The dilemmas of NGO legitimacy

Source: de Graaf 1987 cited in (Lewis 2001:141-142).

in case something goes wrong.

For instance, in case of corruption involving partners, SCN will have to repay the grant money to the Norwegian government.

Moreover, if partners fail to deliver expected results, so does SCN. As noted earlier, results and funds are

perceived as valuable because they are directly linked to accountability and performance, which are important sources of NGO legitimacy: hence the

emphasis on mechanisms to assess the potential risks that partners can bring to SCN.

I did not find enough support on my data to claim that the construction of other objects as risky, like staff, the host country and the host government, was also related to sources of NGO legitimacy. I return to this point in section 6.3.

perceived as a legitimate actor in the aid industry. As I will seek to

demonstrate, the tensions between different types and “sources” of legitimacy and different stakeholder priorities over legitimacy sources (Suchman 1995, Scott 2001) play a role in shaping employees’ perceptions of organizational risk, since actions to secure one source of NGO legitimacy may put another at risk (Ossewaarde et al. 2008).

One of the dilemmas singled out by respondents concerns conflicting expectations as to professionalism and low administrative costs. Like other development NGOs, SCN is expected to act as a “channel,” transferring funds from donors in the North to beneficiaries in the South, with minimum

expenditure for administration. On the other hand, SCN is also expected to behave as a professional organization with good management systems to ensure that funds are well spent and results achieved. This requires using part of the funds raised to run the organization itself (paying salaries, maintaining properties, fund-raising, paying software licenses, etc.). As a respondent from Nepal explained:

We may say that our overhead costs are getting too high. Ok, that is a risk, in the sense that a number of donors don’t want our overhead costs to be high. We don’t, we want get as much money we can to children.

So, it’s a challenge that we have to deal with. We may get negative feedback from donors, and we may get negative publicity if we seem to have overheads that are too high. Having said that, to run good

monitoring and evaluation, to design good projects, to provide good materials on communication, it requires money which is not directly given to children, but it’s used in a sense to operate the organization.

So, how do you balance that? How much should be going to direct programs to children? How much should go to the organization? (#14-F-NE)

In one way or another, the organization will face risks, hence the dilemma. If SCN keeps administrative costs low at the expenses of improving controls and monitoring systems, the organization risks corruption or failing to deliver expected results. If SCN invests to improve its internal control mechanisms at the expense of keeping administrative costs low, the organization risks being

criticized for not channeling the majority of donations to beneficiaries. As noted earlier, failing to deliver program outcomes, corruption, and high overheads are all risks for SCN. The “rules of the game” in the aid industry can create risks for SCN, by forcing it to prioritize one source of NGO legitimacy over another.

SCN faces not only multiple legitimating criteria, but multiple stakeholders whose interests and views may conflict with each other (Lister 2003). Seeking legitimacy with one stakeholder group may jeopardize the organization’s reputation and credibility with another (Lim 2012). This conflict was noted by some respondents who reflected upon the dilemma between speaking out against violations of children’s rights in the host country and keeping silent about sensitive/politicized issues. As an organization that claims to fight for the promotion, protection, and fulfillment of children’s rights, SCN is

expected—by beneficiaries, other NGOs and the general public in Norway—to act according to its mission. This entails speaking up for children whenever the occasion arises, as a respondent from head office noted:

(…) we do have a huge responsibility because Save the Children is a huge organization, which is also seen by other organizations as a big organization, one that should step up on behalf of children and be the voice of children (#6-F-NOR)

However, these are not the only relevant social actors for SCN. An important legitimating stakeholder is the host government, which has regulatory authority over the organization’s operations within that country. From the perspective of the host government, a “legitimate” NGO is one whose actions match its values and expectations (Deephouse 1996). In certain countries, this means that SCN is allowed to do service delivery, but prohibited from doing advocacy work. Working in these countries involves a difficult choice, as a respondent from head office explained: “You work there under this frame and you keep a low profile when it comes to political issues; or you choose to not work in the country and raise your voice.” (#15-F-NOR)

Here lies the dilemma. If SCN speaks out against the abuse of children’s rights in these countries, the organization loses legitimacy with the government. This could put the safety of staff and the implementation of programs at risk.

However, if SCN remain quiet about violations, in order to help their target group on the ground, the organization risks being accused by other

stakeholders of violating its mandate. As another respondent noted:

That’s the dilemma. SC media and communication people will always be saying: “We can’t be somewhere and not talk about it. We cannot be in the Horn of Africa and see that Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières and others are speaking broadly and boldly about violations against children and we are in the same place and we are not allowed to do so.”

(#6-F-NOR)

Regardless of which stakeholder SCN chooses to prioritize, the organization will encounter risks. In fact, an advocacy manual produced by representatives from six SC national organizations (including SCN) states:

(…) sometimes it is necessary to take a strong stand on an issue and this may involve some risk. It is always hard to decide whether it is more important to speak out strongly and risk being jailed or kicked out of the country, or to stay silent and risk losing legitimacy by not standing up for your members and constituents. (International Save the Children Alliance 2007:60)