Suchergebnisse

Although legitimacy is critical when attempting to introduce new practices in the nonprofit charity sector, little is known about individual processes of legitimation within such organizations, and how legitimacy emerges and interacts with perceived external pressures. This article investigates how charity organizational actors (using rhetorical arguments) linguistically legitimate/delegitimate new practices as a means of facilitating internal and external legitimacy. The study explores, as an example of organizational change in its early stages, newly-introduced accountability and reporting practices emanating from the current Charity Statement of Recommended Practice in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. The findings show that external regulative and cognitive pressures can be assessed and legitimated as something rational and reasonable in cases where organizational actors perceive the change as "exploitable." Moreover, they provide evidence of how different interpretations can foster implementation and action (or trigger inaction) and affect the introduction of business-like practices in the nonprofit sector.

This Special Issue is based on papers initially presented at the 'Accounting for the Public Sector at a Time of Crisis' Conference at the Centre for Not-for-profit and Public-sector Research, Queen's University Belfast, UK in 2018. The public sector consists of organisations that are owned and operated by government; organisations that exist to provide goods and services for a country's citizens. What is particularly distinctive about such organisations, and what makes them different from businesses, is that they are (or, at least perhaps, should be) notfor-profit. In addition, they frequently have wide social and cultural goals that are central to what they do. They are pervasive in most societies. Yet, it is argued, they face crisis on a number of fronts: in terms of the influence of potentially-inappropriate, business-like New Public Management ideas related to performance management and the embracing of related accounting and budgeting approaches; and in terms of the impact of austerity, following the Great Recession in 2008. In such a context it is suggested that public-sector governance, accounting and accountability systems are heavily involved. The papers included in this Special Issue present an opportunity to reflect on aspects of this crisis in terms of how it connects with accounting systems and accounting changes. Key arguments of these papers, and overarching themes of this Special Issue, are explored in this editorial.

Organisational voice processes are crucial during change. These will affect actors' individual understanding of change and the way in which change is perceived and legitimated generally. Looking at accounting changes at two government levels (Westminster and Scotland), this paper explores relationships between organisational voice processes during change (exploring these in terms of horizontal/vertical and promotive/prohibitive dimensions) and legitimation strategies subsequently used by the actors involved. In Westminster, where promotive vertical voicing was particularly identifiable, interviewees predominantly legitimated change through rationalisation strategies. In Scotland, where prohibitive, horizontal voice processes were more evident, authorisation strategies tended to prevail. However, regardless of the content and direction of voice, ultimately, the vast majority of key accounting changes in both Westminster and Scotland were supported (legitimated) by actors.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to focus on strategies and "spoken discourses" used to construct legitimation around change at the individual level. Comparing changes in financial accounting, budgeting and performance management at two government levels (Westminster and Scotland), it explores the use of legitimation strategies in the implementation of accounting change and its perceived outcomes. Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on semi-structured interviews, six legitimation/delegitimation strategies are used to code the transcribed data. Patterns with the perceived outcomes of change are explored. Findings: Changes introduced to enhance "rational" decision making are often received as pushed by some source of authority. Regardless of the interviewees' background and level, the results suggest that for radical accounting change to embed, it is necessary for it to be perceived as rational, rather than merely driven by authorisation-based pressures. Conversely, incremental change is associated with modest legitimation via rationalisation and delegitimation based on pathos and rationalisation. Research limitations/implications: The study deals with actors' legitimation strategies and perceptions of change. These may not correspond to actual substantial change. Taken-for-granted ideas often remain "under the radar", therefore care must be taken in interpreting the results. The focus of the empirical study is on the UK, therefore conclusions are restricted to this context. Originality/value: Existing studies struggle to explain organisations' heterogeneity and practice variation; this study sheds light on how individual legitimation, which may lead to different organisational results, occurs. Differences in how actors interpret changes may be based on their position (central vs devolved administration) and on their ownership of the changes.

This special issue is based on a selection of papers initially presented at the conference on 'Public Services and Charities: Accounting, Accountability and Governance at a Time of Change' (Centre for Not-for-profit and Public-sector Research, Queen's University Belfast, January 2017). 'Public services and charities' is a distinctive grouping that includes organisations that are not-for-profit and often have wide social and cultural goals that drive mission and actions. These organisations operate in a very fluid environment. Expectations of the public at large and of government are changing; economic pressures bear down on them particularly acutely; performance metrics and a push for marketisation reflect a spirit of the age; 'business practices' are frequently afforded a reputation of being 'good' and applicable in all settings; while news reporting and social media often amplify any perceived shortcomings. The papers included in this special issue present an opportunity to reflect on some of the key changes taking place with respect to accounting, accountability and governance in this setting. Such opportunities to reflect can support evaluation of the stated objectives of implemented and proposed changes, and also help to inform policy making within government and elsewhere. Key arguments made in these papers, and the overarching themes of this special issue, are explored in this editorial.

In recent difficult economic times, the efficiency with which a charity spends the funds entrusted to it has become an increasingly important aspect of charitable performance. Transparency on efficiency, including the reporting of relevant measures and information to understand, contextualize, and evaluate such measures, is suggested as important to a range of stakeholders. However, using a novel framework for the analysis of efficiency reporting in the context of transparency and stakeholder theory, this research provides evidence that reporting on efficiency in U.K. charities lacks transparency, both in terms of the extent and manner of disclosure. It is argued that efficiency reporting in U.K. charities is more concerned with legitimizing these organizations rather than providing ethically driven accounts of their efficiency.