Public trust and confidence in charities is essential for the achievement of their missions. However, recent evidence suggests that trust in UK charities has been damaged, potentially affecting charities' and the charity sector's sustainability and effectiveness. This paper constructs accountability as an important means of developing, maintaining and restoring trust in charities. Through a series of interviews with charity managers, it investigates the public and private mechanisms used in discharging accountability to, and building trust with, charities' main stakeholder groups. The paper identifies the use of a wide range of mechanisms, often highly tailored to particular stakeholders' perceived information needs, which are seen as critical in this process. It is argued that the use and interplay of these can create a 'virtuous circle' of accountability and trust, where each reinforces the other. It is argued that where this is achieved, trust in individual charities, and the sector as a whole, can be enhanced.

No abstract

Effectiveness in achieving mission is fundamental to evaluating charity performance, and is of central concern to stakeholders who fund, regulate and otherwise engage with such organisations. Exploring the meaning of transparency in the context of stakeholder engagement, and utilising previous research and authoritative sector discussion, this paper develops a novel framework of transparent, stakeholder‐focussed effectiveness reporting. It is contended that such reporting can assist the charity sector in discharging accountability, gaining legitimacy and in sharpening mission‐centred managerial decision making. Then applying this to UK charities’ publicly available communications, it highlights significant challenges and weaknesses in current effectiveness reporting.

Internationally, there are strong calls for charities' formal annual reporting to include nonfinancial performance information. Without the international standards common in other sectors, national accounting standard-setters often regulate charities' reporting. Lacking evidence on approaches to encouraging/ mandating charity performance reporting, and the effectiveness of these approaches, we ask: "How have different jurisdictions responded to calls for increasing performance reporting?"We conduct a benchmarking study that indicates differences in current reporting practices between Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. By discussing both current regimes and proposed projects, we develop and illustrate a typology of regulatory approaches to performance reporting. These range from command and control, where standard-setters mandate specific performance reporting standards, through to market regulation, where charities and/or sector bodies acting as regulatory entrepreneurs determine what is to be reported. Between these extremes, the typology describes new governance approaches, with standard-setters partnering and collaborating with other actors. These approaches lead to different requirements with potentially significant implications for performance accountability in the respective jurisdictions. We argue that our regulatory typology contributes useful insights for the many jurisdictions grappling with how to regulate their charity sector and encourage performance reporting.

No abstract