Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Uptake of sustainability reporting adoption by non-governmental

organisations: An agenda for policy and practice
Ikenna Elias Asogwa
Business School, Sheridan Institute of Higher Education, Perth, WA, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Tomas B. Ramos Accountability pressures on Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) led by increased demand for transparency
have placed considerable emphasis on sustainability reporting (SR) in NGOs as change agents. Yet, literature
Keywords: rarely examined its adoption by the third sector, especially from a developing country context. This research
Accountability underscores the uptake of SR adoption in NGOs. It unpacks the influence of SR adoption and its challenges in a
Adoption
developing country. The paper draws on analysis of evidence gathered from four case studies and finds that
NGOs
central to the adoption of SR is the need to attract donations rather than the need to demonstrate impact through
Organisations
Sustainability reporting efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in the use of donations. Stakeholder pressure, legitimacy, donor
dependence, accountability, and media exposure were found to be major drivers of SR. Interestingly, this
research reveals that culture, religion, lack of assurance, and unsupportive government policy are among the
challenges of SR adoption. This research contributes to theory and practice by developing a framework that
contextualises the mechanism of SR adoption and supports policy formulation as well as sustainable development
agendas.

1. Introduction
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) play an important role,
directly or indirectly, in the development of communities (Agyemang
et al., 2020; Kuruppu and Lodhia, 2020; Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2010).
These roles are more pronounced and conspicuous in developing nations
where members of the society engage in self-motivated (community)
projects on the realisation that contemporary government may not be
able to cater to the needs of its people, especially the vulnerable mem­
bers of the society (Agyemang et al., 2020; Asogwa et al., 2022; God­
dard, 2020). Globally, NGOs are renowned for their efforts in protecting,
promoting and advancing the cause of humanity in the form of aid de­
livery to the vulnerable community (Agyemang et al., 2019). Fifka et al.
(2016) point out that NGOs act as an institutional force, oriented to­
wards sustainable development mostly in areas where the government is
not meeting its obligations to the people. NGOs participate actively in
policy formation (Munoz Marquez, 2015) and play a significant role in
both national and global politics, especially as regards socio-economic
and environmental impacts of organisations (Appe and Barragán,
2017; O’Dwyer and Boomsma, 2015). By definition, the term NGO refers
to a “non-profit, voluntary citizens” group that is organised on a local,
national or international level, aimed at “relieving suffering, promoting
the interest of the poor, protecting the environment, providing basic
social services, community development” (World Bank, 1995, p.13), and
policy formulation. This definition is broad and all-encompassing. Ac­
cording to Asogwa et al. (2022), NGOs represent important actors for
entrenching positive socio-economic needs of the society and are
generally perceived as the third force that represents the interest of the
neglected members of the society in Nigeria. Recent literature has shown
that one major way NGOs can inform policy and provide information is
through sustainability reporting (Asogwa et al., 2021, p.20; Cordery
et al., 2019, p.7; Crespy and Miller, 2011). In this sense, NGOs’
perspective on sustainability reporting (SR) can help develop recom­
mendations on how they can more effectively play their role as pro­
moters of sustainability (Fifka et al., 2016). SR facilitates the role of
NGOs in advancing the socio-economic development of nations. For
instance, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2021) indicates that SR
helps NGOs manage their multi-stakeholder relationship and fosters a
move towards a sustainable, independent and resilient society (Asogwa
et al., 2022). As NGOs continue to expand its operation to meet the
needs of the vulnerable population (Dissanayake et al., 2021), the
pressure to adopt SR practice is heightened by the introduction of the
Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, generally adopted by the
United Nations member states (Tilt et al., 2021).

