Accountability Theory in Nonprofit Research: Using Governance Theories to Categorize Dichotomies

Abstract

Nonprofit accountability research has garnered much attention in recent years, greatly expanding our understanding of the field. Yet, this focus has resulted in a complex and oftentimes fragmented body of research, which has made it difficult to navigate and effectively study nonprofit accountability. To address this concern, this article uses characteristics of accountability and articulates the dynamic interaction between the various accountability dichotomies found in the literature through a theory-based typology. In summary, this article argues that a narrow conception of accountability, focused on resource dependence, public interest and agency theories, can be seen as a functional process (“how”) to meet the imposed requirements (“for what”) of upward principals (“to whom”). In contrast, a broad conception of accountability, focused on stewardship, democratic, and stakeholder theories, can be seen as a strategic process (“how”) to provide information that is based on felt responsibility (“for what”) to downward stakeholders (“to whom”).

Appendix

Accountability definitions

Author (year)	Accountability definitions
Mason (1992)	“willingness to accept responsibility for decisions and their consequences” (p. 24)
Chisolm (1995)	“an obligation to meet prescribed standards of behavior or an obligation to disclose information about one’s actions even in the absence of a prescribed standard of behavior” (p. 141) (definition in reference to “legal accountability”)
Lawry (1995)	“is ‘answerability’, the giving of a justification or explanation” (p. 175)
Edwards and Hulme (1996)	“the means by which individuals and organizations report to a recognized authority (or authorities) and are held responsible for their actions” (p. 967)
Gray et al. (1997)	“the duty to provide an account of the actions for which one is held responsible” (p. 334)
Fox and Brown (1998)	“the process of holding actors responsible for actions” (p. 12)
Young (2002)	“the process of holding an organization responsible for its behavior and performance” (p. 3)
Ebrahim (2003a)	“it may be defined not only as a means through which individuals and organizations are held responsible for their actions (e.g., through legal obligations and explicit reporting and disclosure requirements), but also as a means by which organizations and individuals take internal responsibility for shaping their organizational mission and values, for opening themselves to public or external scrutiny, and for assessing performance in relation to goals” (p. 815)
Ebrahim (2003b)	“the means through which individuals and organizations are held externally to account for their actions and as the means by which they take internal responsibility for continuously shaping and scrutinizing organizational mission, goals, and performance” (p. 194)
Flack and Ryan (2005)	“being responsible to stakeholders who are external to the organisation for the results of the organisation” (p. 71)
Christensen and Ebrahim (2006)	“being answerable to stakeholders for the actions of the organization, whether by internal or external initiation” (p. 196)
Gray et al. (2006)	“accountability is, definitionally, about the rights of society (or groups/stakeholders within society) and relates to the rights that emerge from the relationship between the accountable organisation (the accountor) and the accountee” (p. 334)
Unerman and O’Dwyer (2006)	“accountability can be broadly conceived of as a relational issue — being answerable to and held responsible by others, or as an identity issue — being answerable to ideals or missions and one’s own sense of responsibility” (p. 353)
Costa et al. (2011)	“a promise to perform and a moral or legal responsibility to provide an account of it” (p. 475)
Dhanani and Connolly (2012)	“holding one (an organization or individual) to account for their actions; giving (voluntarily) an account of one’s actions; and taking responsibility for one’s actions” (p. 1142)
Murtaza (2012)	“the right to be involved in all phases and levels of the performance management cycle of an entity” (p. 112)
Andrews (2014)	“the measure of who can call whom to account and who owes a duty of explanation and rectification” (p. 100)
O’Dwyer and Boomsma (2015)	“the means through which organisations and individuals voluntarily take responsibility for shaping organisational mission and values and for opening themselves up to scrutiny” (p. 41)
Deloffre (2016)	“a process by which individuals or institutions answer for their actions and the consequences that follow from them” (p. 726)
Tacon et al. (2017)	“the way in which an organization is held to account for its actions” (p. 687)
Connolly et al. (2018)	“the requirement to be answerable for one’s conduct and responsibilities” (p. 129)