Charity performance reporting, regulatory approaches and standard-setting

Danielle McConville, Carolyn Cordery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

nternationally, there are strong calls for charities’ formal annual reporting to include non-financial 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.
LanguageEnglish
Pages300-314
JournalJournal of Accounting and Public Policy
Volume37
Issue number4
Early online date19 Jul 2018
DOIs
Publication statusEarly online date - 19 Jul 2018

Fingerprint

performance
jurisdiction
typology
Charity
benchmarking
entrepreneur
New Zealand
regime
governance
regulation
responsibility
market
Jurisdiction
evidence

Cite this

@article{5982ccc2464048489b95dfb95f809e27,
title = "Charity performance reporting, regulatory approaches and standard-setting",
abstract = "nternationally, there are strong calls for charities’ formal annual reporting to include non-financial 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.",
author = "Danielle McConville and Carolyn Cordery",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.07.004",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "300--314",
journal = "Journal of Accounting and Public Policy",
issn = "0278-4254",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

Charity performance reporting, regulatory approaches and standard-setting. / McConville, Danielle; Cordery, Carolyn.

In: Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 37, No. 4, 19.07.2018, p. 300-314.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Charity performance reporting, regulatory approaches and standard-setting

AU - McConville, Danielle

AU - Cordery, Carolyn

PY - 2018/7/19

Y1 - 2018/7/19

N2 - nternationally, there are strong calls for charities’ formal annual reporting to include non-financial 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.

AB - nternationally, there are strong calls for charities’ formal annual reporting to include non-financial 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.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.07.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2018.07.004

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 300

EP - 314

JO - Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

T2 - Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

JF - Journal of Accounting and Public Policy

SN - 0278-4254

IS - 4

ER -