Does the Adoption of Planning and Control Tools Influence Performance? Opinions of Grantors and Grantees About Non-profit Projects

Journal title FINANCIAL REPORTING
Author/s Giacomo Boesso, Fabrizio Cerbioni, Andrea Menini
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/2
Language English Pages 21 P. 35-55 File size 156 KB
DOI 10.3280/FR2022-002002
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This study analyzes whether a positive association exists between foundations’ adoption of accounting control tools and the perceived economic and social perfor- mance. Data are collected through a survey addressed to both decision-makers of Italian banking foundations (IBFs) and grantees that received project-related dona- tions from the same IBFs. Results show a positive association between the adoption of selected planning and control tools (i.e., definition of project budget, in-progress monitoring, and utilization of operating performance indicators) and performance. Meanwhile, a second set of more complex tools (i.e., ex-post valuation of activities, direct operative support offered from foundations to their grantees, and social key performance indicators) records a mixed association with social performance and a negative association with economic performance.

Keywords: Italian Banking Foundations (IBF), strategic philanthropy, planning and control.

Jel codes: L31, L38

  1. ACRI (2019), Venticinquesimo Rapporto Sulle Fondazioni di Origine Bancaria. (Roma: ACRI).
  2. ACRI (2020), Ventiseiesimo Rapporto Sulle Fondazioni di Origine Bancaria. (Roma: ACRI).
  3. Agyemang G., O’Dwyer B., Unerman J. and Awumbila M. (2017), Seeking “con- versations for accountability”: Mediating the impact of non-governmental organ- ization (NGO) upward accountability processes, Accounting, Auditing & Ac- countability Journal, 30(5), pp. 982-1007.
  4. Allison P. D. (1990), Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis, Sociological Methodology, pp. 93-114.
  5. Alvarez McHatton P., Bradshaw W., Gallagher P.A. and Reeves R. (2011), Results from a strategic planning process: Benefits for a nonprofit organization, Non- profit Management & Leadership, 22(2), pp. 233-249,
  6. Awio G., Northcott D., and Lawrence S. (2011), Social capital and accountability in grass-roots NGOs: The case of the Ugandan community-led HIV/AIDS initia- tive. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24(1), pp. 63-92.
  7. Benjamin L. M. (2012), The potential of outcome measurement for strengthening nonprofits’ accountability to beneficiaries, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), pp. 1224-1244, DOI: 10.1177/0899764012454684
  8. Boesso G. and Cerbioni, F. (2019), Governance and Strategic Philanthropy in Grant-Making Foundations. (London: Springer International Publishing).
  9. Boesso G., Cerbioni F., Menini A., and Parbonetti A. (2015), Philanthropy by de- cree: Exploring the governance and philanthropic strategies of foundations of banking origins, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(3), pp. 197-213.
  10. Boesso G., Cerbioni F., Menini A., and Parbonetti A. (2017), The role of the board in shaping foundations’ strategy: An empirical study, Journal of Management and Governance 21, pp. 375-397.
  11. Boesso G., Cerbioni F., Menini A., and Redigolo G. (2022), Beyond the money: grantors supporting their grantees. Journal of Management and Governance, forthcoming
  12. Bohte J., and Meier K. J. (2000), Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating, Public Administration Review, 60(2), pp. 173-182. DOI: 10.1111/0033-3352.00075
  13. Bryan T. K. (2019), Toward a contingency model for the relationship between ca- pacity and effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(4), pp. 885-897.
  14. Buteau E. and Chu T. (2011), Grantees Report Back: Helpful Reporting and Evalu- ation Processes. (Cambridge: Center for Effective Philanthropy).
  15. Carnochan S., Samples M., Myers M. and Austin M.J. (2014), Performance meas- urement challenges in nonprofit human service organizations, Nonprofit and Vol- untary Sector Quarterly, 43(6), pp. 1014-1032, DOI: 10.1177/0899764013508009
  16. CEP. Grantees and the Keys to Success. (Cambridge: Center for Effective Philan- thropy).
  17. Cestari J. M. A. P., Tavares Treinta F., Francis Moura L., Munik J., Pinheiro de Lima E., Deschamps F., and Duarte R. (2021). The characteristics of nonprofit perfor- mance measurement systems. Total Quality Management & Business Excel- lence, pp. 1-31. DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2021.1948323
  18. Chaidez-Gutierrez F., and Fischer R. L. (2013), Reflecting on grantee evaluation ac- countability to funders: Exploring power dynamics with grassroots organizations in communities of color. Journal of Community Practice, 21(4), pp. 304-326.
  19. Chenhall R.H., Hall M. and Smith D. (2013), Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts, Accounting, Organ- izations and Society, 38, pp. 268-287,
  20. Chenhall R. (2003), Management control systems design within its organizational context: Findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future, Accounting, Organization and Society, 28(2/3), pp. 127-168.
  21. Cisi M., Corazza L. and Centrone F.A. (2020), Does the integrated reporting’s defi- nition of human capital fit with the HR manager’s perspective?, Financial Re- porting, 2, pp. 5-32.
  22. Confort C. and Mordaunt, J. (2011), Organisational capacity building: Understand- ing the dilemmas for foundations of intervening in small-and medium-size char- ities, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(3), pp. 428-449,
  23. Crittenden W. F., Crittenden V. L., Stone M. M., and Robertson C. J. (2004). An uneasy alliance: Planning and performance in nonprofit organizations. Interna- tional Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 6(4), pp. 81-106.
  24. Curristine T., Lonti Z., and Joumard I. (2007), Improving public sector efficiency: Challenges and opportunities. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 7(1), pp. 1-41.
  25. Dameri P. and Girella L. (2019), Putting integrated reporting where it was not: The case of the not-for-profit sector, Financial Reporting, 2, pp. 111-140.
  26. Dekker H.C. (2004), Control of inter-organizational relationships: evidence on ap- propriation concerns and coordination requirements. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, pp. 27-49.
  27. Enjolras B., Salamon L.M., Henrik Sivesind K. and Zimmer A. (2018), The Third Sector as a Renewable Resource for Europe: Concepts, Impacts, Challenges and Opportunities. (Cham: Springer Nature).
  28. Fairfield K.D. and Wing K.T. (2008), Collaboration in foundation grantor-grantee relationships, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19(1), pp. 27-44,
  29. Fisher J. (1995), Contingency-based research in management control systems: cate- gorization by level of complexity. Journal of Accounting Literature, 14, pp. 24- 53.
  30. Forbes D.P. (1998), Measuring the Unmeasurable: Empirical Studies of Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 27(2), pp. 183-202.
  31. Herrold C. (2006), High-engagement Philanthropy. (London: London School of Economics).
  32. Hyndamn N. and McConville D. (2018), Making charity effectiveness transparent: Building a stakeholder-focussed framework of reporting, Financial Accountabil- ity & Management, 34, pp. 133-147,
  33. Hyndman N. and McKillop D. (2018), Public services and charities: Accounting, accountability and governance at a time of change, The British Accounting Re- view, 50, pp. 143-148,
  34. Järvinen, J.T. (2016), Role of management accounting in applying new institutional logics: A comparative case study in the non-profit sector, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(5), pp. 861-886.
  35. Jones M. B. (2007), The multiple sources of mission drift, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), pp. 299-307. DOI: 10.1177/0899764007300385
  36. Lee C., and Clerkin R.M. (2017), Exploring the Use of Outcome Measures in Human Service Nonprofits: Combining Agency, Institutional, and Organizational Ca- pacity Perspectives, Public Performance & Management Review, 40(3), pp. 601- 624, DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2017.1295872
  37. Letts C.W., Grossman W. and Grossman A. (1997), Virtuous capital: What foundations can learn from venture capitalists, Harvard Business Review, 75(2), pp. 36-44.
  38. Martin L.L. and Kettner P.M. (1996), Measuring the Performance of Human Service Programs. (New York: Sage).
  39. Moody M. (2008), “Building a culture”: The construction and evolution of venture philanthropy as a new organizational field, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), pp. 324-352, DOI: 10.1177/0899764007310419
  40. Moody M., Littlepage L. and Paydar N. (2015), Measuring social return on invest- ment: Lessons from organizational implementation of SROI in the Netherlands and the United States, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(1), pp. 19-37. Moore M. H. (2003), The public value scorecard: A rejoinder and an alternative to “Strategic performance measurement and management in non-profit organiza- tions” by Robert Kaplan (Working Paper No. 18). Cambridge, MA: Hauser Cen-ter for Nonprofit Organizations, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Har- vard University.
  41. Moyer M. (1990), Attracting volunteers using buyer behavior concepts, Nonproft Management and Leadership, 1(l), pp. 55-68.
  42. Pesci C. and Fornaciari L. (2018), Global financial crisis and relevance of GRI disclosure in Italy: Insights from the stakeholder theory and the legitimacy theory, Financial Reporting, 1, pp. 67-102.
  43. Ployhart R. E. and Vandenberg R. J. (2010), Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change, Journal of Management, 36(1), pp. 94-120.
  44. Qian H., Kapucu N. and O’Byrne, L. (2014), Strategic planning for community-based small nonprofit organizations: Implementation, benefits, and challenges, The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 19(1), pp. 83-101.
  45. Rossi G., Leardini C., Moggi S. and Campedelli B. (2015), Towards community engagement in the governance of non-profit organisations, Voluntary Sector Re- view, 6(1), pp. 21-39.
  46. Siciliano J.I. (1996), The relationship between formal planning and performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7, 387-403.
  47. Stone M. M. (1989), Planning as strategy in nonprofit organizations: An exploratory study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(4), pp. 297-315.
  48. Stone M. M., & Brush C. G. (1996), Planning in ambiguous contexts: The dilemma of meeting needs for commitment and demands for legitimacy. Strategic management journal, 17(8), pp. 633-652.
  49. Van Puyvelde S., Caers R., Du Bois C. and Jegers M. (2012), The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and steward- ship theories, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), pp. 431-451, DOI: 10.1177/0899764011409757
  50. Wellens L. and Jegers M. (2014), Effective governance in nonprofit organizations: A literature based multiple stakeholder approach, European Management Jour- nal, 32, pp. 223-243,
  51. Yang C. (2018), Unveiling the role of identity accountability in charity outcome measurement practices, The British Accounting Review, 50(2), pp. 214-226,

Giacomo Boesso, Fabrizio Cerbioni, Andrea Menini, Does the Adoption of Planning and Control Tools Influence Performance? Opinions of Grantors and Grantees About Non-profit Projects in "FINANCIAL REPORTING" 2/2022, pp 35-55, DOI: 10.3280/FR2022-002002