Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-8spss Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-02T00:35:08.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Third Sector Accounting Standard Setting: Do Third Sector Stakeholders Have Voice?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Rowena Sinclair  and
Rebecca Bolt
Rowena Sinclair*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business, Department of Accounting, AUT University, AUT City Campus, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
Rebecca Bolt
Affiliation:
Faculty of Business, Department of Accounting, AUT University, AUT City Campus, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
*
e-mail: rowena.sinclair@aut.ac.nz
Get access

Abstract

The study examines the empirical evidence of the submissions received from third sector organisations and their stakeholders in response to proposed changes to the New Zealand accounting standard setting framework. The study aims to determine whether third sector stakeholders have voice in third sector accounting standard setting. Critical comparison of submissions and proposals appear to show that the standard setters were not listening to their third sector stakeholders. However, the study found that the standard setters utilised legitimacy management strategies to gather third sector stakeholders’ voice. The standard setters proactively achieved this by conforming to the environment and achieving pragmatic legitimacy to ensure that their decisions were based on third sector stakeholders’ voice. The study is important for those countries where accounting standard setters are grappling with the due process to undertake for third sector accounting standards in its elevation of working groups to the role of salient stakeholders.

Résumé

Résumé

Cette étude examine les preuves empiriques des réponses envoyées par les organisations du secteur tiers et leurs intervenants en réaction à la proposition de changement du cadre règlementaire de comptabilité en Nouvelle-Zélande. L’étude vise à déterminer si les intervenants du secteur tiers ont voix au chapitre dans l’établissement de règles comptables pour le secteur tiers. Une comparaison critique des réponses et des propositions effectuées semble montrer que les responsables de l’établissement des règles n’étaient pas à l’écoute des intervenants du secteur tiers. Cependant, l’étude a révélé que ces décideurs de règles ont utilisé des stratégies de gestion de la légitimité afin de recueillir les opinions des intervenants du secteur tiers. Les responsables de l’établissement de règles se sont activement employés à atteindre cet objectif en se conformant à leur environnement et en obtenant une légitimité pragmatique afin de s’assurer que leurs décisions puissent incorporer les voix des intervenants du secteur tiers. Cette étude est importante pour les pays où les responsables de l’établissement de règles comptables débattent d’une approche juste à adopter vis-à-vis des règles comptables du secteur tiers qui leur permette d’élever les groupes de travail au rôle d’intervenants majeurs.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Die Studie untersucht die empirischen Daten aus Stellungnahmen von Organisationen des Dritten Sektors und ihren Stakeholdern zu vorgeschlagenen Änderungen des Rechnungslegungssystems in Neuseeland. Ziel der Studie ist es zu bestimmen, ob Stakeholder im Dritten Sektor bei der Festlegung von Rechnungslegungsrichtlinien ein Mitspracherecht haben. Ein kritischer Vergleich der Antworten und Vorschläge scheint darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Richtliniengeber die Belange ihrer Stakeholder außer Acht ließen. Man kam in der Studie jedoch zu dem Ergebnis, dass die Richtliniengeber Legitimitätsmanagementstrategien anwandten, um die Interessen der Stakeholder des Dritten Sektors zu berücksichtigen. Dies wurde erreicht, indem sich die Richtliniengeber dem Umfeld anpassten und eine pragmatische Legitimität erzielten, um so zu gewährleisten, dass die Meinungen der Stakeholder des Dritten Sektors bei ihren Entscheidungen relevant waren. Die Studie ist für die Länder von Bedeutung, in denen sich die Richtliniengeber bei der Anhebung von Arbeitsgruppen zu bedeutenden Stakeholdern mit dem gebührenden Verfahren für die Rechnungslegungsgrundsätze auseinandersetzen müssen.

Resumen

Resumen

El estudio examina la evidencia empírica de las alegaciones recibidas de organizaciones del tercer sector y de sus partes interesadas en respuesta a los cambios propuestos al marco de establecimiento de normas contables de Nueva Zelanda. El estudio tiene como objetivo determinar si las partes interesadas del tercer sector tienen voz en el establecimiento de normas contables del tercer sector. La comparación crítica de las alegaciones y propuestas parece mostrar que los responsables del establecimiento de las normas no estaban escuchando a las partes interesadas de su tercer sector. Sin embargo, el estudio encontró que los responsables del establecimiento de las normas utilizaron estrategias de gestión de la legitimidad para reunir la voz de las partes interesadas del tercer sector. Los responsables del establecimiento de normas lograron esto de manera proactiva adaptándose al entorno y alcanzando legitimidad pragmática con el fin de asegurarse de que sus decisiones se basasen en la voz de las partes interesadas del tercer sector. El estudio es importante para aquellos países en los que los responsables del establecimiento de normas contables están tratando de resolver el proceso debido para acometer las normas contables del tercer sector elevando los grupos de trabajo al papel de partes interesadas prominentes.

抽象

抽象

针对新西兰会计准则设置框架的计划变动,本研究论文调查了第三部门机构提出意见的实证证据。本研究论文旨在确定第三部门股东是否在第三部门会计准则设定中享有发言权。对意见和建议的批判性对比似乎显示,准则制定者并未采纳第三部门利益相关方的意见。然而,本研究发现,准则制定者利用合法性管理策略来收集第三部门股东的意见。准则制定者遵循环境要求,实现务实基础上的合法性,以此确保他们的决策以第三部门利益相关方的意见,从而积极实现上述目标。有些国家的会计准则制定者在评估工作小组对显著利益相关者发挥的作用时,面临着第三部门会计准则的程序问题,本项研究论文对这些国家而言具有重要意义。

抽象的な

抽象的な

本研究では、ニュージーランドの会計基準設定の枠組みにおける変更案に対処した、第三セクター団体と利害関係者からの提案に関する実証的証拠を調査する。本研究の目的は、第三セクターの利害関係者が第三セクターの会計基準設定に発言権を持つか否かを明らかにすることである。提案と提言における厳密比較から、基準の決定者が第三セクター利害関係者の主張を取り上げていないことが表されている。しかしながら本研究からは、基準の決定者が第三セクターの利害関係者の発言をまとめるために合法的な経営戦略を利用したことが明らかになった。基準の決定者は、第三セクター利害関係者の発言に基づいた決定を行うために、環境を順守して実践的な合法性を達成して積極的に実現したといえる。本研究は、会計基準の決定者が際立った利害関係者の役割に対して、ワーキング・グループの向上のために第三セクターの会計基準に対処する適正手続きに取り組む国々にとって重要であるといえる。

ملخص

ملخص

تفحص الدراسة الأدلة التجريبية للبيانات الواردة من منظمات القطاع الثالث وأصحاب المصلحة في إستجابة للتغيرات المقترحة على وضع معايير الإطار المحاسبي الجديد لنيوزيلندا. تهدف الدراسة إلى تحديد ما إذا كان أصحاب مصلحة القطاع الثالث لهم صوت في وضع معاييرمحاسبة القطاع الثالث. المقارنة الإنتقادية للتقارير والمقترحات يبدو أنها تبين أن واضعي المعايير لم يكونوا سامعين إلى أصحاب المصلحة من القطاع الثالث. مع ذلك، وجدت الدراسة أن واضعي المعايير إستخدموا إستراتيجيات إدارة شرعية لجمع صوت أصحاب مصلحة القطاع الثالث. واضعي المعاييريعملون مسبقا˝ على تحقيق ذلك عن طريق التأكيد على البيئة وتحقيق شرعية عملية من أجل ضمان أن تستند قراراتهم على صوت أصحاب مصلحة القطاع الثالث. الدراسة مهمة بالنسبة لتلك البلدان حيث يتصارع واضعي المعايير المحاسبية مع العملية الواجبة بسبب قيام المعايير المحاسبية للقطاع الثالث في السمو بالمجموعات العاملة إلى دور أصحاب المصلحة البارزة.

Keywords

Third sectorStandard settingSalient stakeholdersLegitimacy management strategies

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 760 - 784
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2013

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

Accounting Standards Board. (2007). Statement of principles for financial reporting: Interpretation for public benefit entities. London: Accounting Standards Board. Retrieved from http://www.frc.org.uk/asb/technical/projects/project0017.html.Google Scholar
Accounting Standards Board. (2011). The future of financial reporting in the UK and Republic of Ireland: Financial reporting exposure draft 45 financial reporting standard for public benefit entities. Retrieved from http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/ASB/FRED-45-Financial-Reporting-Standard-for-Public-Be.aspx.Google Scholar
Accounting Standards Board. (2012). Revised financial reporting exposure drafts. Retrieved 27 August 2012 from http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/ASB/The-Key-Facts-FREDs-46,-47-and-48-%28January-2012%29/Revised-FRED-The-Future-of-Financial-Reporting-%281%29.aspx.Google Scholar
Accounting Standards Review Board. (2009). Proposed application of accounting and assurance standards under the proposed new statutory framework for financial reporting. Wellington: Accounting Standards Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.asrb.co.nz.Google Scholar
Accounting Standards Review Board. (2010a). Suitability of IPSAS review: Report of the working group. Wellington: Accounting Standards Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.asrb.co.nz.Google Scholar
Accounting Standards Review Board. (2010b). Suitability of IPSAS for NFP entities: Working group report. Wellington: Accounting Standards Review Board. Retrieved from http://www.asrb.co.nz.Google Scholar
Accounting Standards Review Board. (2010c). Board deliberations. Wellington: ASRB. Retrieved from http://www.asrb.co.nz/Site/Financial_Reporting/Board_Deliberatons.aspx.Google Scholar
Altheide, D. L. (2000). Tracking discourse and qualitative document analysis. Poetics, 27, 287–299. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(00)00005-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Charitable Foundations (2011). Comments on FRED45 financial reporting standard for public benefit entities. Retrieved August 27, 2012, from http://www.frc.org.uk/Our-Work/Publications/ASB/FRED-45-Financial-Reporting-Standard-for-Public-Be/Responses-to-FRED-45/CL4-Association-of-Charitable-Foundations.aspx.Google Scholar
Australian Treasury. (2011). Final report on the scoping study for a national not-for-profit regulator: Treasury. Retrieved from August 10, 2011, from http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=035&ContentID=2054.Google Scholar
Baskerville, R. F., & Newby, S. P. (2002). Due process failure in sector-neutral accounting standard-setting. Financial Accountability & Management, 18(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1111/1468-0408.00143. (ISSN:0267-4424).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baylin, G., MacDonald, L., & Richardson, A. J. (1996). Accounting standard-setting in Canada, 1864–1992: A theoretical analysis of structural evolution. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 5(1), 113–131. doi: 10.1016/S1061-9518(96)90018-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, S., & Hannah, E. (2008). Non-state global standard setting and the WTO: Legitimacy and the need for regulatory space. Journal of International Economic Law, 11(3), 575–608. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgn022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, M. E., & Baskerville, R. (2008). The ‘NZ’ in ‘NZ IFRS’: Public benefit entity amendments. Australian Accounting Review, 18(3), 185–190. doi: 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2008.0023.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Charities Commission. (2011). A snapshot of New Zealand’s charitable sector: A profile of registered charities as at 28 February 2011. Wellington: Charities Commission. Retrieved from http://www.charities.govt.nz/assets/docs/key-statistics/2011/sector.pdf.Google Scholar
Charity Commission. (2005). Accounting and reporting by charities: Statement of recommended practice. London: Accounting Standards Board. Retrieved from http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/investigations/sorp/sorp05.asp.Google Scholar
Charity Commission (2008). Charities (accounts & reports) regulations. Wellington: Charity Commission.Google Scholar
Christensen, A. L., & Mohr, R. M. (1999). Nonprofit lobbying: Museums and collections capitalization. Financial Accountability & Management, 15(2), 115–133. doi: 10.1111/1468-0408.00077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, P. M. (2008). Stakeholder accountability: A field study of the implementation of a governance improvement plan. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 933–954. doi: 10.1108/09513570810907429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2000). Charity accounting: An empirical analysis of the impact of recent changes. British Accounting Review, 32, 77–100. doi: 10.1006/bare.1999.0124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, C., & Hyndman, N. (2001). A comparative study on the impact of revised SORP2 on British and Irish Charities. Financial Accountability & Management, 17(1), 73–97. doi: 10.1111/1468-0408.00122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, C., Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2009). Charity reporting and accounting: Taking stock and future reform. London: Charity Commission. Retrieved March 24, 2010, from http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/rs21.aspx.Google Scholar
Cooper, D. J., & Robson, K. (2006). Accounting, professions and regulation: Locating the sites of professionalization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4–5), 415–444. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordery, C. J., & Baskerville, R. (2007). Charity financial reporting regulation: a comparative study of the UK and New Zealand. Accounting History, 12(1), 7–27. doi: 10.1177/1032373207072806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordery, C. J., & Baskerville, R. (2011). Charity Transgressions, Trust and Accountability. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(2), 197–213. doi: 10.1007/s11266-010-9132-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordery, C. J., & Patel, K. (2011). Financial reporting stock take: An assessment of accountability through charities’ filing on New Zealand’s charities register. Wellington: Victoria University.Google Scholar
Dainelli, F., Manetti, G., & Sibilio, B. (2012). Web-based accountability practices in non-profit organizations: The Case of national museums. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9278-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deegan, C., & Blomquist, C. (2006). Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4–5), 343–372. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2005.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.10.2307/258887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durocher, S., & Fortin, A. (2010). Standard-setting institutions’ user-oriented legitimacy management strategies: The Canadian case. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 7(4), 476–504. doi: 10.1108/11766091011094545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durocher, S., Fortin, A., & Côté, L. (2007). Users’ participation in the accounting standard-setting process: A theory-building study. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(1–2), 29–59. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellwood, S., & Newbury, S. (2006). A bridge too far: A common conceptual framework for commercial and public benefit entities. Accounting and Business Research, 36(1), 19–32. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2006.9730004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
External Reporting Board. (2011a). Accounting standards framework: A multi standards approach. Wellington: External Reporting Board. Retrieved from http://www.xrb.govt.nz/Site/Financial_Reporting_Strategy/default.aspx.Google Scholar
External Reporting Board. (2011b). Accounting standards framework for general purpose financial reporting by public benefit entities. Wellington: External Reporting Board. Retrieved from http://www.xrb.govt.nz/Site/Financial_Reporting_Strategy/Consultation_Documents.aspx.Google Scholar
External Reporting Board. (2011c) New Zealand international accounting standard 1: Presentation of financial statement. Wellington: NZICA. Retrieved from http://www.xrb.govt.nz/Site/Accounting_Standards/Current_Standards/Standards_For-Profit_Entities.aspx.Google Scholar
External Reporting Board. (2011d). Simple format reporting for NFP entities: Working group report. Wellington: External Reporting Board. Retrieved from http://xrb.govt.nz/Site/Financial_Reporting_Strategy/Accounting_Standards_Framework.aspx#deliberationspaper.Google Scholar
External Reporting Board. (2012). New Zealand accounting standard board members. Retrieved from http://www.xrb.govt.nz/Site/about_us/NZASB_Board/NZASB_Board_Members.aspx.Google Scholar
Financial Reporting Act. (1993). New Zealand Government, legislation number 106.Google Scholar
Fogarty, T. J. (1994). Structural-functionalism and financial accounting: Standard setting in the US. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 5(2), 205–226. doi: 10.1006/cpac.1994.1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Gerboth, D. L. (1973). Research, intuition, and politics in accounting inquiry. The Accounting Review, 48(3), 475–482.Google Scholar
Gerboth, D. L. (1987). The conceptual framework: Not definitions, but professional values. Accounting Horizons, 1(3), 1–8.Google Scholar
Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282–293. doi: 10.1108/14691930410533704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, T. B. (2011). Lobbying of the IASB: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Accounting Research, 10(2), 57–75. doi: 10.2308/jiar-10078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, A., & Jones, M. J. (1992). The impact of SORP on the UK charitable sector: An empirical study. Financial Accountability & Management, 8(1), 49–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.1992.tb00140.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, K., Sinclair, R., Hui, D., & Mataira, K. (2008). Financial reporting by New Zealand charities: Finding a way forward. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(1), 68–83. doi: 10.1108/02686900810838173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyndman, N. (1990). Charity accounting: An empirical study of the information needs of contributors to UK fund raising charities. Financial Accountability & Management, 6(4), 295–307. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.1990.tb00121.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyndman, N. (1991). Contributors to charities: A comparison of their information needs and the perceptions of such by the providers of information. Financial Accountability & Management, 7(2), 69–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.1991.tb00126.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyndman, N., & Kirk, R. (1988). Charities called to account. Management Accounting, 66(9), 36–37.Google Scholar
Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2010). The evolution of the UK charity statement of recommended practice: The influence of key stakeholders. European Management Journal, 28(6), 455–466. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2010.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyndman, N., & McMahon, D. (2011). The hand of government in shaping accounting and reporting in the UK charity sector. Public Money & Management, 31(3), 167–174. doi: 10.1080/09540962.2011.573226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Accounting Standards Board. (2010). Conceptual framework for financial reporting 2010. London: IASB. Retrieved from http://eifrs.ifrs.org/eifrs/files/136/Conceptual%20fw%202010_130.pdf.Google Scholar
International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board. (2010). Conceptual framework exposure draft 1. London: IFAC. Retrieved from http://www.ifac.org/guidance/EXD_Downlaod.php?EDFID=0298.Google Scholar
Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. (2003). Handbook on non-profit institutions in the system of national accounts. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.jhu.edu/gnisp/handbookdraft.html.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. B., & Solomons, D. (1984). Institutional legitimacy and the FASB. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 3(3), 165–183. doi: 10.1016/0278-4254(84)90015-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilcullen, L., Hancock, P., & Izan, H. Y. (2007). User requirements for not-for-profit entity financial reporting: An international comparison. Australian Accounting Review, 17(1), 26–37.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Larson, R. K. (2007). Constituent participation and the IASB’s international financial reporting interpretations committee [article]. Accounting in Europe, 4(2), 207–254. doi: 10.1080/17449480701727981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, R. K., Herz, P. J., & Kenny, S. Y. (2011). Academics and the development of IFRS: An invitation to participate. Journal of International Accounting Research, 10(2), 97–103. doi: 10.2308/jiar-10082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. (2004). Public reporting: A neglected aspect of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 169–185. doi: 10.1002/nml.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. (2007). The ingredients of financial transparency. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 156–164. doi: 10.1177/0899764006296847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minister of Commerce. (2011a). Regulatory impact statement: The review of the financial reporting framework. Wellington: Ministry of Economic Development. Retrieved from http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/78100/RIS-RFRF.pdf.Google Scholar
Minister of Commerce. (2011b). Review of the financial reporting framework: Primary issues. Wellington: Ministry of Economic Development. Retrieved from http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/78100/Cabinet-Paper-RFRF-Primary-Issues.pdf.Google Scholar
Minister of Commerce. (2011c). Review of the financial reporting framework: Secondary issues. Wellington: Ministry of Economic Development. Retrieved from http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/78100/Cabinet-Paper-RFRF-Secondary-Issues.pdf.Google Scholar
Ministry of Economic Development. (2009). The statutory framework for financial reporting: Discussion document. Wellington: Ministry of Economic Development. Retrieved from http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC_41975.aspx.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. doi: 10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newberry, S. (1992). Special issues of accounting for charities in New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants.Google Scholar
Palmer, P. D. (2011). Exploring attitudes to financial reporting in the Australian not-for-profit sector. Accounting & Finance. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.2011.00456.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, P., Isaacs, M., & D’Silva, K. (2001). Charity SORP compliance: Findings of a research study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(5), 255–262. doi: 10.1108/02686900110392904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, L. D. (2007). Financial and external reporting research: The broadening corporate governance challenge. Accounting and Business Research, 37(1), 39–54. doi: 10.1080/00014788.2007.9730057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, J., & Dixon, B. R. (1983). Accounting for non-profit organisations. Wellington: New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. J. (1985). Symbolic and substantive legitimation in professional practice. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 10(2), 139. doi: 10.2307/3340349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, A. J., & Dowling, J. B. (1986). An integrative theory of organizational legitimation. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 3(2), 91–109. doi: 10.1016/0281-7527(86)90022-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (2010). Putting the civil society sector on the economic map of the world. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 81(2), 167–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8292.2010.00409.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samkin, G., & Schneider, A. (2010). Accountability, narrative reporting and legitimation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(2), 256–289. doi: 10.1108/09513571011023219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, B. P. (1997). Objectivity, relativism, and truth in external financial reporting: What’s really at stake in the disputes? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 165–185. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(96)00017-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, R. (2010). Understandability and transparency of the financial statements of charities (PhD). AUT University, Auckland.Google Scholar
Steenkamp, N., & Northcott, D. (2007). Content analysis in accounting research: The practical challenges. Australian Accounting Review, 17(3), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.10.2307/258788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tandy, P. R., & Wilburn, N. L. (1992). Constituent participation in standard-setting: The FASB’s first 100 statements. Accounting Horizons, 6(2), 47–58.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Williams, S., & Palmer, P. (1998). The state of charity accounting: Developments, improvements and continuing problems. Financial Accountability & Management, 14(4), 265–279. doi: 10.1111/1468-0408.00065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, S., & Marshall, S. (2004). The more the merrier? Stakeholders in not-for-profit companies (survey). Third Sector Review, 10(1), 101(128).Google Scholar
Young, J. J. (1994). Outlining regulatory space: Agenda issues and the FASB. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(1), 83–109. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(94)90013-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar