Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:18:59.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring Accountability in Social Enterprise: Priorities, Practicalities, and Legitimacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Astrid Bradford,
Belinda Luke and
Craig Furneaux
Astrid Bradford*
Affiliation:
Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Belinda Luke*
Affiliation:
School of Accountancy, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Craig Furneaux*
Affiliation:
Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
*
Astrid_gi@gmail.com
b.luke@qut.edu.au
c.furneaux@qut.edu.au
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper draws upon accountability and legitimacy theories to explore for what social enterprises are accountable, how they communicate accountability, and to what extent they publicly communicate accountability. Case study methodology was employed, examining four work-integrated social enterprises in Australia. Data collection involved interviews with managers of each social enterprise, and a review of various secondary data including social enterprise websites and internal and external reports. Findings reveal a temporal dimension of accountability, as social enterprises acknowledged their dual social and financial accountability, but prioritised financial over social performance. Communication of social performance was limited, with publicly available reports partial and selective in nature. Communication of financial performance was even more limited, reporting typically directed to internal stakeholders. Implications include the need for social enterprises to communicate social and financial performance more broadly, in order to advance their legitimacy from moral (based on intentions) to consequential (based on achievements).

Keywords

AccountabilitySocial enterprisesReportingLegitimacyAustralia

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 2020, pp. 614 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alter, S. K. (2006). Social enterprise models and their mission and money relationships. In Nicholls, A. (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change (pp. 205–232). Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199283873.003.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00107.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Accounting Standards Board. (2015). Exposure draft ED270 reporting service performance information. http://www.aasb.gov.au/admin/file/content105/c9/ACCED270_08-15.pdf.Google Scholar
Barraket, J., Collyer, N., O’Connor, M., & Anderson, H. (2010). Finding Australia’s Social Enterprise Sector (FASES). Brisbane: Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology and Social Traders.Google Scholar
Barraket, J., Mason, C., & Blain, B. (2016). Finding Australia’s Social Enterprise Sector (FASES) 2016. Social Traders and Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology.Google Scholar
Barraket, J., Qian, J., & Riseley, E. (2019). Social enterprise: A people-centred approach to employment. https://www.csi.edu.au/media/WestpacFoundation_CSI_report_Aug2019.pdf.Google Scholar
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. doi: 10.5465/19416520.2014.893615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A., & Model, J. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685. doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, L. M. (2008). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 201–223. doi: 10.1177/0899764007301288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bissola, R., & Imperatori, B. (2012). Sustaining the stakeholder engagement in the social enterprise: The human resource architecture. In Kickul, J. & Bacq, S. (Eds.), Patterns in social entrepreneurship research (pp. 137–160). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. doi: 10.4337/9781781003596.00014.Google Scholar
Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, M. (2010). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics, 33(5), 946–967. doi: 10.1080/01402382.2010.486119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carman, J. G. (2010). The accountability movement: What’s wrong with this theory of change?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 256–274. doi: 10.1177/0899764008330622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, R. A., & Ebrahim, A. (2006). How does accountability affect mission? The case of a nonprofit serving immigrants and refugees. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(2), 195–209. doi: 10.1002/nml.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, C., & Kelly, M. (2011). Understanding accountability in social enterprise organisations: A framework. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(3), 224–237. doi: 10.1108/17508611111182386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordery, C., & Sinclair, R. (2013). Measuring performance in the third sector. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 10(3/4), 196–212. doi: 10.1108/QRAM-03-2013-0014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C. (2014). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises”. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 3–20. doi: 10.1108/SEJ-09-2013-0036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhanani, A., & Connolly, C. (2012). Discharging not-for-profit accountability: UK charities and public discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(7), 1140–1169. doi: 10.1108/09513571211263220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2003a). Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development, 31(5), 813–829. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00014-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2003b). Making sense of accountability: Conceptual perspectives for northern and southern nonprofits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(2), 191–212. doi: 10.1002/nml.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87. doi: 10.1177/0899764004269430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In Renz, D. O. (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 101–123). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 81–100. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. Harvard Business School working paper 10-099, Harvard Business School.10.2139/ssrn.1611810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2008). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. doi: 10.1177/160940690600500107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, R. W., & Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43. doi: 10.1017/S0003055405051476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R., Bebbington, J., & Collison, D. (2006). NGOs, civil society and accountability: Making the people accountable to capital. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 319–348. doi: 10.1108/09513570610670325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. (2015). Recommended practice guideline 3 reporting service performance information. http://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/IPSASB-RPG-3-Reporting-Service-Performance-Information.pdf.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. (2006). Helping people is difficult: Growth and performance in social enterprises working for international relief and development. In Nicholls, A. (Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change (pp. 247–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199283873.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlin, J. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246–262. doi: 10.1007/s11266-006-9016-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerlin, J. A. (2010). A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 162–179. doi: 10.1007/s11266-010-9126-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lall, S. A. (2017). Measuring to improve versus measuring to prove: Understanding the adoption of social performance measurement practices in nascent social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(6), 2633–2657. doi: 10.1007/s11266-017-9898-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lall, S. A. (2019). From legitimacy to learning: How impact measurement perceptions and practices evolve in social enterprise—Social finance organization relationships. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(3), 562–577. doi: 10.1007/s11266-018-00081-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapadat, J. C. (2010). Thematic analysis. Encyclopedia of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lee, M., & Battilana, J. (2013). How the zebra got its stripes: Imprinting of individuals and hybrid social ventures. Harvard Business School Organizational Behavior Unit Working Paper 14–005.10.2139/ssrn.2291686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. Paper presented at the critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York.Google Scholar
Luke, B. (2016). Measuring and reporting on social performance: From numbers and narratives to a useful reporting framework for social enterprise. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 36(2), 103–123. doi: 10.1080/0969160X.2015.1103298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke, B., Barraket, J., & Eversole, R. (2013). Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures—Performance evaluation of social enterprise. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10(3/4), 234–258. doi: 10.1108/QRAM-08-2012-0034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, F., & Sepulveda, L. (2009). Mapping social enterprises: Past approaches, challenges and future directions. Social Enterprise Journal, 5(1), 83–94. doi: 10.1108/17508610910956426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashaw, J. L. (2006). Accountability and institutional design: Some thoughts on the grammar of governance. In Dowdle, M. (Ed.), Public law working papers: Public accountability—Designs, dilemmas and experiences. (p. 115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), 918–938. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2009.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420150303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, A. (2009). ‘We do good things, don’t we?’ Blended value accounting in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6/7), 755–769. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 611–633. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00397.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2007). From functional to social accountability: Transforming the accountability relationship between funders and non-governmental development organisations. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 446–471. doi: 10.1108/09513570710748580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, A. M., Wright, C., & Young, J. J. (1996). Imag[in]ing annual reports. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21(1), 113–137. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(95)00032-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Productivity Commission (2010). Contribution of the not-for-profit sector research report. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
Ryan, C., Dunstan, K., & Brown, J. (2002). The value of public sector annual reports and annual reporting awards in organizational legitimacy. Accounting, Accountability, & Performance, 8(1), 61–76.Google Scholar
Spear, R. (2016). National profiles of work integration social enterprises: Unite Kingdom, EMES European Research Network. https://www.socialtraders.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/National-Profiles-of-Work-Integration-Social-Enterprises-United-Kingdom-The-ELEXIES-Project.pdf.Google Scholar
Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438. doi: 10.1177/0899764006296049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2006). Theorising accountability for NGO advocacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(3), 349–376. doi: 10.1108/09513570610670334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar