IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/corgov/v9y2001i1p48-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nonprofit Boards in Australia: A Distinctive Governance Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Steane
  • Michael Christie

Abstract

This article reports the findings into patterns of governance on nonprofit boards in Australia. The research surveys 118 boards, upon which serve a total of 1405 directors. The findings indicate that nonprofit boards can mimic some aspects of a shareholder approach to governance. But nonprofit boards, in the main, indicate priorities and activities of a stakeholder approach to governance. The features of ‘isomorphism’ that arise largely stem from legislative requirements in corporate governance. Generally, nonprofit directors are influenced by agenda and motivations that can be differentiated from the influences upon director activity in the corporate sector. The study indicates that nonprofit boards prize knowledge and loyalty to the sector when considering board composition. The survey suggests nonprofits “compensate” for the demands placed upon them about fiduciary duty and due diligence responsibilities with the diverse intellectual expertise of non‐executive directors. Nonprofit boards possess greater diversity than boards in the corporate sector; they include more women as directors than corporate boards and they include a greater proportion of directors from minority groups. While strategic issues feature significantly as a task of the nonprofit board, they distinguish themselves from their corporate counterparts by engaging in operational management. The findings indicate that, in the main, directors on nonprofit boards deliberate and operate in ways distinctive from their corporate counterparts. Such findings offer a contribution to the reform of Corporations Law in other countries and the likely consequence on boards outside the corporate sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Steane & Michael Christie, 2001. "Nonprofit Boards in Australia: A Distinctive Governance Approach," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 48-58, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:9:y:2001:i:1:p:48-58
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-8683.00225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00225
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-8683.00225?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chizema, Amon, 2010. "Early and late adoption of American-style executive pay in Germany: Governance and institutions," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 9-18, January.
    2. Tasawar Nawaz, 2022. "What's in an education? Implications of CEO education for financial inclusion," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 3741-3753, July.
    3. Ferkins, Lesley & Shilbury, David, 2015. "Board strategic balance: An emerging sport governance theory," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 489-500.
    4. Lorne Cummings & Maria Dyball & Jessica (Jin Hua) Chen, 2010. "Voluntary Disclosures as a Mechanism for Defining Entity Status in Australian Not-for-Profit Organisations," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 20(2), pages 154-164, June.
    5. Pirozek, Petr & Komarkova, Lenka & Leseticky, Ondrej & Hajdikova, Tatana, 2015. "Corporate governance in Czech hospitals after the transformation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(8), pages 1086-1095.
    6. Fara Azmat & Ruth Rentschler, 2017. "Gender and Ethnic Diversity on Boards and Corporate Responsibility: The Case of the Arts Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 141(2), pages 317-336, March.
    7. Parker, Lee, 2011. "University corporatisation: Driving redefinition," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 434-450.
    8. Bhuiyan, Md. Borhan Uddin & Sangchan, Pinprapa & Costa, Mabel D', 2022. "Do Co-opted boards affect the cost of equity capital?," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(PB).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:corgov:v:9:y:2001:i:1:p:48-58. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0964-8410&site=1 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.