Page 468
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Relationship Between Governance Accounting Practices and Risk
Management among Non-Governmental Organizations in Kajiado
County, Kenya
Lilian Mbatha; Dr. Dickson Kinyariro
(PhD), Dr. James Gitari
(PhD)
School of Business and Economic Studies,The Cooperative University of Kenya.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600036
Received: 08 June 2026; Accepted: 13 June 2026; Published: 03 July 2026
ABSTRACT
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) operate in increasingly complex environments characterized by
donor dependency, accountability pressures, financial uncertainty, and operational risks, making effective
governance and risk management essential for organizational sustainability. Governance accounting practices
such as board oversight, internal audit, compliance monitoring, transparency, and accountability structures are
expected to strengthen institutional control and support risk management. However, empirical evidence on the
relationship between governance accounting and risk management within NGOs in Kenya remains limited. This
study examined the relationship between governance accounting practices and risk management among NGOs
in Kajiado County, Kenya. A cross-sectional mixed-methods design was adopted, involving 93 respondents
drawn from registered NGOs through a census approach. Data were collected using structured questionnaires
and key informant interviews and analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and simple linear
regression, alongside thematic analysis of qualitative data. The descriptive findings indicated high levels of
governance accounting adoption among NGOs, particularly in relation to internal audits and financial controls
(M = 4.59, SD = 0.56), compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements (M = 4.55, SD = 0.63), and board
oversight structures (M = 4.51, SD = 0.56). Correlation analysis revealed a positive but statistically insignificant
relationship between governance accounting and risk management (r = 0.186, p = 0.074). Similarly, regression
analysis showed that governance accounting had a positive but statistically insignificant relationship with risk
management (β = 0.306, p = 0.074), explaining 3.5% of the variation in risk management outcomes (R² = 0.035).
Qualitative findings suggested that governance accounting contributed to institutional stability and
accountability but was more effective when embedded in routine organizational decision-making rather than
maintained primarily for compliance. The study concludes that governance accounting is an important
accountability and control mechanism within NGOs, but its independent contribution to risk management is
limited when examined in isolation. The study recommends stronger integration of governance systems into
strategic risk oversight, institutional decision-making, and organizational accountability frameworks.
Keywords: Governance accounting, risk management, NGOs, accountability, internal controls, Kenya.
INTRODUCTION
Governance has become an increasingly important issue in the management and sustainability of Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs), particularly in contexts where organizations operate under financial
uncertainty, donor dependence, and growing accountability demands. NGOs are expected not only to deliver
social value but also to maintain transparency, compliance, and sound internal control systems in order to sustain
stakeholder trust and organizational legitimacy (Ebrahim, 2019; Jordan & van Tuijl, 2018). In such settings,
governance accounting practices have emerged as a critical dimension of organizational accountability because
they provide the structures, systems, and reporting mechanisms through which institutions monitor compliance,
enforce internal controls, and oversee financial and operational risks (Bebbington et al., 2014; Schaltegger &
Burritt, 2017).
Governance accounting refers to the systems and practices through which organizations record, monitor, and
report governance-related processes such as board oversight, internal audit, compliance management, policy
Page 469
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
enforcement, accountability structures, and transparency mechanisms (Adams, 2019; Gray, 2021). Within
NGOs, governance accounting plays an especially important role because these organizations often rely on donor
funding, external partnerships, and public trust, all of which require strong systems of stewardship and
institutional oversight. Effective governance accounting can therefore strengthen organizational resilience by
improving control over resources, reducing fraud and misuse, supporting regulatory compliance, and enhancing
strategic risk monitoring (Hopkin, 2018; ISO, 2018).
Risk management is increasingly recognized as a central function of effective NGO governance. NGOs face a
wide range of risks, including financial instability, donor withdrawal, project failure, weak internal controls,
reputational damage, leadership failures, and non-compliance with statutory or donor requirements (Aven, 2016;
Power, 2019). In this context, governance accounting practices are expected to contribute to risk management
by providing formal mechanisms for oversight, monitoring, accountability, and corrective action. Strong board
supervision, internal audit systems, and transparent reporting processes may enable NGOs to identify and address
risks before they escalate into broader institutional crises (Mikes & Kaplan, 2015; Simons, 2019).
Existing literature suggests that governance systems are strongly linked to organizational stability and
accountability. Studies in both private and nonprofit sectors have shown that board effectiveness, internal
controls, audit mechanisms, and accountability reporting are associated with improved organizational
performance and lower exposure to operational and financial risk (Adams, 2017; Arena et al., 2020). In the NGO
sector, governance has also been associated with donor confidence, financial sustainability, and legitimacy,
especially in organizations operating in highly regulated or donor-dependent environments (Ebrahim, 2019;
O’Dwyer & Boomsma, 2019). However, much of this literature has focused on governance in broad institutional
terms, with less attention given to governance accounting practices specifically as measurable accountability
systems linked to risk management.
In Kenya, NGO accountability studies have largely focused on donor reporting, financial management, and
governance compliance, with relatively limited empirical examination of how governance accounting practices
relate to risk management outcomes within NGOs (Mohamed & Makori, 2022; Mutua, 2023). Most available
studies have also concentrated on corporate organizations or urban-based institutions, leaving limited evidence
from county-level NGO contexts where institutional capacity, donor pressure, and operational risks may differ
significantly. This gap is particularly important in counties such as Kajiado, where NGOs operate in
environments characterized by environmental uncertainty, resource limitations, community vulnerability, and
dependence on external funding.
Kajiado County provides a particularly relevant setting for examining governance accounting and risk
management because NGOs in the county are required to navigate complex accountability expectations while
operating under constrained institutional and financial conditions. In such settings, governance accounting
practices such as board oversight, internal controls, compliance monitoring, and accountability reporting may
play a critical role in reducing organizational risk and strengthening institutional resilience. However, there
remains limited empirical evidence on whether and to what extent governance accounting practices are
associated with risk management effectiveness among NGOs operating in such contexts.
Problem Statement
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are increasingly required to demonstrate strong governance,
accountability, and internal control systems in order to maintain donor confidence, stakeholder trust, and long-
term operational sustainability. At the same time, NGOs face a wide range of organizational risks, including
financial mismanagement, compliance failures, weak internal controls, reputational threats, and project
implementation challenges, all of which can undermine their effectiveness and institutional credibility (Ebrahim,
2019; Hopkin, 2018).
Governance accounting practices, including board oversight, internal audit, compliance monitoring, policy
enforcement, and transparency mechanisms, are therefore expected to play a critical role in strengthening
organizational risk management. Despite the growing importance of governance in nonprofit management,
empirical evidence on the relationship between governance accounting practices and risk management within
Page 470
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
NGOs remains limited, particularly in developing country contexts. In Kenya, existing studies have focused
largely on donor reporting, financial accountability, and governance compliance, with limited attention given to
governance accounting as a measurable accountability system linked to organizational risk management
(Mohamed & Makori, 2022; Mutua, 2023). Furthermore, most available studies have not adequately examined
this relationship in county-level NGO settings characterized by resource constraints, institutional vulnerability,
and high dependence on external funding.
This gap is particularly relevant in Kajiado County, where NGOs operate in a context of environmental
uncertainty, diverse community needs, and constrained institutional capacity. In such settings, strong governance
systems may be essential for ensuring accountability, reducing exposure to organizational risks, and sustaining
program effectiveness. However, there remains limited empirical evidence on whether governance accounting
practices are significantly associated with risk management among NGOs operating in this context. This study
therefore sought to address this gap by examining the relationship between governance accounting practices and
risk management among Non-Governmental Organizations in Kajiado County, Kenya.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between governance accounting practices and risk
management among Non-Governmental Organizations in Kajiado County, Kenya, with a focus on how
governance-related accountability systems such as internal audit, board oversight, compliance structures, and
transparency mechanisms are associated with organizational risk management.
Study Design
This study employed a cross-sectional mixed-methods design to examine the relationship between governance
accounting practices and risk management among Non-Governmental Organizations in Kajiado County, Kenya.
The design enabled the concurrent collection of quantitative and qualitative data, allowing for triangulation of
findings and a more comprehensive understanding of governance accountability systems and organizational risk
management practices.
Study Setting
The study was conducted in Kajiado County, Kenya, a county characterized by environmental vulnerability,
socio-economic diversity, and active presence of Non-Governmental Organizations involved in health,
education, environmental conservation, community development, and humanitarian support. NGOs operating in
the county function within a context of donor dependency, resource constraints, and community accountability
demands, making the setting appropriate for assessing governance accounting practices and risk management.
Study Population
The study population comprised registered Non-Governmental Organizations operating in Kajiado County and
key organizational officers involved in financial accountability, governance oversight, reporting, and risk
management. The primary respondents included finance managers, project managers, monitoring and evaluation
officers, and administrative officers who were knowledgeable about the organization’s governance systems,
accountability structures, and risk management practices. In addition, key informants were drawn from selected
NGO leadership and management teams to provide qualitative insights into governance accounting
implementation and organizational risk management.
Sample Size and Sampling Procedure
A census approach was adopted to include all accessible registered NGOs operating in Kajiado County. A total
of 104 registered NGOs were targeted for participation, out of which 93 completed responses were obtained and
included in the final analysis, representing a response rate of 89.4 %. One respondent was targeted per NGO,
preferably the officer most knowledgeable in financial management, governance, compliance, or risk oversight.
For the qualitative component, key informants were purposively selected based on their managerial or
supervisory roles and their direct involvement in governance, reporting, or organizational oversight.
Page 471
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Data Collection Methods and Tools
Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and a key informant interview guide. The structured
questionnaire was administered to NGO representatives and captured information on governance accounting
practices and risk management practices. Questionnaire items were measured using a five-point Likert scale
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Governance accounting items focused on areas such as board
oversight, internal audit, compliance monitoring, transparency, accountability systems, policy implementation,
and governance reporting. Risk management items captured practices related to risk identification, monitoring,
mitigation, and institutional control systems.
Qualitative data were collected through key informant interviews to explore contextual experiences,
implementation challenges, and practical perspectives on governance systems and organizational risk
management. Open-ended responses were also used to capture views on major organizational risks, governance
challenges, and recommendations for strengthening institutional accountability and risk oversight.
Operationalization of Risk Management
Risk management was operationalized in accordance with ISO 31000:2018, which conceptualizes risk
management as a systematic process involving risk identification, assessment, treatment, monitoring, and review.
Five questionnaire items were developed to capture these dimensions, including the organization's ability to
identify risks, assess potential impacts, implement mitigation measures, monitor risk exposure, and maintain
effective internal control systems. Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). A composite risk management index was computed by averaging the scores
across the five indicators, with higher scores representing stronger risk management practices.
Construct
Dimension
Source
Risk Management
Risk Identification
ISO 31000 (2018)
Risk Management
Risk Assessment
ISO 31000 (2018)
Risk Management
Risk Treatment/Mitigation
ISO 31000 (2018)
Risk Management
Monitoring and Review
ISO 31000 (2018)
Risk Management
Internal Control Effectiveness
ISO 31000 (2018)
Pre-Testing, Validity, and Reliability
The data collection tools were pre-tested among selected NGOs outside the study area to assess clarity, relevance,
and consistency of the questionnaire items and interview guide. Content validity was ensured through expert
review by academic supervisors and alignment of the tool items with the study objective and variables.
Reliability of the quantitative questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, and necessary
revisions were made to improve internal consistency before the main data collection. The final instrument was
considered suitable for use after refinement based on pilot feedback and reliability testing.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data were entered and analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 28. Descriptive statistics,
including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were used to summarize respondent
characteristics and the level of adoption of governance accounting and risk management practices. Inferential
analysis included Pearson correlation analysis to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between
governance accounting and risk management. In addition, simple linear regression analysis was used to
determine the extent to which governance accounting practices predicted risk management among NGOs.
Page 472
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Qualitative data obtained from key informant interviews and open-ended questionnaire responses were
transcribed, organized, and analysed thematically. The qualitative findings were used to complement and
contextualize the quantitative results, particularly in relation to governance implementation, accountability
challenges, and practical risk management experiences.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the relevant institutional ethics review structures, and research
authorization was secured from the appropriate regulatory authorities prior to data collection. Participation in
the study was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents before data collection
commenced. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout the study by excluding personal
identifiers from the data collection tools and reporting findings in aggregated form. Access to the raw data was
restricted to the researcher and the academic supervisors only.
RESULTS
Governance Accounting Findings
Descriptive Analysis of Governance Accounting Practices
Governance accounting practices were measured using five indicators: clear governance structures and board
oversight, ethical leadership and transparency, regular internal audits and financial controls, compliance with
statutory and regulatory requirements, and donor-influenced governance reporting mechanisms. Table 1 presents
the descriptive statistics based on responses from 93 NGOs.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Governance Accounting Practices (n = 93)
Governance Accounting Practice
Mean
Clear governance structures and board oversight
4.51
Strong ethical leadership and transparency
4.49
Regular internal audits and financial controls
4.59
Compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements
4.55
Donor-influenced governance reporting mechanisms
4.49
The findings indicate very high levels of agreement across all governance accounting practices. Regular internal
audits and financial controls recorded the highest mean score (M = 4.59, SD = 0.56), followed closely by
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements (M = 4.55, SD = 0.63). Clear governance structures and
board oversight (M = 4.51, SD = 0.56), ethical leadership and transparency (M = 4.49, SD = 0.65), and donor-
influenced governance reporting mechanisms (M = 4.49, SD = 0.58) also recorded high mean scores.
Overall, the descriptive results suggest that governance accounting practices are strongly institutionalized among
NGOs in Kajiado County. The relatively low standard deviations indicate consistency in responses, suggesting
that most organizations demonstrate similar levels of governance implementation.
Correlation Analysis between Governance Accounting and Risk Management.
A Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between governance
accounting practices and risk management among NGOs in Kajiado County. Composite indices were computed
by averaging the five governance accounting items and the five risk management items for each of the 93
participating organizations.
Page 473
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Table 2: Pearson Correlation Matrix for Governance Accounting and Risk Management (n = 93)
Variables
Governance Accounting
Risk Management
Governance Accounting
1
0.186
Risk Management
0.186
1
p = 0.074
The results indicate a positive relationship between governance accounting practices and risk management (r =
0.186). However, the relationship is not statistically significant at the 5 percent level (p = 0.074). Although the
direction of the relationship suggests that higher levels of governance accounting are associated with improved
risk management practices, the strength of the association is weak and does not meet the conventional threshold
for statistical significance.
These findings suggest that, while governance accounting practices are widely implemented among NGOs, their
independent relationship with risk management is relatively modest when examined in isolation.
Regression Analysis for Governance Accounting and Risk Management
A simple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the effect of governance accounting practices on
risk management among NGOs in Kajiado County. Governance accounting was operationalized as a composite
index derived from the five governance indicators, while risk management was treated as the dependent
composite variable. The regression results indicate that governance accounting practices have a positive but
statistically insignificant effect on risk management (β = 0.306, p = 0.074). Although the positive regression
coefficient suggests that higher levels of governance accounting adoption are associated with improved risk
management performance, the p-value exceeds the 0.05 threshold. This indicates that the effect is not statistically
significant at the 5 percent level. The coefficient of determination (R² = 0.035) shows that governance accounting
explains approximately 3.5% of the variation in risk management among the surveyed NGOs. Furthermore, the
overall regression model is not statistically significant (F = 3.26, p = 0.074), reinforcing the conclusion that
governance accounting does not independently predict risk management effectiveness within this model.
Based on these findings, the null hypothesis stating that governance accounting practices have no significant
effect on risk management cannot be rejected. While governance accounting practices are strongly
institutionalized at the descriptive level, their independent statistical contribution to risk management appears
limited when examined in isolation. This suggests that governance mechanisms may influence risk management
indirectly or operate synergistically with other sustainability accounting dimensions rather than functioning as a
standalone predictor. Figure 1 presents the regression plot illustrating the relationship between governance
accounting and risk management.
Figure 1: Regression Plot of Governance Accounting and Risk Management (n = 93)
Page 474
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The scatter plot with the fitted regression line demonstrates a slight upward trend, visually confirming the
positive direction of the relationship. However, the dispersion of data points around the regression line indicates
considerable variability, reflecting the weak strength of association. The visual evidence aligns with the statistical
findings (β = 0.306, p = 0.074), confirming that although governance accounting is positively related to risk
management, the relationship does not reach statistical significance at the 5 percent level.
Overall, both the statistical output and the graphical representation consistently indicate that governance
accounting, when examined independently, exerts a limited and statistically insignificant influence on risk
management outcomes among NGOs in Kajiado County.
The qualitative findings also revealed that governance accounting practices were widely recognized as important
for organizational stability and accountability. Respondents emphasized the role of internal controls, board
oversight, financial reporting systems, and policy compliance in supporting risk management within NGOs.
However, some participants indicated that governance structures were stronger in larger NGOs than in smaller
organizations, where formal oversight mechanisms were sometimes less developed. These findings suggest that
governance accounting functions as a stabilizing framework that supports sustainability accounting
implementation and strengthens institutional accountability.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
Governance Accounting and Risk Management
The study found a positive but statistically insignificant relationship between governance accounting and risk
management among NGOs in Kajiado County (r = 0.186, p = 0.074; β = 0.306, p = 0.074). The positive direction
of the relationship suggests that NGOs with stronger board oversight, internal audit systems, compliance
structures, accountability mechanisms, and governance reporting tended to report relatively stronger risk
management practices. However, the relationship was weak and did not achieve statistical significance at the 5
percent level. These findings indicate that governance accounting, when examined independently, has limited
explanatory power in predicting risk management outcomes among NGOs.
Explaining the Statistical Insignificance of Governance Accounting
Although governance accounting practices were highly institutionalized among the surveyed NGOs, their
relationship with risk management was positive but statistically insignificant (r = 0.186, p = 0.074; β = 0.306, p
= 0.074). Descriptive findings showed consistently high levels of governance adoption, with regular internal
audits and financial controls recording the highest mean score (M = 4.59, SD = 0.56), followed by compliance
with statutory and regulatory requirements (M = 4.55, SD = 0.63) and board oversight structures (M = 4.51, SD
= 0.56). These results indicate that governance systems are widely established across NGOs in Kajiado County.
However, qualitative findings suggested that many of these governance mechanisms are primarily maintained to
satisfy donor requirements, regulatory obligations, and accountability expectations rather than to support
proactive strategic risk oversight. This may explain why governance accounting accounted for only 3.5% of the
variation in risk management outcomes (R² = 0.035) despite its widespread adoption. The findings therefore
suggest that governance accounting is often implemented as a compliance-oriented function rather than as a
strategic risk management capability.
Interpretation of Governance Accounting
The findings suggest that governance accounting plays an important institutional role within NGOs even though
it was not found to be a statistically significant independent predictor of risk management. The positive
regression coefficient (β = 0.306) and positive correlation coefficient (r = 0.186) indicate that governance
accounting moves in the expected direction, with stronger governance practices associated with relatively better
risk management outcomes. However, the absence of statistical significance and the low explanatory power of
the model (R² = 0.035) suggest that governance accounting alone is insufficient to explain variations in
organizational risk management. Rather, governance accounting appears to function as a foundational
accountability and control system that supports organizational stability, transparency, and oversight. Its
Page 475
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
contribution to risk management is therefore likely to be indirect and dependent on the extent to which
governance mechanisms are integrated into strategic decision-making, risk oversight processes, and broader
sustainability accounting practices. These findings imply that governance accounting is most effective when
used as a strategic management tool rather than merely as a compliance and reporting mechanism.
CONCLUSION
The study concluded that governance accounting practices exhibited a positive but statistically insignificant
relationship with risk management among NGOs in Kajiado County. Although governance systems such as board
oversight, internal audits, compliance monitoring, accountability structures, and governance reporting were
widely institutionalized across the surveyed organizations, their independent effect on risk management was
limited, explaining only 3.5% of the variation in risk management outcomes. The findings suggest that
governance accounting functions primarily as an accountability and control framework that supports
organizational oversight, transparency, and institutional stability. However, its effectiveness in enhancing risk
management appears to depend on the extent to which governance mechanisms are integrated into strategic
decision-making and proactive risk oversight rather than being maintained solely for compliance and reporting
purposes. The study therefore concludes that governance accounting remains an important foundation for
organizational resilience, but its contribution to risk management is likely to be indirect and strengthened when
combined with broader sustainability accounting and management practices.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This study recommends that NGOs should deliberately embed governance accounting into strategic decision-
making, risk oversight, and organizational planning processes, rather than treating it as a compliance-oriented
function. Strengthening this strategic integration should be prioritized because it enhances the practical utility of
governance systems, particularly in reinforcing accountability, internal control, and organizational oversight.
Boards, audit committees, and management teams should therefore actively utilize governance-generated
information to identify emerging risks, evaluate the adequacy of risk responses, and reinforce organizational
resilience in a more proactive and anticipatory manner. Even in contexts where governance accounting does not
demonstrate a statistically significant independent effect on risk management, NGOs should continue
strengthening governance systems because they remain foundational to effective accountability and control
structures. This study further recommends that future research work should examine the mechanisms through
which governance accounting influences risk management outcomes within NGOs, given that the observed
relationship, though positive, was statistically insignificant. The high level of adoption of governance
accounting, contrasted with its weak direct statistical effect, suggests the presence of other indirect pathways.
Future studies should therefore explore potential mediating and moderating variables such as organizational
culture, leadership effectiveness, institutional capacity, board effectiveness, and donor accountability
requirements. In addition, longitudinal research designs are recommended to provide deeper and more dynamic
insights into how governance systems shape risk management over time. The use of advanced analytical
techniques such as Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) would also be valuable in uncovering indirect, latent,
and synergistic relationships. Finally, comparative studies across sectors and geographical contexts are
encouraged to better understand the contextual conditions under which governance accounting more effectively
strengthens organizational resilience and risk governance.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, C. A. (2017). The sustainable development goals, integrated thinking and the integrated report.
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8(3), 1–20.
2. Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., & Azzone, G. (2010). The organizational dynamics of enterprise risk
management. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(7), 659–675.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2010.07.003
3. Aven, T. (2016). Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation.
European Journal of Operational Research, 253(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.12.023
4. Bebbington, J., Unerman, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (2014). Sustainability accounting and accountability (2nd
ed.). Routledge.
Page 476
www.rsisinternaonal.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
5. Ebrahim, A. (2019). Measuring social change: Performance and accountability in a complex world.
Stanford Social Innovation Review, 17(3), 40–47.
6. Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability... and how would
we know? An exploration of narratives of organizations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 35(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.006
7. Hopkin, P. (2018). Fundamentals of risk management: Understanding, evaluating and implementing
effective risk management (5th ed.). Kogan Page.
8. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018 risk management—Guidelines.
ISO.
9. Jordan, L., & van Tuijl, P. (2018). NGO accountability: Politics, principles and innovations. Routledge.
10. Mikes, A., & Kaplan, R. S. (2015). When one size doesn’t fit all: Evolving directions in the research and
practice of enterprise risk management. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 27(1), 37–40.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12098
11. O’Dwyer, B., & Boomsma, R. (2015). The co-construction of NGO accountability: Aligning imposed and
felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability relationships. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 28(1), 36–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-1488
12. Power, M. (2009). The risk management of nothing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 849–
855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.06.001
13. Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2017). Contemporary environmental accounting: Issues, concepts and
practice. Routledge.
14. Simons, R. (2014). How risky is your company? Harvard Business Review Press.
15. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2018). ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management—
Guidelines.