number of public 5 9 97 35.40 36.79 129 0 690 43.43 100.40
comments on one NPO post
that involved meaningful
exchange (e.g. sharing
information, stories, thoughts,
discussions, etc.).
5. Largest number of public 5 8 57 25.80 19.56 129 0 338 28.62 50.31
comments on one post
involving tokenistic exchanges
6. Number of negative 5 0 3 0.60 1.34 129 0 49 1.77 5.02
comments or feedback on
NPOs’ activities
7. Number of people who liked 5 462 7,586 3,420.40 2,658.43 129 36 159,618 5,587.76 15,168.73
an NPO’s Facebook page

Note. SIMNA = Social Impact Measurement Network Australia; NPO = not-for-profit organizations.

91
92 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

Table 6.  Operational Disclosure on NPOs’ Websites.

Broader NPOs
SIMNA
Operational disclosure NPOs (%) S (%) M (%) L (%) Total (%)
1 Activities, programs and 100 85 94 100 95
projects, products selling
2 Mission statement, values, 100 73 78 96 86
and goals
3 Board of directors and key 100 61 75 86 77
staff
4 List of supporters and 80 61 61 83 73
donors/partners
5 Other legal documents/ 20 0 17 13 11
forms (constitution)
6 Fundraising policies 20 0 0 0 0

Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations; SIMNA = Social Impact Measurement Network

Australia.

Table 7.  Descriptive Analysis Regarding Availability of Financial Reports on ACNC’s

Website.

Financial report disclosure Small Medium Large Total

SIMNA NPOs
  Financial report audited 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 4 (80%)
  Financial report not audited  
  Financial report not provided 1 (100%) 1 (20%)
 Total 1 2 2 5
  Category as a % of total sample (20%) (40%) (40%) (100%)
Broader NPOs
  Financial report audited 17 (41%) 27 (75%) 81 (98%) 125 (78%)
  Financial report not audited 18 (44%) 9 (25%) 2 (2%) 29 (18%)
  Financial report not provided 6 (15%) 6 (4%)
 Total 41 36 83 160
  Category as a % of total sample (26%) (22%) (52%) (100%)

Note. ACNC = Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission; SIMNA = Social Impact
Measurement Network Australia; NPO = not-for-profit organizations.

providing very limited details of their financial performance, that is, a brief summary
of funds received and spent, sources of funds, or total administration and other
expenses. This contrasted with a more comprehensive disclosure on the ACNC’s web-
site where 93% of NPOs’ financial reports provided detailed components of annual
revenue, expenses, and explanatory notes. Furthermore, although 78% of these NPOs
provided an auditor’s report on the ACNC’s website, only 23% of them did so on their
own organizational websites.
Chu and Luke 93

Table 8.  Financial Performance Disclosure on NPOs’ and ACNC’s Websites.

Broader NPOs–on website Broader

Financial performance SIMNA NPOs–on
disclosure NPOs (%) S (%) M (%) L (%) Total (%) ACNC (%)
1 Annual report 80 20 36 74 51  
  Financial report 80 96
2 Details of Revenue/ 80 20 36 63 46 93
expenditure
3 Funds received and 60 15 33 54 39
dispersed
4 Funding 60 17 25 49 36  
components
5 Administrative 40 7 22 39 27  
costs for funds
6 Auditor’s report 40 5 22 33 23 78

Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations; ACNC = Australian Charities and Not-for-profits

Commission; SIMNA = Social Impact Measurement Network Australia.

The findings show a significant difference between financial disclosures on manda-

tory (ACNC’s website) and voluntary platforms (NPOs’ websites). This issue is inter-
esting given more informed users might tend to access regulator websites, while the
broader public might access NPOs’ individual website if searching for NPO informa-
tion. As such, it challenges NPOs’ web-based accountability, emphasizing NPOs’ reli-
ance on moral versus pragmatic legitimacy. Furthermore, it highlights the importance
of legal requirements in enhancing NPOs’ public accountability.