E-mail address: iasogwa@sheridan.edu.au.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135842
Received 30 May 2022; Received in revised form 23 December 2022; Accepted 31 December 2022
Available online 12 January 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.E. Asogwa
While there are several studies on sustainability as a whole, espe­
cially in developing countries (Fifka et al., 2016) such as those in Asia (Li
et al., 2010), SR by NGOs has not gained adequate attention in research
(Hahn and Kuhnen, 2013; Oliveira Neto et al., 2018). This is especially
so in Africa, despite serving as an instrument for social change and
having a huge impact (both direct and indirect) on the society and the
environment at large (Goddard, 2020). Except for South Africa, which
has a well-developed SR practice (Wachira et al., 2020), Africa lags far
behind in sustainability practices (Asogwa et al., 2021). Additionally,
social and environmental problems are peculiar in Sub-Saharan Africa
(such as Nigeria), yet, there is a lack of research focus on SR in the region
(Tilt et al., 2021, p.268). Nigeria is also vulnerable to the consequences
of global environmental problems such as climate change. It is evident
that NGOs play a significant role in addressing these concerns as well as
establishing good corporate practices by actively participating in the
advancement of equality, workplace inclusion, and political and
socio-economic emancipation of Africa (Agyemang et al., 2020; God­
dard, 2020). This role is even more pronounced in Nigeria given its di­
versity and cosmopolitan nature as well as its vast and complex
multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious population. Nigeria
has its own social, economic, political and environmental issues; how­
ever, few studies have examined SR in Nigeria and in sub-Saharan Africa
as a whole (Agyemang et al., 2020; Tilt et al., 2021). Additionally,
Nigeria is important for this study not just because it presents a dynamic
developing country context as well as representing the most populous
African nation requiring aid, but because of the weak institutional and
regulatory frameworks that characterise its systems (Asogwa et al.,
2022; Denedo et al., 2017). This is coupled with the suppressive attitude
of the state agents towards perceived watchdogs as revealed by the
present study.
While research has focused on what organisations such as NGOs were
doing with SR disclosures (Deegan, 2019; Unerman and O’Dwyer,
2006), it is equally important to understand, the mechanisms for the
adoption, the factors that influence the adoption, and the related chal­
lenges. This will subsequently help NGOs, particularly in developing
countries, understand the need for institutionalising the process and be
able to communicate the related information that users need as sug­
gested by Deegan (2019). Based on this, the purpose of this research is to
examine the uptake of SR adoption in NGOs. Since this is exploratory,
the research specifically seeks to understand the mechanisms by which
SR is adopted in NGOs, the factors that influence SR adoption in NGOs
and the challenges. In this sense, the following research questions (RQ)
were posed.
RQ1: What are the mechanisms by which SR is adopted in NGOs?
RQ2: What are the factors that drive SR adoption in NGOs?
RQ3: What are the barriers to SR adoption in NGOs?
This is in response to the call in literature by Asogwa et al. (2021),
Farooq and de Villiers (2019) and in line with the recommendation of
Dissanayake et al. (2021, p.477) for a study on SR adoption in devel­
oping countries; to incentivise private sectors to better align with local
and national development agendas by integrating SR with other
organisational practices. This research reveals that through SR, NGOs
can show more commitment to ethical and responsible behaviours as
well as advance organisational legitimacy. The rest of the article is
structured in five parts. First, it presents the introduction, followed by
the literature review, methodology, the results and discussion section,
and lastly the conclusion.
2. Literature review
The buzzword “sustainability” stems from the management of
forestry in the eighteenth century, mainly as a European concept (Fifka
et al., 2016, p.1097). Sustainability, corporate governance, or more
contextually, corporate social responsibility (CSR) share some
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
similarities and differences which are often neglected in literature (Hahn
and Kuhnen, 2013). CSR, on the other hand, evolved in the middle of the
twentieth century (Fifka et al., 2016) as a response to corporate gover­
nance mechanisms. Sustainability has a broad environmental focus
because of its origin in environmental management (Starik and Rands,
1995). Sustainability has a contested notion, scope and application with
a strong positive resonance (McNamara, 2017; Norton, 2005) with so­
cial and cultural dimensions (Axelsson et al., 2013). Sustainability is
aimed at improving the quality of life as humanity continues to contend
with uncommon changes in economic stability, social justice and envi­
ronmental integrity globally (Norton, 2005; Shaker, 2015). However,
regardless of the traction and increasing popularity of sustainability in
research, a number of organisations are still unsure about its adoption
(Farooq and de Villiers, 2019) and how it can be undertaken as well as
how it can be reported (Dissanayake et al., 2021).
SR is a mechanism designed to respond to sustainable development
goals, aimed at demonstrating accountability, assessment, outcome,
governance and impact, and improving the overall quality of life
(Asogwa et al., 2021, p. 13), oriented towards the environment, society,
and the economy as shown later in this study. SR adoption refers to the
entrenchment of SR practices within an organisation. In line with Farooq
and de Villiers (2019), SR is an accounting technology that assists or­
ganisations in embedding and routinising sustainability within them­
selves. SR involves a voluntary disclosure of information on economic,
social and environmental issues (Sukhari and de Villiers, 2019). A pre­
dominant issue in NGOs most recently has been the issue of “rendering
account”, including the need to show more transparency in NGOs’
economic, social, environmental, and developmental performance
(Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2010; O’Dwyer and Boomsma, 2015). This
trend is further exacerbated by publicised scandals, mission drift, in­
formation and power asymmetry as well as the passage of several new
management reforms (Conway et al., 2015) by stakeholders. According
to Cordery et al. (2019), six “contextual factors” will need to be
considered to effectively evaluate NGO reporting and accountability
practices. The factors are financing, regulatory requirement, gover­
nance, social purpose, type of activity and stakeholder groups. This will
not be dwelt on extensively, since it falls outside the scope of this paper,
but it is important to provide an overview. Each NGO is unique in its
practices (as shown later in this article) and this shapes and character­
ises not only its accounting practices but also its reporting on sustain­
ability. This characteristic, however, impacts the examination of NGO
accountability practices (Cordery et al., 2019). The six factors are
interconnected and create more purposeful accountability demands that
NGOs are expected to respond to through their social accountability
practices. The demands include externally driven regulatory compli­
ance, adequate stakeholder engagement practices, evidence of service
delivery, and a well-structured organisational management and gover­
nance (Cordery et al., 2019) that adds value to sustainability accounting
practices.
SR involves the process of providing information about the perfor­
mance of an organisation in its social, environmental, economic, and
developmental interactions with the community (Klemes, 2015; O’Dw­
yer and Unerman, 2020). This includes an account of service delivery
and impact and suggests a commitment to the community by ensuring
good health and safety, training, capacity building, and education as
well as environmental sustainability, and general development. SR itself
is a published statement by an organisation about the economic, social,
environmental, and developmental impacts of its daily activity (Traxler
et al., 2018). It offers organisations the opportunity to communicate
their values, governance, and impact, and showcase their strategies and
commitments towards a sustainable global economy (GRI, 2017; Mi and
Coffman, 2019; GRI, 2021). This is further demonstrated in the evolu­
tion of SR and its influence in fostering organisational change (Lai and
Stacchezzini, 2021). Understanding the factors that motivate organisa­
tions to adopt SR is key to exploring the adoption of SR in developing
countries because of the role it plays in shaping the operational practices
I.E. Asogwa
of organisations (Lai and Stacchezzini, 2021). The practice of SR entails
a sustained shared concern for the people, environment, and society
while maintaining a level of economic benefits. It offers an organisation
the opportunity to let the stakeholders know its actions, and efforts to­
wards a sustainable development agenda as well as its efforts towards
climate change adaptation (Wang et al., 2019)
In the recent past, NGOs have been known to be actively involved in
lobbying for an improved social and environmental accountability of
‘for-profit organisations’ (Traxler et al., 2018); however, the question is
how far the watchdogs have kept up with the demand for accountability.
NGOs themselves have been confronted with a demand for their own
sustainability performance in their reporting (Crespy and Miller, 2011;
Asogwa et al., 2021).
The practice of SR creates value by increasing reputation, building a
systemic way of accountability to the stakeholders an organisation
serves, and integrating them into the mainstream activities of the
organisation through the institutionalisation of an appropriate reporting
practice (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019). Therefore, it is important not
only to know the mechanisms of SR but what drives its adoption and the
accompanying barriers, especially in the African concept (Asogwa et al.,
2021). While there is limited research in this area as highlighted above,
the most recent literature in this field looked at the state of business
sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa (Tilt et al., 2021), but this did not
involve the NGOs and did not focus on SR adoption. Other related
literature was strictly about NGOs and community development in
Nigeria (Agbola, 1994). Studies that articulate and contextualise SR
adoption in NGOs in developing countries and particularly in Nigeria are
either missing or limited in research.
The reports of NGOs concerning sustainability accounting seem to be
inadequate (Traxler et al., 2018) and also seem to be one of the key
failures of philanthropic organisations. There is evidence of inadequate
transparency on the organisational level of NGOs; for example, the
analysis of NGOs’ annual reports shows signs of unbalanced and weak
accountability practices (Dhanani and Connolly, 2015). This is princi­
pally because the reports are mainly focused on achieving legitimacy by
addressing the needs of powerful donors that can be influenced by media
attention which could be misleading sometimes, or perhaps, aligned
with “sustainability washing” (Asogwa et al., 2021) rather than
providing an overall picture of performance that is not biased towards
the funders.
In line with Deegan (2019), organisations strive to achieve legiti­
macy by seeking to establish a balance between social values associated
with or implied by their activities and the norms of acceptable behaviour
in the larger social systems to which they belong (Dowling and Pfeffer,
1975). For NGOs to continue to operate in this context, they are ex­
pected to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the society by aligning with
the society’s values and norms. This is because, legitimacy is key to
“organisational institutionalism” (Archel et al., 2009; Deephouse et al.,
2017) by shaping organisational behaviour and its attendant survival.
Deephouse et al. (2017) refined the organisational legitimacy in four
perspectives (accepted, proper, debated and illegitimate) to crystalise
the evaluation of organisational legitimacy in a social realm. The study
highlighted that legitimacy is fundamentally bounded within a social
system; at one boundary, an organisation is deemed legitimate when its
operations are appropriate and conforms to social norms while the other
boundary represents illegitimacy where the operations/activities of the
organisation are broadly deemed questionable. The concept of legiti­
macy is very crucial for an organisation because it defines how the op­
erations of the organisation are perceived by stakeholders. It has
consequences on the broader social and economic exchange of the or­
ganisations (Bitektine, 2011; Deephouse et al., 2017) that is important
for its survival.
Organisations are persuaded to achieve legitimacy through SR in
order to highlight societal norms and values. Legitimacy theory ensures
that the actions of organisations are appropriate and properly consti­
tuted within the value systems, norms, and general beliefs of the people
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
(Suchman, 1995). Literature shows that being legitimate will enable
NGOs to attract more resources (through donations) required for
organisational survival. It therefore can be argued that NGOs with a high
volume of donations may be seen to be legitimate by collective evalu­
ation of the institution, but whether this is true remains unexplained,
especially for developing countries. Deephouse et al. (2017) highlight
three scenarios for characterising legitimacy management. These
include gaining, maintaining and responding. Gaining legitimacy occurs
when an organisation proves its propriety and fitness under a regulatory,
moral, pragmatic and cognitive standard in a proper institutional envi­
ronment (Archel et al., 2009; Deephouse et al., 2017). Maintaining
legitimacy necessitates embedment of the ideals of legitimacy such that
stakeholders could affirm that the organisation adheres to a certain level
of appropriateness because it is the stakeholder that confers legitimacy
(Deephouse et al., 2017; Deegan, 2019). Thirdly, responding explains
how organisations react to the challenges of legitimacy resulting from
institutional pressures, which is generally innovative.
Legitimacy according to Deephouse and Carter (2005) lays consid­
erable emphasis on social acceptance (from given norms) and expecta­
tions. Their research shows that organisational legitimacy and
reputation share some similarities and social orientation. These simi­
larities and orientations are clarified in the work of Suchman (1995)
which highlighted leading strategic and institutional approaches and
forms of legitimacy theory. The strategic approach takes a managerial
viewpoint with considerable emphasis on how organisations “manipu­
late” and could even use “graphic symbols” just to gain societal support
(Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Suchman, 1995). On the other hand, the
institutional approach (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991) emphasises how
sector-specific “structuration dynamics” lead to cultural pressures that
manifest beyond the control of one organisation, suggesting a weaker
position from the strategic approach (Suchman, 1995; Deegan, 2019).
Additionally, Suchman (1995) identified three forms of legitimacy as
pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy which are somewhat inter­
linked. He explained that pragmatic legitimacy arose from the
self-interest of the stakeholders while moral legitimacy is solely influ­
enced by normative approvals. He referred to cognitive legitimacy as
arising from “comprehensibility” and “taken-for-grantedness”. Since
organisations are legitimate when they are “understandable” rather than
when they are “desirable” (Deephouse et al., 2017; Suchman, 1995), it
will be interesting to know if NGOs adopt SR because they want to be
understandable or if they simply want to be desirable. More recent
research in this direction sought to advance evaluator’s perspective as a
form of social judgement (Bitektine, 2011); and how this evaluation has
been applied in social and environmental accounting (Deegan, 2019).
Organisational legitimacy explains how a range of established norms
provide explanations for its continued existence and not how the exis­
tence is explained by the norms. It is seen later in this study how NGOs
seek continuity rather than credibility in pursuit of legitimacy, which
translates to what Deegan (2019) and Suchman (1995) describe as
seeking passive support rather than active support from stakeholders.
Legitimacy is seen to have a direct relationship with organisational
resource supply because stakeholders are drawn and more likely to
supply resources to organisations that show to be desirable, proper
(Deegan, 2019; Suchman, 1995) and perhaps understandable. At some
point, legitimacy reflects embedment/routinisation (Deephouse and
Carter, 2005; Suchman, 1995) in an institutionalised system such as
NGOs. It affects how people act and understand NGOs and other orga­
nisations in general. The concept of legitimacy espouses how organisa­
tions can conform to or adopt new practices, how they can be
maintained and how they can be lost, especially during a crisis (Bitek­
tine, 2011; Deephouse et al., 2017). This is because, stakeholders
perceive organisations that appear legitimate as better managed, cred­
ible and more trustworthy. The practices are intended to enhance its
reputation and acceptability. For example, Bitektine (2011) noted that
the actors that determine legitimacy for organisations differ from one
organisation to the other and from one field to another. Accordingly, not
I.E. Asogwa
all actors are important in passing this judgment. This provides NGOs
with the opportunity to choose which audience they will give their
loyalty to (Suchman, 1995). In this sense, NGOs often contend with
which audience to attend to (Asogwa et al., 2022), and whether to
pursue media driven path to legitimacy or a regulatory-driven path
(Deephouse and Suchman, 2008; Deephouse et al., 2017).
3. Research methodology
This study’s main objective is to explore SR adoption (mechanism),
and to characterise and explore the challenges and the drivers of SR
among NGOs in Nigeria given the peculiarity of their services and the
environment of NGO operations in the country. Hence, a case study
research method was adopted. When a contemporary phenomenon
needs to be investigated, and more importantly, one that has to do with
behaviours that cannot be manipulated, case study research design is
used (Jupp, 2006). A case study is also recommended where the studied
events cannot be separated from their context and where the dynamics
and the perspectives of authentic social systems are considered (Saun­
ders et al., 2007). This allows for a holistic analysis, supports flexibility
(Jupp, 2006), and offers an opportunity for a proper exploration of
contemporary situations (Saunders et al., 2007).
The data were collected between March 2020 and October 2020.
This constituted a considerable limitation as recruitment of participants
was difficult because people avoided those that came from overseas
Fig. 1. Map of Nigeria showing study areas
4
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
since the index case of the pandemic in Nigeria was from someone that
came from overseas; however, it created an opportunity for the inves­
tigator to work with the NGOs on a pro-bono basis as more staff worked
from home, thereby strengthening the findings.
While each NGO requested anonymity, there was one case study
location from each of the four regions of the country (East, West, North
and South). This geographical distribution helped to enhance the rich­
ness of that data and ensure that the entire country was covered by the
research (see Fig. 1). NGOs are generally classified into two major
groups which are welfare and advocacy (Unerman and O’Dwyer, 2006).
Welfare NGOs are primarily concerned with the rendering of welfare
services, mostly health-related, to the “disadvantaged” groups in the
society such as the poor, the deprived, or the excluded members of the
society. Advocacy NGOs, meanwhile, are focused on campaigns (Dewi
et al., 2019a) for the advancement of human rights, gender equality,
racial/tribal tolerance, environmental/climate protection, and so on.
However, some NGOs engage in both welfare services and advocacy
services (Dewi et al., 2019b) and this study focuses on NGOs that fall
into this category which enables a balanced picture. Content analysis of
the secondary data (Table 2) proved useful in the composition of the
implications (see Table 6) as it guided and provided hints on the (fol­
low-up) questions posed to the interviewees. The interview questions
were centered on the mechanisms for SR adoption in NGOs, the moti­
vations for SR adoption and the possible challenges as adopted from
Asogwa et al. (2021), Dissanayake et al. (2020) and Farooq and de
I.E. Asogwa
Villiers (2019).
Each NGO chosen was involved in the common challenges associated
with people in the region. The research equally ensured that each NGO
particularly had an active program in all the regions and possibly other
parts of the country. For instance, WNGO for the Western region had an
active program in the whole of the South West (SW) and some states in
other regions, The same applies to South-South (SS) for the Southern
region, North Central (NC) for the Northern region and South East (SE)
for the Eastern region. This was done to enhance the richness of the data
and ensure good coverage and fair representation of NGOs across the
country since all the big NGOs had head offices in the major cities of
Nigeria which were located in the four regions. This process, which
culminated in the use of four cases, enhanced the richness of the data.
A hybrid approach for data analysis was used (Fereday and
Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Secondary data was collected from annual re­
ports, websites and SR reports of each case study, which provided more
insights and understanding of each case through content analysis. A
summary of the transcript for each interview was made iteratively to
ensure the quality of the analysis. This helped to highlight the main
theme that emerged. Notes taken during the interviews on important
issues were recorded separately for ease of analysis and possible quotes
(O’Dwyer et al., 2005). NVivo method of analysis was used to analyse
the transcript which was subsequently coded. This helped to charac­
terise the uptake of SR and explore the main challenges and factors that
influence SR adoption in NGOs recorded in Tables 4 and 5 To further
ensure the quality of the analysis, a comparison was made across the
cases to check for consistencies and/or inconsistencies and to further
ensure that only the dominant themes were formed (Boyatzis, 1998).
3.1. Brief description of the NGOs selected for the study and the
interviewee selection procedures
ENGO. ENGO was extensively involved in the educational, social,
economic, and political development of the youths, with particular in­
terest in women (empowerment). This is done through a wide range of
services spread across the eastern region of Nigeria. This NGO is highly
involved in training and inspiring young people, providing rights-
campaigns, and working to resolve intra-familial conflicts in Nigeria.
ENGO has a strong belief in equal educational opportunity for children,
youths, and women. In its work with families, it takes a strong position
that widows have a right to live in their husband’s property without
third party interference, which usually comes from the relatives of the
deceased husband. Often, it develops programs aimed at addressing the
needs of the most vulnerable members of the community. It also con­
ducts workshops and other advocacy campaigns in over 32 local gov­
ernment areas in the SE. It has established presence in all the five states
in the SE. Its program is mostly tailored to counsel participants, and
teach them to know their rights, to set a life vision for themselves, and to
pursue their goals through an achievable and crime-free means. The
interviews started with the managing director (MD) and snowballed to
other line managers as recommended by the MD following Creswell
(2009), who also participated in the interviews independently. Due to
differences in their preferences for the interview days and time, four
were conducted via phone and face-to-face, and the other was via Zoom.
WNGO. This is an international NGO that is spread across Africa,
Asia, Europe, and America with a good record of interdependence and
mutual accountability within the international community WNGO has a
strong partnership with the national planning commission of Nigeria,
through which they strive to ensure a balance in the rule of law and its
application. This NGO promotes the rights of the poor and the excluded
members of the society through engagement and advocacy. WNGO also
tries to strengthen the weak institutional framework in Nigeria by
championing respect for human rights. It also makes efforts to ensure
this forms part of government policies and actions. It has a culture of
promoting sustainable alternatives and a shared value of gender equality
and the advancement of citizens’ rights across the country. The Program
5
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
manager (PR) was first interviewed, and afterwards, the primary
researcher appealed to several line managers for an interview. Two more
people who agreed to participate were interviewed face-to-face, while
the third person participated through Zoom. In the end, they granted a
face-to-face focus group interview.
NNGO. This NGO is widespread globally with offices across the
whole Northern region of Nigeria. The primary focus of this NNGO is on
health promotion, safety, justice, and legislative advocacy in partner­
ship with the private sectors, the government, and civil society. Its
emphasis is on the improvement of and unhindered access to basic care
and health services including emergency responses and risk manage­
ment. NNGO is also involved in the delivery of essential health services
in a fragile environment such as the North East that is heavily affected by
the nefarious activities of bandits and Boko Haram. Through its advo­
cacy, it seeks to eliminate communicable diseases, and to ameliorate
mental health challenges as well as fostering campaign focusing on
climate change emergencies and adaptations. The first to be interviewed
was the regional manager (RG); thereafter, he convinced his line man­
agers to oblige us. The managers then emailed the primary researcher
(first author) and scheduled an interview. This resulted in five additional
participants who agreed to grant interviews but only two people hon­
oured the appointments which were to be via phone and Zoom. A focus
group discussion was also granted via Skype at the end.
SNGO. This NGO focuses on addressing a broad range of human
development challenges, ranging from HIV/AIDS to access to repro­
ductive health, water, health care delivery systems, and education. It is
also widely known for supporting internally displaced people and crisis
management. SNGO is among the widely known NGOs (nationwide) for
building and developing local capacity for service delivery of sustain­
able and comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, care, and
other support services. It provides other interventions such as working
with local communities to implement behaviour change, reducing HIV
prevalence among the high-risk groups in the community. This NGO is
renowned for its role in addressing malnutrition with supplemental
feeding, as well as campaigning for education for orphans and vulner­
able children across the country. The first interview was granted by the
chief executive officer (CEO) and then it snowballed to four others
recommended by him. The third person he recommended later declined
while the fourth person failed to attend the appointment and recom­
mended another person, who obliged and was interviewed via Zoom,
however, the remaining two participants were interviewed via phone
and Zoom.
Two NGOs (ENGO and NNGO) granted us an opportunity for a group
discussion on the last visit. All interviews were held in English and ac­
cording to interviewee preference. Other publicly available sources of
information were consulted for secondary information on the case
studies. Table 1 and Table 2 present NGOs selected for the cases and the
details of the secondary data sources respectively while Table 3 presents
interviewees’ details and Fig. 1 shows the study areas.
4. Results and discussion
This section presents the results of the main themes that emerged
from an in-depth analysis of the interviews with NGOs in Nigeria. The
Table 1
The case study NGOs.
Name of NGOs ENGO WNGO NNGO SNGO
Location Enugu (SE) Lagos (SW) Abuja (NC) PHa (SS)
NGO Type Local International International Local
Age of SR (year) 5b 8c 13 6b
a
Port Harcourt (Rivers State).
b
The NGO included sustainability sections in their annual reports.
c
The NGO previously published environmental report but later changed the
name to SR.
I.E. Asogwa Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842

Table 2
Details of secondary data sources.
NGO Number and description of sources
ENGO 3 annual reports (2017, 2018, 2019)
2 SR (2018, 2019)
1 web page (2020)
WNGO 5 annual reports (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019)
4 SR (2015, 2017, 2018, 2019
1 Web page (2020)
NNGO 7 annual reports (2010, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019)
3 SR (2017, 2018, 2019)
1 Web page (2020)
SNGO 2 annual reports (2018, 2019)
3 SR (2017, 2018, 2019)
1 Web page (2020)
findings support a nuanced perspective of SR adoption among NGOs in
Nigeria. Accordingly, this section first presents the adoption mecha­
nisms, followed by the motivations for the adoption and finally the
challenges.
4.1. Adoption mechanisms in NGOs
Sustainability espouses the cause of justice and fairness: fairness to
the present and the future, and by extension, fairness between human
beings and nature as espoused in research. The global interest of en­
terprises in sustainability has always been associated with legitimacy
and/or accountability to the multifaceted stakeholder groups of orga­
nisations. This is not different for NGOs; SR is a critical response to
stakeholder demands for proof of accountability in service delivery. In
order to gain legitimacy and add a voice to issues of governance, NGOs
disclose vital performance information via SR to stakeholders. For
example, a manager in SNGO noted below:
We communicate sustainability through our reports; in fact, when we
started SR a little over seven years ago, our usual quarterly and
annual reports had to change to reflect that and this change tran­
scended to even our current monthly performance reports from
different unit heads and of course, it is an extension of accountability
to our stakeholders because we want to establish that trust […] and
then to stamp our existence, although there is no structure for this,
nor unit or person solely responsible for it [laughs!]. (S1)
In order to ensure that the activities or programmes of NGOs yield
the desired impact in the lives of the beneficiaries, it is important to
communicate a good sense of trust (see e.g. Dewi et al., 2019). Trust can
be established through SR which can subsequently result in effective
collaboration between NGOs, the beneficiaries of their services and the
resource providers. It can also enhance or lead to effective and efficient
utilisation of resources (Dewi et al., 2019). Essentially, SR is critical in
NGO communication because it acknowledges responsibilities, and ex­
plains steps taken in responding to economic, social, environmental and
governance concerns of the society. In this sense, an NGO defends its
moral integrity and reputation by being accountable (Zharfpeykan and
Ng, 2021) or being seen to be accountable. SR is generally a voluntary
exercise, especially among NGOs. It is oriented towards assessing social,
economic, environmental (Lozano and Huisingh, 2011) and governance
efforts of organisations as well as communicating the same efforts and
progress to stakeholders (GRI, 2020). It plays a key role in providing the
information that stakeholders need and also helps in managing their
perception of the operation of NGOs (Zharfpeykan and Ng, 2021). This,
in turn, helps to build the reputation of an NGO as well as its legitimacy
as it gains acceptability.
The way we do this is that we ensure every aspect of our social,
economic, and environmental impact in society is well communi­
cated to our people out there. We don’t stop there; you know we also
play a significant role in entrenching good governance and not many
of our efforts in these directions are captured in our traditional
annual report. Absence of complaint procedure or ethics for report­
ing has made it imperative that we devise a means of reaching every
party. (W1)
Alluding to this, another manager from SNGO had this to say:
Over time, we realised that it is not just enough to assume the society
is aware of your impact or leadership footprint. As an international
NGO coupled with media exposure, we started a stand-alone report
for this over ten years ago. Though we didn’t call it [SR] at first, the
content is almost the same and in accordance with our foreign
branches, although sometimes people question these reports
[hahaha …] but we cannot give up. (S3)
In line with Scobie et al. (2020, p. 2), what readily comes to mind is
“would this be the case if NGOs were grounded in the thoughts, values
and practices of indigenous communities”? And/or what internal factors
could facilitate the entrenchment of their social mission among benefi­
ciaries which is embedded in self-determination?
It is noted that many NGOs communicate their sustainability efforts
through the usual weekly/monthly report which does not serve external

Table 3
Interviewee details.
Case Interviewees position Origin Duration Gender Mode

ENGO E1 MD Local 67m Male Face-to-face

E2 Manager – 5m Male Phone
E3 Manager – 48m Female Skype
E4 Manager – 51m Male Phone
E5 Manager – 46m Male Face-to-face
E6 Managers – 74m FGa Zoom
WNGO W1 PR International 58m Female Face-to-face
W2 Manager – 52m Male Face-to-face
W3 Manager – 47m Female Face-to-face
W4 Manager – 53m Male Zoom
NNGO N1 RM International 3m Male Face-to-face
N2 Manager – 49m Male Phone
N3 Manager – 51m Male Phone
N4 Manager – 47m Female Zoom
N5 Managers – 55m FGb Skype
SNGO S1 CEO – 53m Male Face-to-face
S2 Manager – 46m Female Phone
S3 Manager – 48m Male Zoom
S4 Manager – 45m Male Zoom
a
The first group discussion consisting of 3 males.
b
Second focus group consisting of 2 males and one female.

6
I.E. Asogwa Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842

purposes. This makes it difficult for external stakeholders to understand Table 4

the dynamics and the plans NGOs have for sustainability, including the Factors that influence SR adoption in NGOs.
drivers of, and the possible barriers to, the sustainability agenda. SR has Case Factors Indicative examples
the potential to activate systems of political, social and cultural re­
ENGO Stakeholder “[…] even if we did not wish to embrace SR, the
lationships that take place within the communities where NGOs operate pressure pressure […] is very high”
(Dewi et al., 2019; Tilt et al., 2021). Donor attraction “We need to strategically position to be able to
Legitimacy attract donors […]”
Media exposure “[…] there is an agenda for legitimacy in this sector
4.2. Drivers of SR adoption Impact […]”
Impression “Exposure to media brings us to limelight and this
management pushes reporting”
NGOs are increasingly embracing the practice of SR (Asogwa et al.,
“The need to remain in business drives us,
2021) as a critical socio-economic paradigm shift in organisational remember the society also needs to believe not only
practices (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019; Lai and Stacchezzini, 2021). in you but in what you are doing, so we need to
Lozano and Huisingh (2011) indicate that SR adoption by organisations demonstrate & communicate any impact”
is on the increase worldwide. SR reporting has the potential to help both WNGO Stakeholder “Often times it comes from outside pressure, the
Pressure stakeholders are now more aware, and are
businesses (for-profit organisations) and NGOs in the effort to advance Legitimacy demanding accountability and that is basic,
the cause of nature, improve the quality of lives and contribute towards Accountability accountability is key”
achieving sustainable development goals. It complements the efforts of Type of “The type of things we do also drive this, imagine
organisations towards achieving a sustainable society (Oliveira Neto intervention here in Lagos, the pressure is quite high, people
want to know what exactly you are doing with the
et al., 2018). This research reveals that a number of factors motivate
excluded communities, the deprived, […] those
NGOs to pursue this objective, a summary of which is presented in denied their rights”
Table 4 below, with indicative examples. NNGO Stakeholder take your request for fund serious, regardless of
While numerous factors motivate the desire for NGOs to report on pressure your argument without SR; and this has become a
sustainability, this research revealed that stakeholder pressure, desire Donor attraction common practice”
Transparency “Ignore SR and be ignored by donors, it’s that
for legitimacy, dependence on donors, and accountability are the Accountability simple, no foreign donor will
dominant drivers. Media exposure “Remember we are international NGO, so
The respondents believed that adopting SR would help them attract accountability & transparency are very key,
donations. For instance, a principal interviewee in ENGO had this to say: stakeholder pressure as well as other internal
mechanism has persuaded us, otherwise, it wasn’t
SR is very important to us because our resources are shrinking; since like this before”
this pandemic, we have not been able to secure funding as we used to “One thing we all know is Abuja is the capital city,
so we are highly exposed to media attention, and
do. Access to health services [is] declining, [and the] education
we are covering North East as well with all the
sector leaves much to be desired, so to be able to stay ahead, we must problems occasioned by Boko Haram, […]”
communicate our commitment in these areas to get more support SNGO Stakeholder “Stakeholders are mounting heavy pressures on us
and stay in business. (E1) pressure for SR”
Donor attraction “Basic reporting seems inadequate […] we also
In line with this, an interviewee from NNGO noted that: Legitimacy need to attract donors”
Reputation “SR has become an instrument to communicate and
The idea of reporting on sustainability increases access to finance Accountability appear forward looking”
and as a resource-dependent organisation, it is critical to do things Impression “We are doing it because we need to project our
that we emphasise, practices that draw us closer to donors because management reputation to the public”
“As watchdogs, note that we demand
we are exposed to media as well, otherwise, even public confidence
accountability especially from all over Niger Delta,
might elude us […]. (N2) accountability from leaders is very key, because of
oil”
Interest in donor funds is capable of pushing NGOs to be more
“We are used to standard reporting, which in my
interested in themselves rather than the people they represent. The thin opinion is not completely doing the job, following
line between service delivery and the need for resources must be from what others are doing, we also need to stay
managed effectively; otherwise, a gap will be created between NGOs’ relevant because the society believe very much in
us”
self-interest and their social mission (Kuruppu and Lodhia, 2020). The
evidence presented suggests that regardless of all the other advantages
that SR may present, most NGOs adopt it because it tends to attract for. […] the only thing is that you might be tempted to cut corners to
donors. For example, findings from this research suggest a palpable achieve a result that will please donors [laugh]. (N5)
tension among NGO managers acting as intermediaries between the
beneficiaries and the donors. This tension sometimes leaves them at In all the cases, interviewees reported that stakeholder pressure
crossroads regarding whose interest to protect. Theoretically, as drives the adoption of SR. For instance, Herremans et al. (2016) and
resource-dependent organisations, they say “he who pays the piper, Joensuu et al. (2015) reported that the rationale behind SR is to respond
dictates the tune”. To further buttress this, an interviewee from NNGO to stakeholder demands. Balancing the multiple, divergent and often
had this to say during a group discussion: conflicting interests of different stakeholder groups has been the subject
of a contested debate within NGO research (Kuruppu and Lodhia, 2020).
[…] and we need money to run our programs, and pay overheads. This perhaps pushes NGOs to develop different levels of stakeholder
We are under pressure to meet certain societal needs, most times, and relationships and allocate resources that respond directly to their de­
do not forget that we operate based on a budget so we do things to mands. This could explain, to an extent, the complex nature of dis­
comply […]. (N5) charging accountability within the NGO sector. Although it is not clear
Alluding to this, another interviewee from the group stated: which stakeholder group exerts this pressure, the subsequent interview
responses suggest that NGOs tend to privilege accountability to the more
Well, I do not think it has to do with the expectations of the people. powerful stakeholders. However, Dewi et al. (2019, p.4) explained that
Yes, it is about complying with whatever will please the donors NGOs must “avoid accountability disparity” if they want to live up to
because they provide the resources. So the people should hold the their social mission. NGOs tend to operationalise their relationship with
government responsible while we respond to those we are working

7
I.E. Asogwa Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842

stakeholders in many ways. For example, an interviewee stated that: Here in the North, we are basically responding to those that have
been displaced by Boko Haram and bandits for over three years now;
When we want to learn from our stakeholders, we usually ask for
however, our core mandate is advocacy. We have literally left that to
feedback or engage them on certain community projects to under­
cater to these needs because it has become a recurring [problem]
stand their views about our performance and expectations of our
here. In this situation, SR helps us to account for some of these; we
services. In addition, feedback from donors and their often high ex­
are able to tell our stories and through that, we solicit more support.
pectations [hahaha …] expose us to intense pressure to meet and
(N1)
close any expectation gap through reporting. (S3)
In line with the above point, a manager in WNGO had this to say:
This research suggests that pressure from stakeholders (donors) has
pitched NGOs towards increased performance and concentration on We are at a point where accountability is not just demanded but
output as opposed to impact. NGO services are mostly unregulated by questioned, and funding is declining at a very rapid rate. Did you
state laws just as reporting on sustainability is not mandated by regu­ hear what President Trump said? […] America is withdrawing sup­
lation (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019). Basically, it is the reaction from port for World Health Organisation (WHO); the implication of this
the stakeholders (internal/external) that keeps them in check most for developing countries especially in Africa is huge, so we do not
often. Alluding to this, another interviewee said: [take] any chance at accountability and in fact, we go out of our way
to prove our relevance by extending a bit outside our mandate. (W2)
Stakeholders are more aware now, social media has increased access
to information, they take pictures to post on Facebook and we will be Pragmatically balancing the interest of different stakeholders will be
inundated with calls from several quarters and even from abroad. So, mutually beneficial for the NGO managers, the donors and the service
it is not business as usual and you know, he who pays the piper calls recipients. This will help to ease the tension in the “politicised envi­
the tune [laughs …]. (W4) ronment” NGO managers operate in and also help in balancing
accountability. This is because, findings suggest that, the motivation to
Regarding legitimacy, it is observed that NGOs are in constant need
adopt SR seems to be externally driven, which raises a question about
to assert legitimacy. Crespy and Miller (2011) report that NGOs gener­
the genuineness of NGOs’ altruism and commitment to the concept of
ally lack legitimacy and one of the ways to rebuild it is through SR. They
sustainability. For instance, ENGO claimed that since NGOs are gener­
argued that for NGOs to gain a legitimate voice in their governance and
ally resource-dependent, their emphasis will primarily continue to be
sustainability mechanisms, they must prioritise information disclosure
tailored towards addressing the specific needs of the fund providers with
just as they require it from corporations. Interviewees perceived that
their attendant pressure, instead of beneficiaries. This is similar to the
adopting SR had helped them to gain legitimacy either with the general
assumption of SNGO and WNGO that as long as NGOs continue to
public or within the stakeholder space. The role of NGOs in policy
depend on donations, donors’ interest will continue to override every
formulation and provision of the services that the government fails to
other interest in NGOs, more especially in Africa with heavy dependence
provide in most developing countries is expected to give them legiti­
on foreign donors. This, in principle, runs contrary to the very ideology
macy in the eyes of the society. Based on this, NGOs strive to get a
with which NGOs exist and which they preach that they uphold. How­
generalised perception that their activities are in fact well intended,
ever, this cannot be unconnected to the tension and compromises that
important, and suited for the society and within the purview of belief
NGOs make in order to survive and stay relevant. On the other hand, this
systems, social norms, and values. In line with this, an interviewee said:
reveals a certain level of inadequacy on the part of NGOs to show
As a credible voice of the people, we play a significant role in commitment towards information disclosure (Crespy and Miller, 2011;
developing and implementing sustainability programs even for the Lodhia, 2018). For instance, despite the emphasis in the literature on the
corporate sectors to follow and this helps to espouse our role or issues of efficiency, effectiveness, assessment, and outcome as well as
relevance in society. (E4) the quality of service delivery, it is quite interesting to note that virtually
none of the participants considered these as factors. The responses
In addition to this, an interviewee from WNGO indicated that:
received suggest that NGOs in Nigeria are yet to take full advantage of
Through our report, we aim to ensure that people see us as a true the concept of SR, a situation that accounts for numerous informal and
representation of their voices. So, it is critical for us to adopt SR to be awkward reporting techniques that have not been able to meaningfully
able to project that image; otherwise, our acceptability will continue showcase organisations’ efforts towards improving the quality of life.
to be in doubt. (W3)
4.3. Challenges of SR adoption
Another relevant driver is accountability. NGOs demonstrate
accountability through the assessment of their impact (Dewi et al.,
This section explores the key challenges affecting the adoption of SR
2019) which could be social, environmental or economic (Goddard,
among NGOs in Nigeria. A summary of these challenges as revealed by
2020). Most of the interviewees saw SR as a means of communicating
respondents is presented in Table 5 with indicative examples. Increasing
key economic, environmental, social, and governance impacts to
interest in SR shows that NGO leaders have the tendency to adopt and
stakeholders. This creates pressure in the way aid services are delivered.
report on sustainability in response to the global public awareness of the
The pressure is manifested in the context of the levels of influence held
numerous roles that they play in solving social, economic, environ­
by different stakeholders that contribute to shaping NGO programmes
mental, and governance problems. This readiness by the world’s largest
(Kuruppu and Lodhia, 2020). The way the programmes influence
altruistic group does not come without some forms of challenges.
various stakeholders impacts the decision of NGOs and explains their
The challenges revealed in this study include the voluntary nature of
accountability process. Adoption of SR also helps them to provide
reporting, lack of uniform indicators, lack of assurance, unsupportive
important aspects of the activities that cannot be communicated through
government policy, cost, limited capacity or skills to prepare reports,
the traditional reporting process (such as financial reporting). For
religion and culture, and so on. In all the cases, the voluntary nature of
instance, an NGO that is dedicated to fighting human rights abuses and
reporting constituted the biggest barrier to SR adoption. An increasing
contributes to the advancement of girls’ education in a developing
number of NGOs appeared willing to report their environmental, social,
country is contributing to the quality of life and living standards in ways
economic, and governance performance if there was law from the reg­
that traditional reporting may not be able to show. Also, some NGOs go
ulatory bodies mandating NGOs to organise and report on sustainability.
outside their core mandate to provide support in a time of emergency or
For instance, the MD of ENGO had this to say:
a period of global disruption/crisis such as COVID-19. In response to
this, the regional manager of NNGO had this to say:

8
I.E. Asogwa
Table 5
Challenges of adopting SR in NGOs.
Case Challenges Indicative examples
ENGO Voluntary “SR is technically an optional thing, no regulation
Religion which is an issue […]”
Cost “Nigeria is a very religiously diverse country, some
Government forbid […] certain things”
policy “As I explained earlier, we depend on donation, SR
Uniformity involves extra cost bec- cause you must consult and get
Basic accurate data”
Knowledge “The government is not making it easy for us, there is a
lot of inconsistency in their policy coupled with the
fact that we don’t have a format […]”
“To be honest, some of don’t really know how or why
we should do this”
WNGO Voluntary “Emm, the issue of voluntary reporting has made it
Cost easy for a lot of NGOs to get away with so many things,
Uniformity I heard from our international partners that some
Climate Change countries have legislated on this, but we are yet to
Assurance […]”
Basic “Climate change is a big challenge, sometimes our
knowledge reports are proven false because of climate change
issues and other inconsistencies”
“Different NGOs prepare their report in the way that
suits them, so some some material aspects are usually
missing, or it is lacking in content”
“I agree this is an important concept, but we need
some training […]”
NNGO Voluntary “Organisations get to decide whether to adopt it or
Government not”
policy “I will say bad policy from the government, aside the
Climate change fact that it is voluntary we don’t get counterpart
Assurance [funding] support from the government and they want
Culture/ a very fancy report […]”
religion “Assurance and verification constitute a very big
barrier to us in SR, maybe because of the situation in
North East, people want to have trust in it”
“Behaviour as well as needs are informed by our value
system just like religion, this could constitute a barrier
based for SR based on your area of intervention”
SNGO Voluntary “It is VOLUNTARY (…), I don’t know if that answers
Religion your question but it makes excuse for a shoddy report
Cost and again, there is no established pattern to follow
Government while preparing the report which is also costly to do”
policy “[…] in some religion or culture, you cannot make
Uniformity public [report], certain things we did for them because
Basic of the sensitivity; government policy is also an issue”
knowledge “We still need to develop certain capabilities and skills
to be able to do these things, it is not a matter of
adopting western style or forcing it down on us here,
our capacity is not the same […] don’t forget that they
may have a friendly policy from their government,
here is not the same, they may have defined pattern or
uniform indicators but we don’t, affecting
comparability”
“[…] you know we depend on resources, and these
reports are not cheap”
“Some of our staff lack the basic knowledge and the
requirements of the report which falls back to us”
SR is a useful tool that communicates success and documents ca­
pacity. In my opinion, NGOs would happily embrace it if it was
legislated upon by the regulatory authorities because it then saves us
the hurdles they might go through trying to convince the gatekeepers
or getting the buy-in of the government. (E1)
SR is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is embraced by both
corporate organisations and the third sectors alike (Asogwa et al., 2021);
this is further supported by the growth of GRI usage on the global stage
(GRI, 2020). This justifies an emphasis on the need for adequate infor­
mation disclosure and proper stakeholder engagement. Based on this, an
interviewee stated:
Voluntary reporting in NGOs has effectively reduced the quality of
information disclosure and increased pressure by stakeholders. Aside
9
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
from the fact that donors would necessarily need this, which we have
now incorporated into our normal periodic report, it is critical to
demonstrate commitment to the stakeholder group that we directly
serve because those groups may not be privy to our routine report
which we might be submitting to managers, donor or the govern­
ment in principle, as the case may be. (N3)
On the subject of uniformity, the interviewees revealed that the
reporting pattern differs between NGOs and this is caused by a lack of
uniform reporting indicators. Each NGO had its own pattern of reporting
that was handed down by the organisation through the donors. This
process tends to neglect specific operational contexts that inadvertently
define peoples’ way of life and which should inform the reporting
pattern. For instance, the culture and the religion of a people could have
a role in the way they behave or see things in general, which in turn is
expected to inform the reporting indicator. For example, each NGO
operating in a particular region is said to be involved with the dominant
issues of concern among the people in the area, as highlighted earlier.
These will be different from those in another region. In this sense, the
social mission of NGOs is shaped by the prevailing circumstances of the
people which inform the nature of the intervention. Due to these dif­
ferences, it might be relevant to have a streamlined structure to
accommodate the peculiarities of different projects of NGOs in a given
society (say, for a continent or specifically for a country). For instance,
anecdotal evidence suggests that Westerners usually “enforce” their
design in the form of culture/reporting style/modus operandi regardless
of fit and/or the operational environment. An interviewee stated:
There is a need for a structure for monitoring reports and ensur[ing]
a consistent pattern that will be the same for all NGOs to get that
[uniformity], after ensuring that capacity is provided. I think the
government should have been the best structure for that since all
report comes to them, supposedly, they can serve that purpose of
ensuring that there is uniformity across the board for all NGOs or
adopt a recommendation such as this. (S4)
Reiterating the point made above, another interviewee had this to
share:
Ya, there should be an integrated system. All over the world now,
people are talking about integration, integration is the key. There
should be a blueprint of what the country should be; they should be
integrated with funding and integrated with activity. For example,
when I was working in East Africa (South Sudan precisely), there was
what we called “eco-fund”; this was a concept developed by [the] US
system whereby CanadaAid is there, AusAID is there, USAID is there
[…] so it’s integrated and it was managed by crown agent effectively
and these are the kind of things we want to see in a place like Nigeria
and in fact all over Africa, a situation where all partners come in,
donors come in on a table to say okay this is what we want to do, not
oh I want 10 boreholes, this one says I want 50 boreholes, where is
the priority here? Do we really need 50 boreholes? So these are the
questions we need to ask, so there is a need to set the priority right to
integrate our systems to ensure that the things we are doing are
effective. So there is a need for integration, integration of funding,
purpose, integration of objective, everything needs to be integrated
and finally culminating in integration of reporting. (S4)
Although there seem to be some kind of streamlined processes
currently, it does not cover all areas of NGO activities. For instance, an
interviewee has this to say:
Depending on the project, they could have the same system of
reporting. For a project like HIV, for instance, we have a streamlined
monitoring and evaluation platform that most health NGOs report
with and when reported it gets into the national system […] You just
go there and check the segment that speaks to what you are doing
and you report; however, for other projects like malaria, education,
environment including advocacies, I don’t know how those ones
I.E. Asogwa
work […] so streamlining is very important really because it facili­
tates data sharing, comparability, and verification. (S3)
Government policy is another challenge to SR adoption. The gov­
ernment initiated a law that intended to control monies donated to
NGOs and the body of NGOs revolted and this bill was dropped around
April 2020. They complained that the government was not providing
adequate counterpart funding and in some instances failed to provide at
all to support or complement the efforts of (donors) NGOs, yet wanted to
control the very funds donated by outside bodies. While that seemed like
a plausible argument, the government claimed that there was a high
level of mismanagement of donor funds while NGOs claimed that the
government wanted to control NGOs through the back door with such a
bill. An interviewee had this to say:
The government is expected to provide the enabling environment
and the needed structure for us to thrive. We complement their ef­
forts in providing the much-needed services that are hitherto
neglected by the same people [them], [but] rather than feel sorry,
they want to [indirectly] regulate NGOs. Most of the funding in
Nigeria comes from foreign donors and even the counterpart funding
that is supposed to come from the government doesn’t come, and you
know people tend to be interested where their money is, rather than
provide some part of the money which will make them be interested
anyway […] I feel the government [of Nigeria] is not just interested
in the services, their interest is in the donor fund. Those of us that
worked tirelessly to make sure that the bill is killed have been tagged
all sorts of names, they tried to use the media to slander our names
and destroy our reputation with corruption allegations but we were
not deterred, in fact, the more they tried the more we persisted
because we all know how our [corrupt] politicians lie, [and] if they
had succeeded, who will represent the voice of the people; the lowly
placed, the downtrodden, the excluded and the marginalised mem­
bers of the society? Tell me! You know, most people don’t know what
we have achieved by that but I thank God for it really. (S1)
The will of the government is minimal and the need to take owner­
ship is very important for the sustainability of NGO projects; there is a
commendable attempt by NGOs to transfer capacity/skill to the gov­
ernment staff but the ability to demonstrate that they can use that same
skill to achieve the same results as the NGOs is doubtful. This is largely
because most of the things NGOs do were usually budgeted for both at
the national and state level but there is a mindset that the donor fund is
available and instead, they will devote more efforts to attempting to
regulate for the fund, neglecting the critical infrastructure that will
facilitate aid delivery and sustainability. In addition to this, an inter­
viewee from ENGO had this to say:
We see situations where the government personnel know the right
thing to do but they want to cut corners for selfish interest and go as
far as introducing some bureaucratic bottlenecks that tend to frus­
trate our work. So, personally, I am not confident that the govern­
ment can sustain what the donors are doing through the NGOs except
maybe when it constitutes a very huge risk for the Nigerian popu­
lation, perhaps that’s when the government can come to the [real­
isation] that they actually need to take over [and take
responsibility]. For example, donor funding, particularly for HIV, is
dwindling; it has really reduced, yet the burden of HIV is still very
huge, so when the funding stops, people infected are at the risk of
dying massively, so we are taking the message of “the burden of
disease in Nigeria is real”. This is where donor funding has taken us
to, this is the existing gap, [and] we are transferring capacity for as
much as possible and as much as the government personnel can take.
(E6)
Another person from the group corroborated this and stated that:
Just to add to what […] said, it is not just that the government do not
have the capacity, they do not also have the interest. Government
10
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
displays a lot of apathy and I think the interest has to be there before
we can think of funding. (E6)
NGO activities are very crucial in any developing society because as
change agents, they inform policy and add value to the governance ar­
chitecture by holding the political class accountable. They contribute
significantly towards achieving sustainable societies by demanding
more social responsibility from both the government and the corporate
sectors. However, as stated above, the government sometimes display
some level of apathy in responding to the societal needs. NGOs are
crucial partners towards the achievement of sustainable societies. For
instance, it is interesting to note that national culture and religion, as
well as media exposure, influence the adoption of SR by NGOs in
Nigeria. This influence results from adherence to societal norms,
informed by “social contract” which tends to suggest that the NGOs and
the community have an obligation that must be followed (Deegan, 2019)
in pursuit of legitimacy. Further, due to media influence and reach, SR is
sometimes used as a measure of organisational acceptance or
non-acceptance as reported in Table 4.
SR is an accounting tool that can help organisations institutionalise
sustainability within their frameworks (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019,
p.1240). Every unit head or project lead or line manager contributed to
SR process in one form or another in the studied NGOs. There was simply
no uniqueness attached to SR in terms of having a unit responsible for it
or a specific individual assigned to handle SR. At the start of the process
for SR, the monitoring and evaluation unit provided the project leads or
mid-tier managers responsible for SR content with specific information
or guidelines on what was to be expected. This was reflected strongly in
the comments from interviewees about the challenges they faced in SR
adoption. For example, some interviewees expressed concern over why
they should even prepare SR, explaining that, they did not properly
understand “how” it was done and also “why” it should be done. Un­
derstandably, emphasis on SR was passed either from the senior man­
agement or from the funders as one interviewee revealed that without
SR, there might be no funding for them (Table 4). In this sense, efforts
towards SR were made with the intention of attracting donors and in
pursuit of legitimacy from stakeholders. For example, Cheng et al.
(2014) found that engaging in social acts promotes an organisation’s
access to finance. Evidence of accountability and societal impact can
foster NGOs’ legitimacy and facilitate financial support (Crespy and
Miller, 2011; Farooq and de Villiers, 2019; Goddard, 2020). Different
NGOs have varying understanding and/or application of the concept of
sustainability. The understanding of SR in NGO literature is diverse
(Asogwa et al., 2021, p.2), and this study notes that this diversity ex­
tends to the industry practitioners. The primary goal should be to
address the concerns of NGOs regarding the preparation of SR in line
with their social mission. For NGOs to embed or institutionalise sus­
tainability, it might be necessary to tailor the explanation towards
addressing issues of concern to the sector, which include the need to
achieve legitimacy and/or donor attraction, by extension. This
approach, in turn, enhances NGOs’ acceptability by the stakeholders as
espoused by the legitimacy theory.
This study reveals that the studied NGOs did not have a streamlined
structure for reporting on sustainability. As highlighted in the previous
discussion, there was rarely a separate individual or unit solely
responsible for stakeholder engagement, nor a code of conduct that
would ensure adequate responsibility and reporting processes. In addi­
tion, there was a dearth of complaint mechanisms and external verifi­
cation of reports, which also affected the ability to provide assurance for
all reports or claims in the report as noted by Lai and Stacchezzini
(2021). However, the secondary data were clear on NGOs’ missions and
emphasised the need for reputation, information disclosure, account­
ability, stakeholder engagement, capacity development, and adherence
to rules as well as mitigation of risks; but there was no clear direction or
strategies to achieve these in line with their mission. Table 6 is not a
conclusive mapping of SR adoption mechanisms but serves as a
I.E. Asogwa Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842

suggestion for implications resulting from the findings. It is suggested as

a framework to understand and interpret the implications for SR adop­
tion in NGOs in line with Cordery et al. (2019, p.7). However, the data
revealed inconsistencies in the disclosure practices which caused
comparability issues and led to complex performance measurements.
The author advocates more standardisation of NGO (sustainability)
reporting. Based on this, the findings are synthesised by drawing on the
criteria identified by Kolk (2008) and harmonised by Crespy and Miller
(2011) in Table 6.
Farooq and de Villiers (2019) argued that SR adoption by organisa­
tions will lead to the institutionalisation of sustainability within the
organisation and this will ultimately enhance organisational legitimacy
(see Lai and Stacchezzini, 2021). Legitimacy is a major factor influ­
encing the adoption of SR by NGOs, as noted earlier in the findings. This
relationship is explained in Table 4. Legitimacy itself is conferred by the
stakeholders when they judge the actions of NGOs. Further, NGOs’ ef­
forts to become legitimate can help explain their behaviours towards the
environment and the society at large. NGOs could achieve legitimacy as
they seek to establish a balance between the social values associated
with or implied by their activities and the norms of acceptable behaviour
expected by the donors/stakeholders. This gives rise to a reciprocal
relationship between SR adoption and SR institutionalisation. This Fig. 2. Explanation of SR adoption relationship.
embedment or routinisation process will ultimately lead to legitimacy,
achieved by aligning not only with the societal values and norms but prepare SR as revealed by the interviewees; this includes, but is not
also with the expectations of the donors (Fig. 2. limited to, identification of areas of operational and managerial
To achieve this, NGO leaders could adopt the strategies highlighted improvement, management of non-financial risk, and attention to
in Table 4 on a phase-by-phase basis as recommended by Farooq and de reputation, accountability and so on. The sensitisation could take the
Villiers (2019). During the first phase, NGOs would streamline SR pro­ form of training, meetings with individual NGO leaders, workshops, or
cesses and focus on understanding the concept of SR and its benefits, seminar presentations on SR which will also provide guidance on its
especially for those new to SR or with limited knowledge of the concept preparation, as noted by O’Dwyer and Unerman (2020) and Sukhari and
and the preparation processes. To begin, NGOs need to have reporting de Villiers (2019).
managers specifically designated for reporting (or SR) purposes. Poor In the second phase, NGOs would begin to embed and routinise the
knowledge or limited technical ability to prepare SR was a major issue in process of SR. As NGOs transition from the first phase, more managerial
SR adoption among NGOs studied. Based on this, there is a need to participation, advocacy and centralisation of the process would be
sensitise NGO managers and leaders about the need to adopt and/or enhanced. The advocacy efforts would facilitate the acceptability of SR
practice and advance organisational and managerial commitment to
Table 6 sustainable practices. As noted in the interviews (Table 5), SR takes a lot
Proposed SR adoption framework for NGOs. of time in addition to the complexity of preparing the report. However,
the commitment of managers towards SR practices is low as they prefer
Criteria Strategy Assessment/Outcome
to spend less time in the process; this is attributed to the seeming low
Structuring for Limit negative Avoid damage to readership as well as the voluntary nature of the SR practice. At this
sustainability environmental, social, reputation and seek
stage, the line managers would learn and take greater responsibility for
economic impact organisational growth
opportunities gathering information from their respective projects and report to the
Existence of (separate) Stakeholder Ensure no disclosure “reporting manager” who would organise and coordinate the reporting
SR unit engagement as part of CSR or information/ processes for the particular NGO.
management and capacity communication gap & At the final phase, SR will have induced learning and change which
building capacity development
will not only enhance institutionalisation but result in stakeholder
Existence of separate Assigning Prove
individual solely
satisfaction and ultimately the legitimacy which NGOs consistently
responsibility for dialogue accountability & ensure
responsible for mechanism dialogue relate to key pursue in order to enhance donation. For example, an interviewee
stakeholder aspects of sustainability highlighted that although staff did not have the required skills for SR,
engagement practice their experiences and confidence grew over time. In this sense, SR could
Existence of rule/ Stakeholder Dialogues do not become more routinised and formalised within the NGO sector,
ethics or code of engagement strictly breach any known law or
conduct
increasing the usefulness of SR information to all the stakeholders. As
follows code of conduct or rules
code of ethics publicly this is formalised, the reporting managers, in collaboration with other
available senior executives, can introduce key performance indicators for sus­
Existence of complaint Appropriate Stakeholder tainability as noted by Adams and Frost (2008), which will help to
mechanism for channel in place to address engagement as a means of improve sustainable practices across a range of NGO activities. This
stakeholders all issues related to feedback on project study finds that in some cases, the key performance indicators for sus­
stakeholder engagement activities, sustained to
and dialogues sustained to manage relationships.
tainability are linked to broader sustainability objectives and strategies
stimulate learning highlighted under the proposed framework for implications of SR
Existence of external Assurance is given Engagement adoption in NGOs (see Table 6). As NGOs transition from one phase to
verification of to the public on the mitigates risk of damage to another, they experience a higher maturity, learning, change, greater
reports stakeholder engagement reputation and promotes embedding, and routinisation of the SR practices within the NGO sector.
and expert knowledge on legitimacy
promoting sustainability is
To further accentuate this, Shabana et al. (2017) used a three-stage
guaranteed model of reporting to explain the embedment of CSR reporting prac­
tices using a three-stage process that depicts early adoption stage,

11
I.E. Asogwa
mainstreaming stage and diffusion stage. The model highlights
three-stage processes in which different isomorphic mechanisms were
used to motivate participation in reporting. In the first stage, organisa­
tions are not able to meet the expectation gap by stakeholders due to
deficiency in performance (Lai and Stacchezzini, 2021; Shabana et al.,
2017; Jones and Mucha, 2014). This gives rise to legitimacy problems
and reporting is designed to meet the social expectation gaps created by
the pressure to conform in the form of defensive reporting, leading to
coercive isomorphism. However, in the second stage, the knowledge of
CSR reporting grows and permeates the organisations and the practice of
reporting becomes relatively normalised and becomes a routine in the
form of proactive reporting. In this sense, other organisations consider it
as a potential new norm for achieving organisational legitimacy. As this
idea spreads, managers embrace the reporting practice from a
goal-oriented perspective giving rise to a normative isomorphism
(Shabana et al., 2017). At the final stage of the model, a nexus between
defensive reporting and proactive reporting is developed to a point
where the adoption of the reporting practice is considered beneficial and
outweighs the cost (Hahn and Kuhnen, 2013; Powell and Dimaggio,
1991). Due to the uncertainties faced by managers coupled with the
effort to gain organisational legitimacy, they tend to imitate and model
their respective organisations in line with their peers in the same in­
dustry and/or those they see to be successful or wish to be like in the
form of imitative diffusion (Shabana et al., 2017). In this sense, the
reporting moves from a goal-oriented perspective to the need to be
consistent and identify with peers, resulting in mimetic isomorphism
(Shabana et al., 2017)
In summary, SR helps NGOs to contribute to the economic and
manpower development of the society they serve, and enhance the
standard of living of its workforce, the host community, and the larger
society in the long run. Operating in ways that are consistent with the
expectations of the community — which include improved standard of
living through the provision of social services such as support for basic
education, entrepreneurship, equality of income distribution, good
governance and sustainable development infrastructure — promotes
sustainability and espouses organisational legitimacy. Findings show
that there was no difference in the adoption practices between welfare
NGOs and advocacy NGOs. However, welfare NGOs were found to be
more committed to sustainability issues. For example, welfare NGOs had
more staff whose role were solely on SR or monitoring and evaluation.
The challenges identified in Table 5 are supported by previous literature,
including Delai and Takahashi (2011); Dissanayake et al. (2020); Fifka
et al. (2016); and Bradford et al. (2017). Firmialy and Nainggolan
(2019) indicated that the absence of strict laws and regulations on SR
affects the role of sustainability promoters, particularly where govern­
ment institutions are unable to provide some basic social, economic and
environmental needs of the people. In addition, the uniform indicator
was seen to be very critical of NGOs, as stakeholders want to continue to
inform policy and influence corporate decision-making (Dhanani and
Connolly, 2015). Further, SR reporting information may not be seen to
be accurate unless it can be independently verified (Brown and Kohl­
beck, 2017). Unsupportive government actions were seen to impede the
advancement of SR in the studies conducted by Appe and Barragán
(2017) and Argenti and Saghabalyan (2017). However, contrary to the
studies by Rasmussen (2017) and Herremans et al. (2016), findings
reveal that resource dependency is not a barrier to the adoption of SR in
Nigeria. This study shows that resource dependency is rather a moti­
vating factor for NGOs to adopt SR: as they are increasingly looking for
donors, it is used as a normative tool for window dressing or impression
management to attract donors who are keen on sustainability principles
as a requirement or factor for considering a donation. This research
identifies that NGOs are constantly in need of opportunities for organ­
isational growth, improved stakeholder relationships, dialogue, adher­
ence to laws, feedback, and reputation as well as legitimacy. However,
there were no (evident) clear management strategies that could specif­
ically or directly relate to the outcome (hence, Table 6).
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
5. Conclusions
This research provides useful insights into SR adoption mechanism,
the factors that influence the adoption of SR in NGOs, the challenges
involved, and how NGOs can routinise, formalise, embed, and institu­
tionalise SR. SR helps to create value by advancing organisational efforts
towards achieving sustainable societies, increasing reputation and
building a standard of accounting/reporting that is integrated into the
mainstream of NGO operations. This research reveals that SR compels
organisations to show commitment to ethical and responsible behav­
iours and advances organisational legitimacy. Theoretically, organisa­
tions that engage in SR are seen as better managed by the community
and other stakeholders, this argument is supported by the findings
highlighted in Table 4 and also in the literature. This research shows that
NGOs are more likely to gain support and more funding if they are able
to show evidence of accountability and sustained impact on the econ­
omy and the community through their SR practices.
This research contributes to knowledge in several ways. Firstly, it
enriches the research literature on SR in the NGO realm. Secondly, it
provides insights into policy development and support for greater
research applicability by developing a contextually driven and adaptive
framework for the institutionalisation and embedment of SR in NGOs.
Findings suggest that the strategies highlighted in Table 6 will not only
result in a measurable outcome but will ensure that NGOs are promoters
of sustainability not only by demanding it from others but by internal­
ising sustainability principles in their approach. This study advances a
framework of specific actions for strong sustainability that strengthens
SR adoption and accountability among NGOs. This framework contrib­
utes significantly to the growing body of knowledge in sustainability
accounting that supports theoretical blending and diversity. It supports
the advancement of all-inclusive indigenous practices that are poten­
tially adaptive as well as assisting in the formulation of policies that
guide SR mechanisms and the regulation of NGOs. Further novelty lies in
its ability to address the inconsistencies identified in the reporting
processes, and enhance uniformity and comparability of reports (see
Table 5). It will also help to improve performance measurement and
accountability processes in NGOs. This will ensure that SR is not only
beneficiary-focused but donor-driven.
The study recommends that NGOs can routinise, formalise and
embed SR in three phases. In the first phase, NGOs are expected to
streamline the reporting process through a designated reporting man­
ager. In the second phase, NGOs will start to embed and routinise SR
through advocacy which enhances managerial commitment to sustain­
ability principles. Finally, the third phase is induced by learning and
change that will institutionalise SR which ultimately results in organ­
isational legitimacy. The findings of this research show that NGOs
consistently seek to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the resource-driven
stakeholders. At this stage, NGOs move from a normative form of
reporting to a more formal reporting process that espouses key perfor­
mance indicators for NGO sectors.
This study provides a view on the need to change the normative
narrative underlying SR in NGOs from SR being viewed as serving only
external communication purposes to its serving both internal and
external stakeholder information needs. For example, interviewee N5
noted above that the NGOs do everything possible to satisfy the donors
because they provide the resources. This will be enhanced through ed­
ucation and advocacy. The findings of the study respond to a call by
Asogwa et al. (2021, p.18) for research on SR adoption in NGOs with
specific emphasis on developing countries. In doing this, it extends the
work of Farooq and de Villiers (2019, p.1264) calling for research on the
factors that influence SR adoptions, to help recommend ways in which
SR can be embedded and routinised in their country of operation.
Given that this research was conducted at the peak of COVID-19 in
Nigeria, recruiting participants constituted a considerable limitation.
However, the situation provided an opportunity for the lead researcher
to work on an ad hoc basis in the NGOs as more people worked from
I.E. Asogwa
home, which in turn strengthened the research findings. NGOs face
several challenges that tend to impede SR adoption; central to the
problem, according to findings from this research, are lack of funding,
lack of uniform reporting indicators suitable for all kinds of NGO
reporting, and the voluntary nature of the process, coupled with poor
knowledge of SR (see Table 5). The interviewees highlighted the diffi­
culties of adapting to or using GRI reporting guidelines; future research
may explore the extent to which GRI can enter the field of SR for non-
traditional (financial) reporters such as NGOs. Findings strongly sug­
gest that NGOs, in most cases, pursue SR in order to attract donors; in
view of this, future research could enhance our understanding of the role
of non-financial stakeholders (demand-side stakeholders) in the political
debate for SR. Since the study reveals that reporting is used as a
normative tool for impression management to attract donors sometimes
in NGOs in pursuit of legitimacy, future research may also examine the
role of reports as a management control tool for achieving organisa­
tional goals, perhaps, the relationship between SR and organisational
change management for sustainability in NGOs (see Table 4). Addi­
tionally, this research opens up different theoretical windows in which
issues surrounding NGOs’ SR can be explored. For instance, as the
research highlights inconsistencies in the reporting processes of NGOs
due to various reasons, future research could help us understand and
theorise about the differences in the reporting practices as well as the
tensions that emanate from these. It will also be interesting to explore in
more detail the contentious issues surrounding voluntary versus
mandatory reporting practices in the NGO field, and the role of culture,
religion and media in the adoption of SR.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ikenna Elias Asogwa: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources,
Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the participants of this study
given that it was conducted at the peak of the novel coronavirus
pandemic and bearing in mind the social distancing rule and the
intended consequences of meeting with visitors, especially from over­
seas. Most importantly, I appreciate the indelible support of my PhD
supervisors in this chapter of my thesis. I would also like to thank Mr
Nestor Agu, Dr Paul Abiodun and Mrs Rabiu Mohammed for their sup­
port during the data collection stage in Nigeria. The input of the anon­
ymous reviewers has notably improved the quality of this article and I
am grateful to them. This article is dedicated to my wife and Kasiemobi
McKenna Asogwa who was born when I was in Nigeria for the data
collection.
References
Adams, C.A., Frost, G.R., 2008. Integrating sustainability reporting into management
practices. Account. Forum 32 (4), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
accfor.2008.05.002.
Agbola, T., 1994. NGOs and community development in urban areas: a Nigerian case
study. Cities 11 (1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(94)90049-3.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
Agyemang, G., O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., Owusu, C., 2020. NGOs in Ghana:
Accountability, Performance and Motivations, Routgate Companion: Accounting in
Emerging Economies. Routledge, pp. 210–220.
Agyemang, G., Unerman, J., O’Dwyer, B., 2019. NGO accountability: retrospective and
prospective academic contributions. Account Audit. Account. J. 32 (8), 2353–2366.
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2018-3507.
Appe, S., Barragán, D., 2017. Universities, NGOs, and civil society sustainability:
preliminary lessons from Ecuador. Dev. Pract. 27 (4), 472–486. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09614524.2017.1303035.
Archel, P., Husillos, J., Larrinaga, C., Spence, C., 2009. Social disclosure, legitimacy
theory and the role of the state. Account Audit. Account. J. 22, 1284–1307. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09513570910999319.
Argenti, P.A., Saghabalyan, A., 2017. Reputation at risk: the social responsibility of
NGOs. Corp. Reput. Rev. 20, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-017-0013-8.
Asogwa, I.E., Varua, M.E., Datt, R., Humphreys, P., 2022. The impact of COVID-19 on the
operations and management of NGOs: resilience and recommendations. Int. J.
Organ. Anal. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2021-3090 ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print.
Asogwa, I.E., Varua, M.E., Humphreys, P., Datt, R., 2021. Understanding sustainability
reporting in Non-Governmental Organisations: a systematic review of reporting
practices, drivers, barriers and paths for future research. Sustainability 13 (18),
10184. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810184.
Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Degerman, E., Teitelbaum, S., Andersson, K., Elbakidze, M.,
Drotz, M.K., 2013. Social and cultural sustainability: criteria, indicators, verifier
variables for measurement and maps for visualization to support planning. Ambio
42, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0376-0.
Bitektine, A., 2011. Toward a theory of social judgements of organizations: the case of
legitimacy, reputation, and status. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36 (1), 151–179.
Boyatzis, R.E., 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code
Development. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Bradford, M., Earp, J.B., Williams, P.F., 2017. Understanding sustainability for socially
responsible investing and reporting. J.Cap.Mark. Stud. 1 (1), 10–35. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JCMS-10-2017-005.
Brown, V.L., Kohlbeck, M.J., 2017. Providing assurance for sustainability reports: an
instructional case. Issues Account. Educ. 32 (3), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.5555/
iace-51582tn.
Cheng, B.T., Ioannou, I., Serafeim, G., 2014. Corporate social responsibility and access to
finance. Strat. Manag. J. 35 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2131.
Conway, S.L., O’Keefe, P.A., Hrasky, S.L., 2015. Legitimacy, accountability and
impression management in NGOs: the Indian Ocean tsunami. Account Audit.
Account. J. 28 (7), 1075–1098. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2012-01007.
Cordery, C., Belal, A.R., Thomson, I., 2019. NGO accounting and accountability: past,
present and future. Account. Forum 43 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01559982.2019.1593577.
Crespy, C.T., Miller, V.V., 2011. Sustainability reporting: a comparative study of NGOs
and MNCs. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 18 (5), 275–284. https://doi.org/
10.1002/csr.248.
Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research design: qualitative, qualitative and mixed methods
approaches. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Deegan, C., 2019. Legitimacy theory: despite its enduring popularity and contribution,
time is right for a necessary makeover. Account Audit. Account. J. 32 (8),
2307–2329. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2018-3638.
Deephouse, D.L., Carter, S.M., 2005. An examination of differences between
organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. J. Manag. Stud. 42 (2),
329–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x.
Deephouse, D.L., Suchman, M., 2008. Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In:
Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., Sahlin, K. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Organizational Institutionalism, vol. 49. SAGE Publications, New York, NY, p. 77.
Deephouse, D., Bundy, J., Tost, L., Suchman, M., 2017. Organizational legitimacy: six
key questions. In: Deephouse, D., Bundy, J., Tost, L. (Eds.), Organizational
Legitimacy: Six Key Questions. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 27–52. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781526415066.
Delai, I., Takahashi, S., 2011. Sustainability measurement system: a reference model
proposal. Soc. Responsib. J. 7 (3), 438–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17471111111154563.
Denedo, M., Thomson, I., Yenokura, A., 2017. International advocacy NGOs, counter
accounting, accountability and engagement, Accounting. Audit. Account. J. 30 (6),
1309–1343. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2016-2468.
Dewi, M.K., Manochin, M., Belal, A., 2019. Towards a conceptual framework of
beneficial accountability by NGOs: an Indonesian case study. Crit. Perspect. Account.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.102130.
Dhanani, A., Connolly, C., 2015. Non-governmental organizational accountability:
talking the talk and walking the walk? J. Bus. Ethics 129, 613–637. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-014-2172-1.
Dissanayake, D., Tilt, C., Qian, W., 2021. How do public companies respond to national
challenges through sustainability reporting? – the case of Srti Lanka. Qual. Res.
Account. Manag. 18 (4/5), 455–483. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-06-2020-
0088.
Dissanayake, D., Kuruppu, S., Qian, W., Tilt, C., 2020. Barriers for sustainability
reporting: evidence from Indo- Pacific region. Meditari Account. Res. 29 (2),
264–293. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2020-0703.
Dowling, J., Pfeffer, J., 1975. Organisational legitimacy: social values and organisational
behaviour. Pac. Socio Rev. 18 (1), 122–136.
Farooq, M.B., de Villiers, C., 2019. Understanding how managers institutionalise
sustainability reporting: evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Account Audit.
Account. J. 32 (5), 1240–1269. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2017-2958.
I.E. Asogwa
Fereday, J., Muir-Cochrane, E., 2006. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J.
Qual. Methods 5 (1), 80–92.
Fifka, Kuhn, A.L., Adaui, C.R.L., Stiglbauer, M., 2016. Promoting development in weak
institutional environments: the understanding and transmission of sustainability by
NGOS in Latin America. Voluntas 27 (3), 1091–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11266-016-9713-4.
Firmialy, S.D., Nainggolan, Y.A., 2019. Constructing the ideal SRI (sustainability
reporting index) framework for Indonesian market: combined perspectives from
rating agencies, academics, and practitioners. Soc. Responsib. J. 15 (5), 573–596.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-07-2016-0128.
Goddard, A., 2020. Accountability and accounting in the NGO field comprising the UK
and Africa - a Bordieusian analysis. Critical perspectives on accounting. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cpa.2020.102200.
GRI, 2017. About sustainability reporting. available online at: https://www.globalreport
ing.org/information/sustainability-reporting/Pages/default.aspx. (Accessed 5
September 2020).
GRI, 2020. Environmental Laws and Regulations available online at: https://www.
globalreporting.org/standards/. (Accessed 20 April 2021).
GRI, 2021. Empowering sustainable decisions. available online at: https://globalrepor
tingnews.org/4J5-7FRA6-AD01082644B16D96SJE1OL777DDFFA3160DCAB/cr.
aspx. (Accessed 30 June 2021).
Hahn, R., Kuhnen, M., 2013. Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results,
trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J. Clean. Prod.
59, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005.
Herremans, I.M., Nazari, J.A., Mahmoudian, F., 2016. Stakeholder relationships,
engagement, and sustainability reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 138, 417–435. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10551-015-2634-0.
Joensuu, K., Koskela, M., Onkila, T., 2015. Social proximity and environmental NGO
relationships in corporate sustainability reports. Sustain. Dev. 23 (1), 26–40. https://
doi.org/10.1002/sd.1569.
Jones, K.R., Mucha, L., 2014. Sustainability assessment and reporting for nonprofit
organizations: accountability for the public good. Voluntas 25 (6), 1465–1482.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9399-9.
Jupp, V., 2006. The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. SAGE Publications,
London.
Klemes, J.J., 2015. Assessing and Measuring Environmental Impacts and Sustainability,
first ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Kolk, A., 2008. Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: exploring
multinationals’ reporting practices. Bus. Strat. Environ. 18, 1–15. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.511.
Kuruppu, S.C., Lodhia, S., 2020. Shaping accountability at an NGO: a Bourdieusian
perspective. Accounting. Audit. Account. J. 33 (1), 178–203. https://doi.org/
10.1108/AAAJ-09-2016-2696.
Lai, A., Stacchezzini, R., 2021. Organisational and professional challenges amid the
evolution of sustainability reporting: a theoretical framework and an agenda for
future research. Meditari Account. Res. 29 (3), 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/
MEDAR-02-2021-1199.
Li, S., Fetscherin, M., Alon, I., Lattemann, C., Yeh, K., 2010. Corporate social
responsibility in emerging markets—the importance of the governance environment.
Manag. Int. Rev. 50 (5), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-010-0049-9.
Lodhia, S., 2018. Is the medium the message? Advancing the research agenda on the role
of communication media in sustainability reporting. Meditari Account. Res. 26 (1),
2–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2017-0197.
Lozano, R., Huisingh, D., 2011. Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability
reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (2–3), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2010.01.004.
McNamara, T., 2017. They are not understanding sustainability: contested sustainability
narratives at a northern malawian development interface. Human Organisation 76,
121–130. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.76.2.121.
Mi, Z., Coffman, D., 2019. The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nat.
Commun. 10, 1214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09260-4.
Munoz Marquez, L.N., 2015. The relevance of organizational structure to NGOs’
approaches to the policy process. Voluntas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-
9555-5.
14
Journal of Cleaner Production 388 (2023) 135842
Norton, B.G., 2005. Sustainability: a Philosophy of Adaptive Ecosystem Management.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., Bradley, J., 2005. Perceptions on the emergence and future
development of corporate social disclosure in Irland: engaging the voices of non-
government organisations. Account Audit. Account. J. 18 (1), 14–43. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513570510584647.
O’Dwyer, B., Unerman, J., 2020. Shifting the focus of sustainability accounting from
impacts to risks and dependences: researching the transformative potential of TCFD
reporting. Account Audit. Account. J. 33 (5), 1113–1141.
O’Dwyer, B., Boomsma, R., 2015. The co-construction of NGO accountability: aligning
imposed and felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability relationships. Account
Audit. Account. J. 28 (1), 36–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-1488.
Oliveira Neto, G.C., Pinto, L.F.R., Amorim, M.P.C., Giannetti, B.F., Ameida, C.M.V.B.D.,
2018. A framework of actions for strong sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 196,
1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.067.
Powell, W., DiMaggio, P., 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rasmussen, L.M., 2017. In the name of sustainability: contradictory effects of NGO-
driven development in Malawi. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 29, 312–327. https://doi.org/
10.1057/ejdr.2016.8.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2007. Research Methods for Business Students,
fourth ed. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England.
Scobie, M., Lee, B., Smyth, S., 2020. Grounded accountability and Indigenous self-
determination. Crit. Perspect. Account., 102198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cpa.2020.102198.
Shabana, K., Buchholtz, A., Carroll, A., 2017. The institutionalization of corporate social
responsibility reporting. Bus. Soc. 56 (8), 1107–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0007650316628177.
Shaker, R., 2015. The spatial distribution of development in Europe and its underlying
sustainability correlations. Appl. Geogr. 63, 304–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeog.2015.07.009.
Starik, M., Rands, G.P., 1995. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem
perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4),
908–935. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280025.
Suchman, M., 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 20 (3), 571–610.
Sukhari, A., de Villiers, C., 2019. The influence of integrated reporting on business model
and strategy disclosures. Aust. Account. Rev. 29 (4), 708–725. https://doi.org/
10.1111/auar.12264.
Tilt, C.A., Qian, W., Kuruppu, S., Dissanayake, D., 2021. The state of business
sustainability reporting in sub-Saharan Africa: an agenda for policy and practice.
Sustain.Account.Manag.Pol.J 12 (2), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-
2019-0248.
Traxler, A.A., Greiling, D., Hebesberger, H., 2018. GRI sustainability reporting by INGOs:
a way forward for improving accountability? VOLUNTAS. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11266-018-9976-z.
Unerman, J., O’Dwyer, B., 2010. Ngo accountability and sustainability issues in the
changing global environment. Publ. Manag. Rev. 12 (4), 475–486. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14719037.2010.496258.
Unerman, J., O’Dwyer, B., 2006. Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy.
Accounting. Audit. Account. J. 19 (3), 349–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09513570610670334.
Wachira, M.M., Berndt, T., Romero, C.M., 2020. The adoption of international
sustainability and integrated reporting guidelines within a mandatory reporting
framework: lessons from South Africa. Soc. Responsib. J. 16 (5), 613–629. https://
doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2018-0322.
Wang, X., Klemeš, J.J., Dong, X., Fan, W., Xu, Z., Wang, Y., Varbanov, P.S., 2019. Air
pollution terrain nexus: a review considering energy generation and consumption.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 105, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.01.049.
World Bank, 1995. Working with NGOs: a Practical Guide to Operational Collaboration
between the World Bank and Non-governmental Organizations. World Bank,
Washington.
Zharfpeykan, R., Ng, F., 2021. COVID-19 and sustainability reporting: what are the roles
of reporting frameworks in a crisis? Pac. Account. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1108/
PAR-09-2020-0169 ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.