No abstract

The accountability of international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) has come under closer public and academic scrutiny. Critics call for a more comprehensive approach to accountability—one that addresses a wider set of stakeholders, and beneficiaries in particular. There is an increase in empirical evidence suggesting that comprehensive accountability has positive implications for the organizational performance. This article develops a framework for comprehensive INGO accountability and tests its implications on program effectiveness. The framework describes three accountability meta-logics: the resource logic, outcome assessment logic, and discursive logic. Applying partial least squares structural equation modeling, the impact of these meta-logics on perceived program effectiveness as well as their drivers is tested. The analysis is based on a unique data set from an international survey among 201 INGO leaders from 21 countries. The findings suggest that comprehensive accountability indeed strengthens the perceived program effectiveness. The study emphasizes the managerial argument that implementing comprehensive accountability, not only is the “right thing” to do, but also has the strategic advantage of strengthening perceived mission achievement.

International non‐governmental organizations (INGOs) operate in competitive funding markets and face political pressures, which can incentivize their leaders to compromise their mission‐oriented strategy for more resource security. This article empirically investigates whether INGO leaders perceive peer regulation as an effective governance mechanism that allows them to strengthen their mission‐oriented strategy to withstand these economic and political constraints. In particular, we assess whether peer regulation is perceived to promote organizational learning processes. We test a partial least squares structural equation model (PLS‐SEM) based on a unique data set from an international survey among 201 INGO leaders from 21 countries. Our findings suggest that INGO leaders indeed perceive that peer regulation strengthens their mission orientation, despite the economic competition and political opportunity constraints their organization faces. This effect is partially mediated by organizational learning processes. Our findings are based on a constructivist perspective that emphasizes the learneffect of peer regulation on INGOs' strategic orientation, and allows the derivation of several managerial recommendations to foster INGOs' strategic autonomy.

This study empirically assesses the impact of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) on multi-actor global governance initiatives. Multi-actor global governance initiatives have emerged to strengthen joint action among different societal actors to tackle transnational social and environmental issues. While such initiatives have received a great deal of academic attention, previous research has primarily focused on businesses’ perspectives. In light of the important role of NPOs within such initiatives, critically addressing NPOs’ role by assessing their impact on the effectiveness of such initiatives is crucial. This article builds on the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC)—the largest multi-actor global governance initiative in the world—and offers a panel analysis on a unique dataset including 820 NPOs from 68 different countries. The findings suggest that NPOs have indeed strengthened the UNGC over time, yet their engagement explains only a small fraction of differences in UNGC activity across countries. This study contributes to the emerging research on nonprofits’ social responsibility by fostering the actorhood thesis, which places higher responsibility for the impact and requirements for accountability on NPOs. Furthermore, the study supports discussions about the increasing political role of NPOs by providing the first empirical evidence for their political leadership and impact in multi-actor global governance initiatives.

No abstract