Social performance disclosure.  Indicators for social performance disclosure in the prac-
tices of 160 NPOs on their websites were investigated and are presented in Table 9.
Table 9 shows that NPOs’ disclosure of social performance on their websites was
very limited and mainly focused on quantitative performance details. These disclo-
sures involved outputs (number of people benefited, funds spent, consulting hours
provided) regarding projects/programs conducted (49% of NPOs), with narrative
explanations detailing the stories behind the figures (39% of NPOs) or success stories
and positive experiences (28% of NPOs). However, detail was largely missing in
terms of reporting on program outcomes and impacts (5% of NPOs), and how impacts
were measured (2% of NPOs). This lack of detail challenges public understanding and
pragmatic legitimacy of NPOs. Noticeably, disclosure of donors’ feedback or experi-
ence was missing in the practices of NPOs more broadly (1% of NPOs). Consistent
with SIMNA NPOs (Table 4), the findings show that large NPOs did not demonstrate
a higher level of reporting on outcomes, impacts, and their measurement, compared
with medium and small NPOs. This finding challenges the notion of limited resources
justifying a lack of reporting on and/or measurement of outputs and impacts within the
sector.
94
Table 9.  Social Performance Disclosure on NPOs’ Websites.

Broader NPOs—by size Broader NPOs—By activitya

SIMNA
Social performance disclosure NPOs S (%) M (%) L (%) Total (%) A (%) D (%) E (%) H (%) W (%) Total (%)
1 Outputs (e.g., number of 100 24 33 69 49 6 71 33 50 48 49
people benefited, funds
spent, consulting hours
provided)
2 Success stories, positive 100 10 14 43 28 12 34 33 25 29 28
experiences
3 Narrative explanations 40 12 25 58 39 6 55 17 38 39 39
detailing the story
behind the figure
4 Reporting on program 40 5 6 5 5 0 5 0 2 2 5
outcomes and impacts
on community
a
5 Outcome/impact 40 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 3 2
measurement
a
6 Donor say 20 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 1

Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations; SIMNA = Social Impact Measurement Network Australia.
a
A: Advocacy, D: development, E: Education, H: Health, W: Welfare.
Chu and Luke 95

Table 10.  Dialogue on NPOs’ Websites.

Broader NPOs
SIMNA
Dialogue NPOs (%) S (%) M (%) L (%) Total (%)
1 Contact Us, Feedback, Ask a 100 95 100 100 99
Question
2 Links to social media networks 100 76 72 87 81
(Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
3 Get involved: Give, volunteer, 100 51 64 60 59
fundraise, purchase
4 Blogs 100 22 33 30 29

Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations; SIMNA = Social Impact Measurement Network Australia.

Examining social performance disclosure based on the type of NPO, Table 9 shows
development NPOs had a higher level of disclosure (71% detailing outputs) compared
with other types of NPOs, and were more aligned with (yet still significantly below)
the disclosure practices of SIMNA NPOs.

Dialogue.  Table 10 shows that the three dialogue indicators used by SIMNA NPOs
were used by most NPOs in the second sample.
As exchange through Contact us, Feedback, Ask a Question needs to be initiated by
users and then responded to by NPOs, these indicators provide closed-dialogue chan-
nels between users and NPOs. As such, no data were publicly available in terms of how
often they were used. However, social media networks, particularly Facebook, were
widely used among NPOs (129 or 81%) with the annual average number of posts being
237 per NPO, demonstrating NPOs’ willingness to engage in online open communica-
tion. Returning to Table 5, Panel B presents the frequency and levels of interaction
based on Facebook posts from July 2019 to June 2020 for the broader sample of NPOs.
Panel B of Table 5 shows that while the average number of total posts for NPOs
more broadly was similar to SIMNA NPOs (241 posts for SIMNA NPOs, 237 posts for
broader NPOs), the large majority of these generated exchanges, which was tokenistic
in nature. On average, only 9% of broader NPOs’ posts resulted in meaningful
exchange (16% for SIMNA NPOs). Posts with meaningful dialogue and engagement
with users generated up to 690 comments (which was much higher than SIMNA NPOs
with 97 comments), forming part of a substantive dialogue. Through NPOs’ posts,
users shared their thoughts, comments, stories, and had discussions or debates with
NPOs and each other. Users also asked for information regarding programs, voluntary
works, or provided suggestions for improvements. Negative comments/criticisms or
feedback for improvements on NPOs’ activity were extremely limited (less than 1 out
of 241 posts for SIMNA NPOs and less than 2 out of 237 posts for the broader NPO
sample). Generally, on these occasions, users were invited to have a private conversa-
tion with NPOs.
96 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

Table 11.  Analysis of Broader NPO Online Disclosure and Social Media Platforms.
Panel A: Analysis of Online Disclosure Quality by NPO Size.

NPO size N M SD Minimum Maximum

Large 83 11.43 3.90 3 17
Medium 36 8.47 4.05 3 16
Small 41 6.61 3.25 2 15
Total 160 9.53 4.30 2 17

Panel B: Analysis of Online Disclosure Quality by NPO Activity Type.

NPO type N M SD Minimum Maximum

Advocacy 17 5.47 2.45 3 14
Development 44 10.89 4.19 2 17
Education 6 8.17 3.76 4 13
Health 16 10.69 4.25 4 16
Welfare 77 9.52 4.21 3 17
Total 160 9.53 4.30 2 17

Panel C: Analysis of Social Media Platforms Used by NPO Size.

NPO size N M SD Minimum Maximum

Large 83 2.77 1.61 0 5
Medium 36 1.69 1.45 0 5
Small 41 1.90 1.59 0 5
Total 160 2.31 1.64 0 5

Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations.

Factors Affecting the Quality of NPOs’ Web-Based Accountability

To gain a deeper understanding as to whether size and activity type of NPOs affects the
overall quality of NPOs’ web-based accountability (based on (a) disclosure of opera-
tions, financial and social performance, and (b) dialogue), an ANOVA analysis with a
post hoc Turkey’s HSD multiple comparison test was used. For the test, the less com-
monly adopted indicators “fundraising policies” and “donor say” (adopted by 0% or
1% of NPOs) were removed, with 20 indicators remaining (5, 6, 5, 4 indicators from
Tables 6, 8, 9, 10 respectively). Each indicator was weighted to equal 1, giving a total
of 20 possible points; each having an equally weighted chance, avoiding skewness of
the research in favor of a particular indicator (Holzer et al. 2008 cited in Dumont,
2013).
The findings show NPO’s size significantly affects their web-based accountability
with F(2,157) = 24.17, p < .000. Panel A of Table 11 details the analysis of the quality
of NPO web-based accountability based on organizational size.
Chu and Luke 97

The findings show that the web-based accountability score differed significantly
between large and medium NPOs (p < .000), and large and small NPOs (p < .000),
but not between small and medium NPOs. However, even with large organizations
having the highest level of disclosure, actual disclosure results for this group averaged
only 11.43 out of 20. This finding is consistent with prior studies (e.g., Saxton and Guo
(2011), Dumont (2013)), with large NPOs having a higher web-based accountability
score [M =11.43, SD = 3.90] than medium NPOs (M = 8.47, SD = 4.05), and small
NPOs (M = 6.61, SD = 3.25).
Findings also show NPOs’ activity type significantly affects their web-based
accountability with F(4, 155) = 6.0, p < .000. Panel B of Table 11 details the analysis
of the quality of NPO web-based accountability based on their activity type, with
Development (M = 10.89, SD = 4.19) and Health (M = 10.69, SD = 4.25) NPOs
having relatively higher web-based accountability scores. Advocacy NPOs achieved
the lowest web-based accountability score, with significant differences between
Advocacy NPOs and Development NPOs (p < .000), Health NPOs (p < .003), and
Welfare NPOs (p < .002). These findings are similar to those on social performance
disclosure discussed above.
Among the various social media platforms available (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,
Google+, LinkedIn, YouTube, Spotify, Scoop.it), findings show NPOs used up to five
of these to engage in open dialogue. ANOVA analysis with a post hoc Turkey’s HSD
multiple comparison test was undertaken to consider whether an NPO’s size and activ-
ity type affected its use of social media platforms. Although there was no significant
difference due to NPOs’ activity type, NPOs’ size significantly affected the number of
social media platforms that they used, with F(2, 157) = 7.71, p < .001. Analysis of
this is presented in Panel C of Table 11.
Similar to the total score of web-based indicators, the findings show that the num-
ber of social media platforms used differs significantly between large and medium
NPOs (p < .002), and large and small NPOs (p < .012), but not between small and
medium NPOs, with large NPOs using more social media platforms (M=2.77,
SD = 1.61) than medium NPOs (M = 1.69, SD = 1.45), and small NPOs (M = 1.9,
SD = 1.59). However, analysis based on NPO size or activity type did not reveal any
significant differences in the quality of NPOs’ dialogue with users.

Discussion and Conclusion

A Framework for Web-Based Accountability
Based on the literature, this study developed a framework for NPO web-based account-
ability including indicators for (a) disclosure of operations, financial and social perfor-
mance, and (b) dialogue, and then investigated this framework through the practices of
SIMNA NPOs, and a broader sample of 160 NPOs. Unlike prior literature (Lee &
Joseph, 2013; Saxton & Guo, 2011; Slatten et al., 2016), this study distinguishes indica-
tors for operational disclosure from financial and social performance disclosure, pro-
viding enhanced clarity and understanding to evaluate NPOs’ web-based accountability
98 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

practices. This is important to prevent misunderstandings and ensure developments in

this area progress and refine our understanding of reporting issues in both theory and
practice. The findings show that NPOs’ web-based accountability largely focuses on
operational disclosures (e.g., activities and programs, mission and values, board of
directors and key staff, and supporters and donors/partners). Although these indicators
provide basic benchmarks for assessing NPOs’ accountability—being accountable for
what they commit to or represent (moral legitimacy), NPOs’ emphasis on these indica-
tors reflects promotion of their operations rather than reporting on performance.
In terms of financial performance disclosure, while the literature (Dhanani &
Connolly, 2012; Saxton & Guo, 2011) suggests many different indicators, the findings
from the practices of SIMNA NPOs and the broader sample of NPOs show indicators
relating to fundraising are not commonly communicated. Importantly, a significant
difference is noted between mandatory and voluntary disclosure on the regulator’s
(ACNC’s) website which might be more commonly accessed by sophisticated users.
Almost all NPOs publicly disclosed comprehensive details of financial performance
via the ACNC, yet voluntary disclosure on NPOs’ own websites (which might be more
commonly accessed by the general public) was often more limited. Furthermore, some
NPOs went beyond legal requirements, voluntarily disclosing their financial report
(small NPOs) and auditor’s report (medium NPOs) via the ACNC. However, disclo-
sure of such information on NPOs’ own websites was lacking. This highlights the
important role of legal or mandatory requirements for enhancing public understanding
of NPOs and their accountability, and the potential for NPO disclosure on regulators’
websites beyond what is formally required.
Although literature considers annual reports as an indicator of NPOs’ financial per-
formance disclosure (Lee & Joseph, 2013; Saxton & Guo, 2011; Slatten et al., 2016),
some NPOs in this study also used annual reports to provide details of social perfor-
mance regarding the programs or projects conducted. However, as nonmandatory dis-
closure, less than half of the NPOs examined provided details of their social
performance, and those that did so, mainly focused on achievements (outputs/out-
comes) solely in qualitative terms with narrative explanations detailing the stories
behind the figures, and success stories or positive experiences. Disclosure of program
outcomes and impacts, measurement of outcomes and impacts remained very limited.
These findings are consistent with the criticisms on NPOs’ accountability (Ebrahim &
Rangan, 2014; O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2007; Yang & Northcott, 2019), and highlight
limited progress over the last 10 years, since Nicholls (2009) raised the question of
“we do good things, don’t we?.” Importantly, the practices of large NPOs (presumably
having more resources available) are not necessarily better than other NPOs, raising
questions regarding whether limited resource is an appropriate justification for lacking
social performance disclosure, or whether NPOs might simply avoid such disclosure
until it is mandatory. Hence, NPOs continue to rely on moral legitimacy, and progress
seems largely dependent on regulatory intervention, where disclosure often goes
beyond the scope of what is formally required, once regulations are introduced.
Although not all stakeholders may rely on NPOs’ public reporting (e.g., donors)
communication with the public is important for organizations that exist for public
Chu and Luke 99

benefit purposes, and rely on public support. Accordingly, future research might con-
sider whether those nonprofits that do report more broadly in areas such as social
impact, experience a difference in their funding.
For dialogue, similar to the literature (Dumont, 2013; Saxton & Guo, 2011; Slatten
et al., 2016), most NPOs in this study used Contact Us, Feedback, Ask a Question, Get
Involved: give, volunteer, fundraise, purchase as a traditional and formal way for users
to contact or engage with NPOs. These mechanisms facilitate online communication
in the form of closed dialogue. In addition, the majority of NPOs used social media
platforms (mainly Facebook) to facilitate open dialogue with stakeholders, enhancing
interaction with multiple users.
Through these channels, NPOs disclosed details of their operations (mission, pro-
gram, and fundraising activities), social performance (e.g., through achievements such
as number of people helped, awards, and success stories). However, consistent with
other studies, the findings highlight a lack of meaningful dialogue with users, with
positive feedback or experiences being dominant (O’Dwyer & Unerman, 2010; Slatten
et al., 2016; Waters et al., 2009). Despite these concerns, incidences of meaningful
dialogue were identified. For literature on NPOs’ web-based accountability, the find-
ings suggest that dialogue should be considered based not only on what platforms
NPOs’ use (e.g., websites, Facebook), but also how those platforms are used.
The findings of this study show differences between expectations in the literature
and NPOs’ practices of web-based accountability. Specifically, NPOs’ disclosure prac-
tices via regulatory (mandatory) and individual (voluntary) disclosure platforms were
very different. Although regulatory disclosure (on the ACNC’s website) focused on
financial performance, voluntary disclosure (on NPOs’ websites) focused on promot-
ing the organization (emphasizing operations rather than outputs, outcomes, and
impacts). Thus, findings highlight a need for regulatory intervention requiring a practi-
cal and balanced approach to web-based accountability, if NPO reporting is to prog-
ress. A framework detailing operations, financial and social performance on NPOs’
own websites, together with opportunities or avenues for more open and meaningful
dialogue can assist with this. Based on the findings, the framework presented in
Table 2 is revised as Table 12. Indicators suggested in Table 12 are drawn from the
literature on NPO web-based accountability, and refined based on the findings of this
study (i.e., practices of NPOs), removing indicators for fundraising as they were not
central to NPOs’ practices and highlighting the new indicators for dialogue—being
open to discussion and engaging with public. Importantly, the revised framework pro-
vides the general public with useful information for their decision-making on what the
NPO represents (moral legitimacy), but also how it accounts for resources used, and
how well the NPO achieved its social mission.

Factors Affecting NPOs’ Web-Based Accountability

Literature (Dumont, 2013; Eimhjellen et al., 2014; Saxton & Guo, 2011) suggests that
NPOs’ web-based accountability can be affected by various factors such as organiza-
tional size, age, location, and structure. Similarly, this study finds that organizational
100
Table 12.  Revised Framework for Web-Based Accountability.

Financial performance Social performance

Operational disclosure disclosure
• Mission statement, • Audited/unaudited
values, and goals financial statements/
• Activities, programs Annual reports
and projects, products - Profit and loss
selling - Balance sheet
• Programs and projects -A uditor’s report/
implemented review (where
• Board of directors and available)
key staff • Annual information
•  Fundraising policies statementa
• List of supporters and
donors/partnersa
Indicators deleted due to not being central to NPOs’ practices
  • Fundraising
- Funds received and
dispersed
- Administrative costs
of fundraising
disclosure Dialogue
• Outputs (e.g. number Closed dialogue:
of people benefited) • Contact Us, Feedback, Ask a
achieved Question
• Program outcomes and • Links to social media networks
impacts on community, (Facebook, Twitter, blogs)
with measurements • Get involved: give, volunteer,
provided fundraise, purchasea
a
• Narrative explanations Open dialogue:
detailing the story • Regular posts on social media
behind the figures networks relevant to NPOs’
• Success stories, activities and achievements
positive experiences • Responses to users’ comments/
queries
• Acceptance and responses to
negative comments
 

Note. NPO = not-for-profit organizations.

