Post-Event Report: Charting Paths – Proposals and Emerging Frameworks for NGO Regulation and Accountability

University of Stirling, 7 March 2025

The University of Stirling Law School hosted the Charting Paths: Proposals and Emerging Frameworks for NGO Regulation and Accountability workshop on 7 March 2025. Organised by Dr Domenico Carolei, Lecturer in Public International Law and Public Law, with support from the Society of Legal Scholars, the event brought together leading academics, policymakers, and NGO practitioners to discuss key challenges in NGO accountability and regulation.

Participants included experts from UK and international institutions, with delegates joining from the USA and Thailand. Representatives from the OECD and the EU Parliament enriched the discussions, alongside inspiring NGO professionals, including quality and accountability leads from Oxfam GB and Human Appeal. The delegates were welcomed by Dr Mo Egan, the Head of the Law School, University of Stirling.

As NGOs face increasing scrutiny due to sector-wide scandals, funding constraints, and tightening regulations, the workshop provided a crucial platform for addressing these challenges. Discussions focused on legal frameworks, governance innovations, power imbalances, and regulatory pressures, contributing to ongoing research and policy development. With significant cuts to foreign aid, many NGOs are on the brink of collapse, restructuring, or merging. In this turbulent environment, accountability risks being deprioritised. The workshop explored how academics and practitioners can collaborate to help NGOs maintain their accountability to all stakeholders, especially the communities they serve.

Crucially, the event laid the foundation for continued collaboration, including plans for a book in the form of an edited collection and the creation of a network to sustain these vital conversations.

The first panel, Rethinking NGO Accountability – Power, Culture, and Oversight, chaired by Professor Alasdair Rutherford from the University of Stirling, examined power dynamics, regulatory mechanisms, and cultural oversight in NGO accountability. Dr Mayumi Fuchi from Human Appeal and Professor Angela Crack from the University of Portsmouth presented their work on how compliance-driven accountability models fail to address deeper power imbalances and cultural hierarchies in the humanitarian sector. Their study, employing Gaventa’s Powercube framework, analysed the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS) consultation process and demonstrated how the sector's overarching institutional power imbalance, combined with the role of race, gender, and historical power asymmetries in shaping humanitarian decision-making, has limited the CHS's potential to challenge systematic inequalities in the aid sector. They advocated for a fourth wave of NGO accountability reform, one that prioritises justice-oriented, community-led approaches over donor-driven compliance.

Loveleen Kumari and Professor Angela Crack explored the role of the Humanitarian Quality Assurance Initiative (HQAI) in NGO accountability through the lens of Bourdieu’s theory of capital. Their research highlighted how HQAI audits reinforce existing power structures by disproportionately benefiting well-resourced NGOs in the Global North. While CHS certification can enhance an organisation’s economic, symbolic, and social capital, it also places significant barriers on smaller and local organisations, which often struggle to meet the rigorous requirements. Their presentation raised critical questions about the inclusivity and equity of accountability mechanisms and suggested reforms that could level the playing field.

Dr Andrew Henck from Glasgow Caledonian University examined the impact of organisational culture on NGO regulation. Using the Oxfam Haiti scandal as a case study, he introduced a Developmental Model for Cultural Consciousness, which argues that many accountability failures in NGOs stem not from individual wrongdoing but from systemic, unconscious cultural issues. His proposal for a Cultural Audit—conducted every three years—aims to diagnose and address these deep-seated cultural challenges before they escalate into full-blown crises. He recommended ethnographic research, organisational diagnostics, and structural interventions as tools for strengthening accountability from within NGOs.

The second panel, NGO Accountability in a Changing World – Standards, Regulation, and Civic Space, was chaired by Professor Mátyás Bodig from the University of Aberdeen and focused on NGO oversight, international standards, and regulatory challenges. Brando Benifei, a Member of the European Parliament, reflected on how NGO accountability and transparency became a priority in the EU Parliament following the Qatargate scandal in 2022. He warned that while transparency regulations are intended to enhance integrity, some political forces could manipulate these mechanisms to undermine NGOs rather than support them. He also noted that the current geopolitical climate could lead to a reduction in EU funding for NGOs, further complicating the regulatory landscape.

Michael Hammer from Keele University and ROCsalt examined the complexities of regulating NGO accountability, particularly within the European Union. Drawing from a study conducted for the EU Parliament, he outlined the challenges posed by the transnational nature of NGOs, varying regulatory environments, and trust deficits resulting from past scandals. He proposed a co-regulation model that integrates transparency, independent verification, and complaints adjudication to ensure accountability while preserving the operational space of NGOs. A key takeaway from his presentation was the urgent need for a sustainable, internationally anchored ombuds system to address accountability concerns without imposing excessive bureaucratic burdens.

Dr Jacqueline Wood, Team Lead - Senior Civil Society Specialist from the OECD, explored the potential role of the OECD in strengthening civil society organisation (CSO) accountability through its DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society. While OECD instruments primarily apply to state actors, she argued that there is significant potential for CSO accountability to be enhanced through peer reviews, guidance, and voluntary adherence mechanisms. Her presentation examined the balance between incentives and enforcement, emphasising that regulatory enforcement remains challenging but that OECD recommendations can still serve as effective accountability tools through normative guidance, monitoring, and cross-border cooperation.

Professor Mokbul Morshed Ahmad from the Asian Institute of Technology provided a case study on the regulatory environment for NGOs in Bangladesh, detailing how increasing governmental control and shrinking civic space have impacted NGO operations. He traced the historical shift from foreign-funded development NGOs to microfinance-based sustainability models and outlined the growing restrictions imposed on rights-based organisations. The government’s bureaucratic hurdles, bans on advocacy NGOs, and suppression of dissent—such as the 2022 ban on human rights group Odhikar—were highlighted as major challenges. His discussion underscored the increasing difficulties NGOs face in securing funds, obtaining government approvals, and maintaining operational freedom in restrictive political environments.

The third panel, Global Lessons in NGO Regulation – Comparative Insights from Europe, North America, and Asia, chaired by Dr Stefanie Switzer from the University of Strathclyde, provided comparative insights into NGO regulation across different regions. Professor Mark Sidel from the University of Wisconsin-Madison explored the rise and decline of nonprofit self-regulation in India, China, and Vietnam. He demonstrated how initial voluntary efforts in these countries were either abandoned or co-opted by the state, transforming self-regulation into a government-controlled mechanism.

Dr John Picton from the University of Manchester examined the role of service users on charity boards and the legal ambiguities surrounding their participation. He explored the complexities of internal accountability and whether involving service users strengthens governance or introduces conflicts of interest. Case studies from organisations such as English Heritage, RSPB, and Kids Company were analysed, with a discussion centering on whether charities should be viewed primarily as public goods providers or as trust-based organisations representing the interests of their stakeholders.

Professor George E. Mitchell from the City University of New York, who co-authored a paper with Professor Mary Kay Gugerty from the University of Washington, explored how declining public trust in NGOs has led to an increased reliance on non-governmental regulation. They examined the limitations of government oversight in ensuring mission effectiveness and argued that transparency initiatives, third-party evaluators, and self-regulation could help close the trust gap. The presentation also highlighted challenges such as inconsistent data and high participation costs. They concluded with recommendations for improving NGO information ecosystems to counteract growing skepticism from both political extremes.