4.4 Article

Drivers for the proactive online disclosure of information in the NGO sector: the Colombian case

期刊

ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 769-787

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/OIR-05-2014-0113

关键词

Internet; NGO; Colombia; Disclosure; Transparency; Web pages

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyze drivers for the proactive disclosure of information via the web in Colombian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a strategy for fostering their legitimacy and responding to the institutional pressure to which they are subjected. Design/methodology/approach - The web sites of 196 NGOs from Colombia have been analyzed, first, via an Online Transparency Index that is consistent with Cronbach a coefficient and later, by performing a Tobit regression analysis. Findings - The proactive online disclosure of information in Colombian NGOs is very low. In spite of the high distrust of the resource management they receive, the financial information is the least aspect disclosed in their web pages. In addition, the larger NGOs are the entities that most disclose information via their web site. Likewise, the factors of internationalization, donations, community services and dependence on voluntary work show a positive effect on certain aspects of the online disclosure of information analyzed. Practical implications - The lack of web use as a strategy for a proactive disclosure of information is clearly observed. Therefore, both obligatory and voluntary accountability mechanisms should be more aware of the need for fostering the benefits of a web site, as being transparent in a proactive manner will increase trust in this sector. Originality/value - As the majority of the research papers related to online disclosure are focused on the corporate and public sector, this study addresses the issue of the NGO sector and particularly aims to contribute to the scarce literature regarding web use of entities from developing countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据