a
New indicators identified from the findings.
Chu and Luke 101

size impacts the number of indicators that NPOs use to discharge their web-based
accountability, with large NPOs disclosing more indicators and using more social
media platforms than medium and small NPOs. However, regarding how NPOs use
social media platforms and whether they foster open and meaningful discussions with
users, there is no significant difference based on NPO size or type.
Furthermore, the findings of this study show that the quality of NPOs’ web-based
accountability is also affected by the type of activity they engage in, with Development
and Health NPOs performing better compared with other types, particularly advocacy
NPOs. Although some NPOs may communicate directly with specific stakeholder
groups (e.g., donors/funders, beneficiaries), arguably as organizations pursuing public
benefit, and seeking public support, it is important disclosure and dialogue extends to
all stakeholders through publicly available channels, and web-based accountability is
a valuable and accessible way to achieve this.
This study is limited to the data collected from two samples of Australian NPOs. As
such, findings represent NPOs’ web-based accountability in one country at a particular
point in time. Furthermore, disclosure regarding operations, financial, and social perfor-
mance were coded simply as 1 or 0 based on whether this information was present or
absent, without assessing disclosure quality; an area for future research. However, the
findings provide a valuable framework for NPO web-based accountability based on both
theory and practice, which can be used to compare what users or stakeholders expect from
NPOs. It also provides a basis for NPOs to consider what information is reasonable and
available in terms of online disclosure and dialogue, regardless of their size, in order to
develop their accountability and legitimacy beyond communicating “good” intentions.
Reflecting on the findings, we contend that NPOs should be more willing to dis-
close information (particularly that which is already available) and valuable to both
external users and the organization itself. Future research might investigate the frame-
work identified in this study in other contexts to consider its application, variation in
use, and potential for refinement. Although progress in NPOs’ public reporting prac-
tices has been slow, this issue continues to gain attention, and ongoing studies in this
area represent an important platform for change in disclosure and momentum.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This study was funded through the new staff grant provided by
the University of Newcastle.

ORCID iDs
Vien Chu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2404-8223
Belinda Luke https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3077-662X
102 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

Note
1. The other finalists were not included as they were government organizations, joint projects
implemented by a group of organizations, or not registered with ACNC, and thus did not
have comparable information available.

References
AbouAssi, K., & Trent, D. L. (2016). NGO accountability from an NGO perspective: Perceptions,
strategies, and practices. Public Administration and Development, 36(4), 283–296. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pad.1764
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. (2020). The annual information state-
ment. https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/annual-information-statement
Anderson, K. (2009). What NGO accountability means: And does not mean. The American
Journal of International Law, 103(1), 170–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20456745
Andrews, A. (2014). Downward accountability in unequal alliances: Explaining NGO
responses to Zapatista demands. World Development, 54, 99–113. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.07.009
Atack, I. (1999). Four criteria of development NGO legitimacy. World Development, 27(5),
855–864. https://doi.org/S0305-750X(99)00033-9
Baur, D., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 579–604.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I. (2007). Theorizing engagement: The
potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
20(3), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748544
Benjamin, L. M. (2013). The potential of outcome measurement for strengthening nonprof-
its’ accountability to beneficiaries. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6),
1224–1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012454684
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European
Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Brouard, F., & Glass, J. (2017). Understanding Information Exchanges and Reporting by
Grantmaking Foundations. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy
Research, 8(2), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjnser.2017v8n2a251
Brown, L. D., & Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international nongovern-
mental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 569–587. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0899764001303012
Burger, R., & Owens, T. (2010). Promoting transparency in the NGO sector: Examining the
availability and reliability of self-reported data. World Development, 38(9), 1263–1277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.12.018
Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2013). Charity accountability in the UK: Through the eyes of the
donor. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10(3/4), 259–278. https://doi.
org/10.1108/QRAM-02-2013-0006
Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2017). The donor–beneficiary charity accountability paradox: A
tale of two stakeholders. Public Money & Management, 37(3), 157–164. https://doi.org/10
.1080/09540962.2017.1281629
Costa, E., & Goulart da Silva, G. (2019). Nonprofit accountability: The viewpoint of the pri-
mary stakeholders. Financial Accountability & Management, 35(1), 37–54. https://doi.
org/10.1111/faam.12181
Chu and Luke 103

Dash, A. (2012). Social innovations and institutional challenges in microfinance. In H.-W.

Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.), Challenge social innovation (pp. 197–213).
Springer-Verlag.
Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2012). Discharging not-for-profit accountability: UK charities
and public discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(7), 1140–1169.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259247
Dillard, J., & Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based
accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
62, 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.10.003
Dumont, G. E. (2013). Nonprofit virtual accountability: An index and its application. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(5), 1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640
13481285
Durden, C. (2008). Towards a socially responsible management control system. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(5), 671–694. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0951
3570810872969
Ebrahim, A. (2003). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development,
31(5), 813–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7
Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976
4004269430
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and
scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118–141.
Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1996). Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on non-
governmental organizations. World Development, 24(6), 961–973. https://doi.org/S0305-
750X(96)00019-8
Eimhjellen, I., Wollebæk, D., & Strømsnes, K. (2014). Associations online: Barriers for using
web-based communication in voluntary associations. Voluntas: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(3), 730–753. http://ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/
login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.436
54954&site=eds-live
Gamble, E. N., & Beer, H. A. (2017). Spiritually informed not-for-profit performance measure-
ment. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(3), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-
2682-5
Gandia, J. L. (2011). Internet disclosure by Nonprofit Organizations: Empirical evidence of
Nongovernmental Organizations for development in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 40(1), 57–78. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/npvolsq40&i=53
Guo, C., & Musso, J. A. (2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A
conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 308–326.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research,
30(3), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x
Lee, R. L., & Joseph, R. C. (2013). An examination of web disclosure and organizational trans-
parency. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 29, 2929, 2218–2224.
Lister, S. (2003). NGO legitimacy. Critique of Anthropology, 23(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/1
0.1177/0308275x03023002004
Najam, A. (1996). NGO accountabiIity: A conceptual framework. Development Policy Review,
14(4), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.1996.tb00112.x
Nazuk, A., & Shabbir, J. (2018). A new disclosure index for Non-Governmental Organizations.
PLoS One, 13(2):e0191337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191337
104 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 52(1)

Nicholls, A. (2009). “We do good things, don’t we?” “Blended Value Accounting” in social
entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 755–769. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.008
O’Dwyer, B., & Boomsma, R. (2015). The co-construction of NGO accountability: Aligning
imposed and felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability relationships. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(1), 36–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-
1488
O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). From functional to social accountability. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 446–471. http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/
login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/211247926?accountid=13380
O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2010). Enhancing the role of accountability in promoting the
rights of beneficiaries of development NGOs. Accounting and Business Research, 40(5),
451–471.
O’Leary, S. (2017). Grassroots accountability promises in rights-based approaches to devel-
opment: The role of transformative monitoring and evaluation in NGOs. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 63, 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2016.06.002
Ossewaarde, R., Nijhof, A., & Heyse, L. (2008). Dynamics of NGO legitimacy: How organising
betrays core missions of INGOs. Public Administration and Development, 28(1), 42–53.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.472
Roberts, J. (1991). The possibilities of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
16(4), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90027-C
Saj, P. (2013). Managing multiple accountabilities: Balancing outputs, inputs and behaviours to
implement strategy in a large Australian charity. Third Sector Review, 19(2), 51–78. http://
search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=855367734128144;res=IELAPA
Saxton, G. D., & Guo, C. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based account-
ability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
40(2), 270–295. https://doi.org/10.1 177/0899764009341086
SIMNA. (2019). 2019 Winners. https://simna.com.au/2019-winners/
Slatten, L. A. D., Guidry Hollier, B. N., Stevens, D. P., Austin, W., & Carson, P. P. (2016).
Web-based accountability in the nonprofit sector: A closer look at arts, culture, and human-
ities organizations. Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society, 46(5), 213–230. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2016.1211048
Uddina, M. M., & Belal, A. R. (2018). Donors’ influence strategies and beneficiary accountabil-
ity: An NGO case study. Accounting Forum, 12. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2018.11.002
van Zyl, H., & Claeyé, F. (2019). Up and down, and inside out: Where do we stand on NGO
accountability? European Journal of Development Research, 31, 604–619. https://doi.
org/10.1057/s41287-018-0170-3
Waters, R. D. (2007). Nonprofit Organizations’ use of the Internet—A content Analysis of com-
munication trends on the Internet sites of the philanthropy 400. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 8(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.171
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social
networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review,
35(2), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006
Waweru, N., & Spraakman, G. (2012). The use of performance measures: Case studies from the
microfinance sector in Kenya. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(1),
44–65.
Chu and Luke 105

Yang, C., & Northcott, D. (2019). Together we measure: Improving public service outcomes
via the co-production of performance measurement. Public Money & Management, 39(4),
253–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1592906

Author Biographies
Vien Chu is a lecturer in accounting at the Business School of the University of Newcastle. Her
research interests include accountability of the third sector, social enterprises, and microenter-
prise development for sustainable poverty alleviation.
Belinda Luke is an associate professor in the School of Accountancy, Queensland University
of Technology. Her research interests include accounting and accountability in third sector
organizations.