ISSN: 2225-8329
Open access
Purpose: This study aims to explore how the performance measurement practice aligns multiple accountability relationships within the Shanghai Charity Foundation (SCF). Design/methodology/approach: This study follows a qualitative single case study drawing on institutional work (IW) theory. The data sources of this study were obtained through conducting about 60 hours of semi-structured interviews with 24 stakeholders. Findings: The performance measurement practice in SCF presents a strategy-oriented pyramid model and often brings about accountability mismatches between accountability demands and supply during its transition from a policy executor to an institutional co-creator. This study suggests that data empowerment is the direction of future efforts to achieve a new type of accountability alignment, through proactively managing and meeting potential accountability expectations to guide and shape accountability demands, and achieve a new, higher level of alignment. Practical implications: Accountability alignment is a dynamic process shaped by different groups of actors through continuous and intertwined IW. Managers can consciously and strategically utilize creation and maintenance work to educate, steer, and align internal and external actors. Disruptive work can be reframed as valuable diagnostic mechanisms, offering critical insights to foster systemic evolution and adaptation. Originality/value: This study makes an original contribution by exploring the links between performance measurement practice and accountability relationship from an NPO perspective using an IW approach, and the first-hand interview data of this study lead to novel conclusions.
Agostino, D., & Thomasson, A. (2024). NPOs and private governance forms for football clubs: Towards a blended model. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 37(2), 672–681. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2022-5873
Anheier, H. K., & Toepler, S. (2022). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429299681
Baek, Y. M., Ihm, J., & Kang, C. H. (2023). Does mission concreteness make a difference in nonprofit performance? Automated text analysis approach to the importance of concrete mission statements. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 34(2), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21570
Boateng, A., Akamavi, R. K., & Ndoro, G. (2016). Measuring performance of non?profit organisations: Evidence from large charities. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12108
Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (Eds.). (2016). The oxford handbook of public accountability (First published in paperback). Oxford University Press.
Busuioc, M., & Lodge, M. (2017). Reputation and accountability relationships: Managing accountability expectations through reputation. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12612
Canning, M., & O’Dwyer, B. (2016). Institutional work and regulatory change in the accounting profession. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 54, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2016.08.001
Chaudhuri, B., & Nielsen, A. (2017). Social innovation as a trigger for transformations—The role of research. European Commission.
Conaty, F., & Robbins, G. (2021). A stakeholder salience perspective on performance and management control systems in non-profit organisations. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 80, 102052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.07.001
Cordery, C. J., Goncharenko, G., Polzer, T., McConville, D., & Belal, A. (2023). NGOs’ performance, governance, and accountability in the era of digital transformation. The British Accounting Review, 55(5), 101239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2023.101239
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (Vol. 16). Sage publications. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1524839915580941
Cuckston, T. (2022). Accounts of NGO performance as calculative spaces: Wild animals, wildlife restoration and strategic agency. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 84, 102374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2021.102374
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/10.1177/0899764004269430
Ebrahim, A. (2016). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz & R. D. Herman (Eds.), TheJossey-BassHandbookofNonprofitLeadershipandManagement (pp. 102–123). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119176558.ch4
Ebrahim, A. (2019). Measuring social change: Performance and accountability in a complex world. Stanford University Press.
Empson, L., Cleaver, I., & Allen, J. (2013). Managing partners and management professionals: Institutional work dyads in professional partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 808–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12025
Fernandes, C. I., & Veiga, P. M. (2022). The impact of innovation management on the performance of NPOs: Applying the Tidd and Bessant model (2009). Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 32(4), 577–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21501
Finley, A. R., Hall, C., Harris, E., & Lusch, S. J. (2021). The effect of large corporate donors on non-profit performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 172(3), 463–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04516-2
Flick, U. (2022) An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Flinders, M. (2014). The future and relevance of accountability studies. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability, edited by M. Bovens, T. Schillemans, and R. E. Goodin, 1 ed., 661–672. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0004.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.195
Kingston, K. L., Furneaux, C., De Zwaan, L., & Alderman, L. (2019). From monologic to dialogic: Accountability of nonprofit organisations on beneficiaries’ terms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(2), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2019-3847
Lawrence, T. B., Leca, B., & Zilber, T. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613495305
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. Nord, The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies (pp. 215–254). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222
Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-9204-6
Macedo, I. M., Pinho, J. C., & Silva, A. M. (2016). Revisiting the link between mission statements and organizational performance in the non-profit sector: The mediating effect of organizational commitment. European Management Journal, 34(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.10.003
Mai, K. T., & Hoque, Z. (2024). Democratizing accounting technologies: A case of a performance evaluation system for academics. Financial Accountability & Management, 40(2), 196–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12377
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2014). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive approach. sage.
Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), 918–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.07.003
Moxham, C. (2014). Understanding third sector performance measurement system design: A literature review. The International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(6), 704–726. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2013-0143
Newton, A. N. (2015). Executive compensation, organizational performance, and governance quality in the absence of owners. Journal of Corporate Finance, 30, 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2014.12.016
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
Overman, S. (2021). Aligning accountability arrangements for ambiguous goals: The case of museums. Public Management Review, 23(8), 1139–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1722210
Rana, T., & Cordery, C. J. (2024). Digitalization as a form of marketization: The performativity of calculative practices in framing and overflowing NGO performance and accountability. The British Accounting Review, 56(1), 101176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2023.101176
Schillemans, T., Overman, S., Fawcett, P., Flinders, M., Fredriksson, M., Laegreid, P., Maggetti, M., Papadopoulos, Y., Rubecksen, K., Rykkja, L. H., Salomonsen, H. H., Smullen, A., & Wood, M. (2021). Understanding felt accountability: The institutional antecedents of the felt accountability of agency?CEO’s to central government. Governance, 34(3), 893–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12547
Silverman, D. (2024). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.
Yang, C., & Northcott, D. (2019). How can the public trust charities? The role of performance accountability reporting. Accounting and Finance, 59(3), 1681–1707. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12475
Li, H., & Azhar, Z. (2026). Performance Measurement Practice and Accountability Relationship in a Non-Profit Organization: An Institutional Work Approach. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 16(1), 466-481.
Copyright: © 2026 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode