Telling the money story: management reporting to directors of First Nations NFPs

The failure of financial information to support effective governance in culturally diverse contexts represents a critical challenge for accounting practice and theory. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander not-for-profits (NFPs) ^[1] occupy a distinct position within the NFP sector, operating in unique operational and governance spaces (Fukofuka et al., 2023; Guthrie et al., 2022; Lombardi, 2016) and contributing significantly to the socioeconomic empowerment of First Nations Australians (Evans and Polidano, 2022; Moran et al., 2016; Norris et al., 2024; Quiggin, 2018). However, stakeholders and decision-makers within these organisations can encounter significant challenges when engaging with financial information. In recent years, many entities have failed to comply with their regulatory reporting obligations, placing them at risk of deregistration or prosecution (ORIC, 2024).

These governance challenges may signal deeper ontological tensions pertaining to the intercultural domain they inhabit (Baker et al., 2025; Poelina et al., 2023). That is, First Nations norms of governance are not always aligned with Western models (Brigg et al., 2022; Turnbull and Poelina, 2022) and forms of financial information “may be particularly ineffective, disabling and alienating” (Chew and Greer, 1997, p. 277) when introduced to First Nations contexts. Community leaders have emphasised the importance of culturally informed governance and financial control environments to ensure community accountability, support service delivery and protect First Nations' self-determination (Bauman et al., 2015; Quiggin, 2018). However, financial reporting frameworks rooted in Western capitalist logics fundamentally fail to serve these culturally informed governance needs (Gibson, 2000; Uddin and Choudhury, 2008).

While past research has examined the usefulness of financial information in mainstream NFP settings, relatively little is known about the connections between governance, accounting and accountability practices within First Nations organisations. Critically, no studies have examined how CFOs navigate the translation of Western financial reporting requirements into culturally meaningful information for First Nations directors. Hence, this study ^[2] examines how accounting information is interpreted, communicated and used within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFP governance.

Specifically, we focus on the role of the CFO in communicating financial information to directors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs. Our review of existing literature indicates that NFP directors often struggle with financial literacy gaps, placing greater responsibility on CFOs to translate complex financial information into accessible, decision-useful formats (Daff and Parker, 2021; Vinnari and Näsi, 2013). In First Nations settings, these translation challenges can represent more than mere communication barriers, reflecting deeper structural tensions between reporting frameworks and First Nations governance protocols. Based on this literature and recent governance concerns in the sector, we ask: how do CFOs navigate structural tensions between Western reporting requirements and First Nations governance protocols when communicating financial information to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs, and how can they ensure this information contributes to effective governance in the sector?

We employed a decolonising research protocol (Smith, 2012) to guide our fieldwork for this study, including participant observation and in-depth, qualitative interviews with 37 directors and senior decision-makers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs. This approach emphasised relational engagement with participants, reflexive consideration of our positionality as researchers and an interpretive orientation grounded in participants' lived experiences and governance contexts.

The CFO's role in communicating financial information to directors was examined using Rob Stones' (2005, 2015) strong structuration theory (SST). This theory has been used in accounting studies to interpret processes of sense-making through the communication of financial information (Coad et al., 2016; Daff and Jack, 2018; Feeney and Pierce, 2016; Jack, 2017). In our study, we emphasise the CFO's role as a strategic agent, navigating structural tensions between regulatory compliance and standardised reporting frameworks versus the cultural protocols that First Nations directors feel compelled to enact. We identify these cultural protocols as external structural conditions that directors and CFOs jointly face and must negotiate while also meeting the demands of regulators and funders. Conceptualising cultural protocols in this way shifts the analytical focus from individual disposition toward the structural conditions through which governance legitimacy is established. Our empirical findings highlight the corresponding opportunity for First Nations NFPs to create hybrid governance structures to overcome these tensions and achieve systems of culturally legitimate, effective and compliant governance.

This research makes several important contributions. First, we extend SST by reconceptualising cultural protocols as external structural constraints rather than internal cultural dispositions, demonstrating how cultural authority systems shape the boundaries of legitimate governance action. This reframing shifts analytic attention from individual dispositions toward the structural processes through which governance practices gain legitimacy within First Nations authority systems. Recognising cultural protocols as structural conditions highlights the need for governance resourcing that is often overlooked when cultural governance systems are not recognised as structural constraints alongside regulatory and compliance frameworks. Second, this study contributes to the NFP governance literature by revealing additional responsibilities that CFOs bear in intercultural contexts, demonstrating how effective financial reporting requires relational and culturally legitimate communication practices in addition to technical financial expertise. In doing so, the study supports critical accounting scholarship that questions the imposition of Western governance models in culturally diverse organisational settings. Finally, we identify practical implications that follow from this structural perspective. We offer specific recommendations for accounting professional bodies to develop cultural competency requirements, for government agencies to provide targeted governance support and for First Nations organisations to lead governance innovation.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. We introduce the sector of study in section 2, along with a review of past studies related to the internal communication of financial information to NFP boards, before introducing the SST framework. Section 4 sets out the qualitative methodology adopted, incorporating principles of decolonisation and methods such as deep listening and participant observation suited to the context of the study. We present our findings in Section 5, examining the structural dynamics of CFO-director interactions and how strategic responses by CFOs can create structural transformation through repeated interactions. Section 6 discusses the research findings and contributions. We conclude by suggesting avenues for potential future research.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs make significant contributions to the communities they serve, for example, pursuing economic self-determination, delivering culturally aligned services and creating opportunities for employment and training (Evans and Polidano, 2022; Moran and Porter, 2014; Morrison et al., 2014). These NFP entities deliver services to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander beneficiaries and are typically controlled by boards with majority Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander directors. They can influence the allocation of government funding for First Nations communities and ensure local control of service delivery (Muller, 2008; Quiggin, 2018).

These organisations were first created in Australia under the Aboriginal Corporations and Associations Act 1976 (ACA Act) ^[3]. More than 3,300 corporations are currently registered under the Act and regulated by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC). However, many registered entities are experiencing significant governance challenges. In 2024, 9% of registered corporations (294 entities) were deregistered, with 18 facing prosecution for failing to comply with their annual reporting obligations, including financial reporting (ORIC, 2024). Two-thirds of all registered corporations failed to meet their 2023/24 reporting deadlines (ORIC, 2025b), and four corporations were under special administration ^[4] as at 30 June 2025 for reasons connected to serious and systemic governance concerns (ORIC, 2025a). These concerns included failures to maintain financial accounts and lodge audited financial statements, absence of policies and procedures to guide the financial management of the corporation, and inadequate financial controls in place.

In setting its five focus areas for 2025, the Registrar announced its focus on undervalued or misreported assets and income, risk of reduced accountability to members connected with income generated from non-government sources and the suitability of officers and/or service providers (such as accountants and bookkeepers) to support corporations, especially those experiencing vulnerability or disadvantage (ORIC, 2025c). Where these issues of compliance and adequate financial control are not addressed, corporations may be considered for liquidation and their directors face civil prosecution for failing to meet their duties (ORIC, 2025c).

While many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs make significant contributions to their communities, these recent governance concerns indicate the urgent need for directors to ensure adequate financial controls are in place to maintain regulatory compliance and avoid losing control of their organisations.

Accounting scholars have increasingly recognised First Nations accounting, accountability and governance as a distinct field of research. Several literature reviews have been published tracing the emergent themes of this research (Buhr, 2011; Bujaki et al., 2022; Norris et al., 2022; Ufodike, 2025; Vidwans and De Silva, 2023). This scholarly growth parallels the rapid expansion of Indigenous economies in countries such as Australia (Evans and Polidano, 2022; Evans et al., 2021). Early works critiqued accounting as a software of colonisation, drawing on examples of accounting practices in settler colonial regimes to legitimise the dispossession, marginalisation and genocide of First Nations peoples (Buhr, 2011; Gibson, 2000; Neu, 1999, 2000, 2003; Neu and Therrien, 2003; Scobie et al., 2025). Others explored the conceptual and ontological distinctions between First Nations and Western cultures to expose the inadequacies of financial accounting for the measurement of valuable land and intangible cultural heritage assets (Bodle et al., 2018; Chew and Greer, 1997; Craig et al., 2012, 2018; Greer and Patel, 2000). However, few early studies directly involved First Nations participants or scholars, limiting their insights into contemporary accounting experiences (Norris et al., 2022). In more recent years, the focus of scholarship has moved toward contemporary accounting practices within First Nations organisations to reveal distinct forms of accounting, governance and accountability (Finau et al., 2023; Fukofuka et al., 2023; Norris et al., 2023, 2024; Rossingh, 2012).

One such contribution to the literature comes from Fukofuka et al. (2023), who examine accounting practices within an Aboriginal corporation in rural Australia and the complex social contexts in which these practices take place. Their findings reveal that Elders and Traditional Owners exercise significant cultural authority in determining organisational accounting practices, regardless of formal accounting qualifications. The authors describe this authority as a symbolic “trumping” of cultural capital over accounting expertise and make the important observation that “accounting is not in systems but in people” (Fukofuka et al., 2023, p. 18).

First Nations accountability has also been the focus of several conceptual and empirical works. Distinct social and cultural beliefs within First Nations societies give rise to forms of accountability described as “relational” (Wilson, 2020; Wilson and Wilson, 1998) or “networked” (Ufodike et al., 2022). These forms of accountability extend to people, communities, land and knowledge (Wilson, 2020). Social connections are typically structured around genealogical descent, and founded on shared history, language and customs (Gallhofer et al., 2000; Mataira, 1994). Accountability is demonstrated through social conduct and the fulfilment of responsibilities in line with shared “norms, obligations, laws and traditions” (Mataira, 1994, p. 33). Scobie et al. (2023) present a comprehensive field study of First Nations accountability based on Te Rūnanga Group (TRG), an organisation established to manage Ngāi Tahu tribal assets in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Their findings emphasise the intrinsic, relational nature of accountability for Māori peoples and how Ngāi Tahu members expect appointed representatives such as directors to demonstrate accountability through the pursuit of Māori self-determination.

Connected to these accounting and accountability practices, scholars have also explored distinct governance arrangements in First Nations contexts, most notably the Harvard Indian Development Project, which documented culturally aligned governance practices in North America (known as “cultural match”) (Cornell and Kalt, 2000). More recently, Brigg et al. (2022) conducted an extensive study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance to reveal the links between effective, culturally embedded governance and organisational success. Their findings demonstrate the importance of governance “beyond compliance”, drawing on First Nations cultural values and strong community relationships (Brigg et al., 2022). Yet Western governance norms can displace community-focused responsibilities and distort accountability relationships (Scobie et al., 2023). For example, Ufodike et al. (2021, 2022) present a case of a First Nations health centre in Canada, highlighting the tensions in Western hierarchical versus First Nations forms of relational and reciprocal accountability, and the need for appropriate governance frameworks to suit First Nations contexts (Guthrie et al., 2022). In Australia, governance requirements have typically been introduced based on for-profit models, with mandatory corporate structures including a required minimum of 3 directors and 5 members, and mandatory annual reporting for all incorporated entities (ORIC, 2018). While these arrangements offer perceived efficiency in mainstream for-profit settings, research identifies them as unsuitable for First Nations contexts (Moran and Porter, 2014; Muller, 2008). Hence, the findings of these studies expose the complexities of governance in First Nations NFP settings.

It is clear from this review that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs require appropriate governance and control environments to ensure organisational success. These environments are most effective where there is clear alignment with community cultural values and aspirations to support self-determination and relational accountability. A critical aspect of effective governance involves the CFO in providing decision-useful financial information to directors while ensuring regulatory compliance. We focus on their role in this study and continue this literature review with further reflections on the CFO's role in effective NFP governance.

Financial reporting to the board is a critical governance requirement for NFPs. However, past research has found that reporting to directors can be inconsistent and of poor quality, due to resource constraints within the finance department (Daff and Parker, 2020, 2021). Further, there may be a gap between the financial expertise of directors and the financial information presented to them (Daff and Parker, 2021; Jack, 2013). Non-executive directors may find that “[a]ccounting is to a large extent a “foreign language” […] and the lack of accounting knowledge and understanding can be a serious inhibitor of good governance’ (Collier, 2005, pp. 943–944). For example, Vinnari and Näsi (2013) surveyed 182 board members in the Finnish public sector to find that 50% were not financially literate. Daff and Parker (2020) similarly conclude that NFP employees have a lower level of general financial literacy than their private sector counterparts. This financial literacy gap may be compounded where finance personnel lack the skills and resources to communicate financial performance in an engaging way (Jack, 2013). CFOs, therefore, face significant challenges in presenting and effectively communicating financial information to NFP directors. Given these obstacles, those in accounting roles take on a greater responsibility for explaining financial information than in for-profit entities (Daff, 2021; Daff and Parker, 2021).

This critical governance aspect has received limited attention within First Nations NFP contexts. Studies have found that First Nations directors can find financial accounting information intimidating, alienating and overwhelming, partly due to incongruence between First Nations social and spiritual values, and neo-liberal market economics (Chew and Greer, 1997; Greer and Patel, 2000; Norris et al., 2023). Consequently, First Nations NFPs can be “vulnerable to exploitation by politically astute Indigenous individuals and unscrupulous non-Indigenous employees and businesses” (Blue and O'Faircheallaigh, 2018, p. 41). When financial and governance controls are inadequate, funds may be misappropriated before directors can act (Blue and Pinto, 2021), leaving community-controlled entities at risk of failure (Norris et al., 2023).

Conversely, financial reporting tools can empower NFP managers and directors to articulate their needs or act as an arbiter of stakeholder disagreement (Busco and Quattrone, 2015). For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs, directors and communities can achieve improved financial decision-making and grasp the full potential of complex arrangements such as royalty streams and land use agreements when financial information is presented effectively (Blue and O'Faircheallaigh, 2018). Thus, financial information can be empowering and generate positive social outcomes when it enables community control of decision-making in line with social and cultural values. Where this culturally aligned decision-making occurs, directors can secure self-determining authority over commonly owned resources (Blue and O'Faircheallaigh, 2018; Lombardi, 2016). Indeed, annual reporting by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs has been found to communicate distinct cultural priorities and advance self-determination (Norris et al., 2023).

Furthermore, the CFO occupies a significant gatekeeping role in the communication of financial information to directors by controlling what information is presented and how. Whereas financial information presented to external stakeholders such as regulators and funders is prepared according to specified accounting regulations, board reporting is determined by senior management (CEO, CFO) based on the perceived needs of directors for decision-making (Daff, 2021). Yet recent scholarship has not been extended specifically to the role of the CFO and their relationship with directors within First Nations NFPs. Hence, in this study, we are motivated by the questions what is the role of the CFO in communicating financial information to the directors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs, and how can the CFO ensure this information contributes to effective governance in the sector.

These questions reflect calls for further research to explore CFO reporting to directors and their contributions to effective governance environments. We investigate how CFOs communicate financial information to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFP boards and whether such communication can bridge cultural divides. We move now to the theoretical framework for our research, SST, one of several theoretical positions used to examine accounting communications in diverse settings (Coad et al., 2016; Daff and Jack, 2018; Daff and Parker, 2021; Feeney and Pierce, 2016; Harris et al., 2016; Jack, 2013).

We employ SST in the present study for its focus on the structural determinants and observable outcomes of individual actions – in this case, the determinants of CFO communications to directors, and the outcomes in terms of governance effectiveness. SST has been characterised as an “empirically strong” version of structuration theory (ST) (Harris et al., 2016, p. 1181; Stones, 2005), which Anthony Giddens developed to articulate the relationship between human agency and social structure (Englund et al., 2020; Giddens, 1984; Jack, 2017). Giddens conceived of this relationship as the “duality of structure”; that social action and structure are inseparable (Giddens, 1984; Jack, 2017). Over time, routines of behaviour or “norms of conduct” (Englund and Gerdin, 2016, p. 254) become institutionalised to produce and reproduce social systems (Giddens and Dallmayr, 1982). Hence, when an individual acts, they are simultaneously demonstrating individual agency and recreating a structure through which social systems are sustained. According to Giddens' ST, therefore, agency and structure operate simultaneously; they are two sides of the same coin. In this sense, social life is understood as an ongoing process in which action draws upon and reproduces structural conditions.

However, ST was criticised for overemphasising the power of human agency and failing to recognise the relative autonomy of structures that exist outside of the human mind and may impose material constraints on action (Archer, 1995; Ashraf and Uddin, 2015). Responding to these critiques, Stones (2005) extended ST by combining duality and dualism ^[5], acknowledging the presence of both material and virtual structures (Ashraf and Uddin, 2015; Stones, 2005). This represents a move away from the human-focused ontology of structuration theory to acknowledge the influence of external forces beyond individual control (Englund and Gerdin, 2016; Stones and Jack, 2016). The points of intersection between agents and structures are known as “position-practices”, that is, the socially recognised roles, obligations and expectations that mediate how external structures are encountered in practice (Englund and Gerdin, 2016; Harris et al., 2016; Stones, 2005). Through position-practices, agents draw upon internal and external structures in enacting conduct, which may reproduce, reinforce or gradually modify those same structural conditions (Stones, 2005; Feeney and Pierce, 2016). Structuration is therefore recursive: social expectations are both the medium and the outcome of interaction over time.

Stones (2015) further applied this conceptual “structural–hermeneutic nexus” (Stones, 2005, p. 43) in the context of audience engagement with media coverage of current affairs. Stones (2015) characterised news coverage as a mediated representation of underlying reality which relies on the meaningful grounding of information in a wider context and the critical engagement of audiences to make sense of abstract concepts and interpret information before determining how to act. These insights reinforce SST's relevance for analysing accounting communication in which financial information is similarly mediated, context-dependent and requires interpretive engagement by its audience before it can shape conduct and subsequent governance outcomes.

SST consists of three levels of analysis: the abstract level, the meso level and the ontic level (Stones, 2005). These levels are analytically distinct yet interconnected, enabling researchers to move from high-level ontological concepts to empirically observable practices. The abstract level consists of the “quadripartite” of SST (Stones, 2005); four concepts which should not be viewed in isolation but are inseparable and reveal a web-like nature of structuration (Feeney and Pierce, 2016). Feeney and Pierce (2016) emphasise the importance of examining the “connecting tissue” between these elements, underscoring that structuration is best understood as a recursive and temporally unfolding process rather than a set of analytical categories.

1. External structures are the “conditions of action, which have an existence that is autonomous from the agent-in-focus” (Stones, 2005, p. 84). These structures can be independent (beyond the control of the individual) or irresistible (agents may have the capacity to resist, but they do not believe that they can) (Daff and Jack, 2018; Stones, 2005). External structures are mediated via “position-practices,” i.e. the independent, relational forces which condition, limit or facilitate action and interaction.

2. Internal structures are internal to the agent and differentiated between general dispositions (individual habitus or world views) and conjuncturally specific knowledge (agents' situated knowledge of structures) (Stones, 2005). Internal structures may evolve as agents learn from interaction and revise their conjunctural knowledge of what is possible or legitimate within a given context (Harris et al., 2016).

3. Active agency practices can be defined as performing an action with “the intention to have an effect on others” (Daff and Jack, 2018, p. 1699). These practices therefore represent the ways individuals act based on their interpretation of the structures in which they are situated (Stones, 2005). In this way, active agency is indirectly constrained by pre-existing norms or structures (Daff and Jack, 2018).

4. Outcomes of active agency represent the extent to which agents' actions produce intended outcomes for themselves or others (Stones, 2005). Outcomes may also include unintended consequences and effects on others' understanding of their own situational contexts. Importantly, outcomes are not end points but form the basis of learning and feedback loops that shape subsequent practices and expectations over time (Harris et al., 2016).

At the meso level, variations and relative degrees of these abstract concepts aid in their interpretation and influence how they are observed at the ontic level. For example, external structures can constrain or enable the agent's internal structures and practices, internal structures can be unreflective or critical, individual practices routine or strategic, and the outcomes intended or unintended. Such variations enable researchers to trace how different combinations of structural conditions and forms of agency contribute to the reproduction or modification of practices over time.

Finally, the substantive details and specificities of agents and structures can be empirically observed at the ontic level. By observing the characteristics of individual agency in terms of conduct and context, the researcher can begin to reveal the complex “web-like interdependencies” (Stones, 2005, p. 126) formed at the abstract level. The interactions between these three levels of analysis and the quadripartite elements are illustrated in Figure 1 below.

SST research typically centres on the dynamic interactions between agents and structures during processes of structuration in which multiple agents engage purposively to influence others or create particular outcomes (Daff and Parker, 2021; Feeney and Pierce, 2016). However, Coad and Herbert (2009) argue that structuration-based accounting research has often prioritised observable interactions while paying less attention to the deeper “connecting tissue” linking agents, motivations and structural conditions. Hence, the nature of this “connecting tissue” merits deeper exploration and may require additional theoretical perspectives to provide insights (Coad and Herbert, 2009).

SST has been taken up by accounting academics to reveal the autonomous nature of accounting as an external structure in diverse contexts (Feeney and Pierce, 2016) ^[6]. Particularly relevant are studies of NFP accounting communication by Daff and Jack (2018), Daff and Parker (2021) ^[7], who demonstrate that the intentional choice of language and format can influence the intended audience. In line with these findings, Jack (2017) identifies the future potential of accounting research using SST to explore communication as active agency and the opportunity to put accounting communication at the heart of research. Building on this literature, the present study examines how CFO reporting practices are shaped within First Nations NFP governance settings characterised by overlapping accountability regimes, and how reporting outcomes recursively influence subsequent board engagement and governance practices over time.

The quadripartite framework of SST directly informed our methodological approach. SST examines the “structural–hermeneutic nexus” of agents through observations of their conduct and context (Coad et al., 2016; Feeney and Pierce, 2016; Stones and Jack, 2016). Researchers can use SST to interpret the position-practices of agents such as power, authority, rules and resources, and the constraints that influence their behaviour (Mutiganda and Järvinen, 2021; Stones and Jack, 2016). Accordingly, we designed our empirical fieldwork to include participant observations and qualitative interviews with directors and CFOs to engage deeply with their conduct and context. For example, we designed interview questions to discover CFOs' professional backgrounds, motivations for communication choices and experience building relationships with directors. During observations, we examined how the CFO presented information, the language and visuals used, and how this changed over time. Finally, we considered reporting outcomes by observing director responses and decision-making processes. This “eclectic” methodology provides a comprehensive view of board interactions (Peck, 1995, p. 146).

Importantly, while SST provided an organising logic for the research design, we adopted a reflexive stance toward its use within a decolonising research framework. As a theory grounded in Western social thought, SST carries particular ontological assumptions about agency, knowledge and social order that may not fully capture the relational, place-based and culturally embedded nature of governance in First Nations contexts. Accordingly, SST is employed as a sensitising analytical framework rather than a universal explanatory model. Our use of SST focuses on understanding how accounting actors interpret and respond to structural conditions within intercultural governance environments, rather than seeking to theorise Indigenous governance systems themselves. This reflexive positioning recognises the limits of applying Western theoretical frameworks in First Nations governance contexts and emphasises SST as a heuristic device for analysing accounting communication across cultural boundaries. By making these epistemic tensions explicit, the study contributes to a more critically informed application of SST and extends its explanatory capacity to culturally distinct governance environments.

Given our research setting, we placed Indigenous knowledge systems at the centre of our research design (Simonds and Christopher, 2013), in line with Smith's (2012) decolonising methodology. Decolonising approaches respond to First Nations communities' frustration with research that fails to improve social outcomes and emphasise designing research to benefit their communities (Cochran et al., 2008; Kurtz, 2013; Kwaymullina, 2016; Tuck, 2013). As non-Indigenous researchers, we have paid careful attention to our positionality and potential concerns around access, trust and interpretation. We approached the research as a process of relationship-building rather than knowledge extraction. This involved maintaining an open-minded, critical and reflexive practice during field work (Kwame, 2017) and careful consideration of how our positionalities might shape interactions with participants and our interpretation of their experiences. We were mindful not to claim authority over Indigenous knowledge systems or represent Indigenous perspectives as our own. Instead, we focused analytically on the role of CFOs as accounting professionals navigating intercultural governance environments, while foregrounding the perspectives and experiences shared by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants.

We position ourselves as allies supporting decolonisation through critical accounting scholarship to create safer, more equitable spaces for bicultural teaching and learning (Jones et al., 2025). The first researcher had worked previously as the finance manager for an Aboriginal corporation, providing connections and contextual understandings of the sector. The second researcher, who has experienced the impacts of colonisation from their background in Bangladesh, brought a non-Western perspective to the project and contributed reflexively to the interpretation of field observations and interview data. Throughout the research process, we engaged in ongoing dialogue about our assumptions, interpretations and responsibilities as researchers working in this setting. Participants were invited to review interview transcripts, and the research findings were shared through feedback sessions with participating organisations.

We navigated our positionality by initially consulting extensively with experienced managers and directors in the sector to identify a topic of relevance and a research approach that would appropriately capture community priorities. We also followed AIATSIS (2012) guidelines through university ethics approval and negotiated specific research agreements with each participating NFP. This included additional steps such as meeting with their directors or applying formally for research access as required. Our approach extended beyond formal approvals to treat participants' knowledge with respect, using storying and yarning methods to develop trust and shared understandings (Humphrey et al., 2023). We further ensured our participants would benefit from the research by sharing our research findings through two group feedback sessions with interview participants. These practices emphasised reciprocity and relational accountability, recognising that knowledge in this research setting is co-produced through relationships with participants rather than extracted through detached observation.

During the study, we conducted two complementary phases of research; first, a longitudinal study with the Western Desert Nganampa Walytja Palyantjaku Tjutaku Aboriginal Corporation, commonly known as “Purple House” ^[8], and second,  supplementary in-depth interviews with managers and directors of a further 19 NFPs. We selected these methods of participant observation, deep listening and qualitative interviews to reflect traditional forms of knowledge transfer within First Nations societies (Humphrey et al., 2023; Kwaymullina, 2016; Ray, 2012). During the first phase, we worked with Purple House, a large Aboriginal community-controlled healthcare NFP, attending their board meetings over a 2-year period (2021–2023). We established this relationship through the first researcher's existing connection to the CEO and one of the directors of Purple House, and negotiated collaborative access to work together on this project. To extend the usefulness of the research to Purple House, we agreed to support the CFO redesign the format and content of their reports to the directors based on the research findings. Our interactions with the organisation's twelve directors and senior management included observing more than 80 hours of board meetings, AGMs and community meetings, and spending over 20 hours with Purple House's CFO and Chair developing the new reporting format.

The findings from these interactions were  supplemented during the second phase with in-depth interviews with 20 managers (CFOs, CEOs and other program staff) and 4 directors representing a further 19 Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander NFPs. Participants represented diverse sectors (social support, arts, land management, retail and hospitality) with annual incomes ranging from $0.5m to $80m ^[9]. The interviews took place at various times during 2021 and 2022, which allowed us to reflect and build on observations collected from the longitudinal study with Purple House. Our approach privileged First Nations participants' knowledge and experiences, and combined deep insights from immersion within a single entity with a breadth of perspectives across a diverse range of organisations in terms of geography, size and industry focus.

Detailed field notes were taken following each participant observation and all formal interviews recorded and transcribed. We shared the transcripts with interview participants for their review and to give consent to use their knowledge in this research. The combined data from these sources created 325 pages of transcriptions and 73 pages of field notes. Consistent with SST protocols, we analysed CFOs as the “agent-in-focus” (Feeney and Pierce, 2016; Jack, 2017; Stones, 2005). This analysis involved an iterative process of coding participant responses and observations at the abstract, meso and ontic levels as summarised in Figure 1 and outlined by Feeney and Pierce (2016) and Jack (2017). This process revealed structural conditions shaping CFOs' position-practices. While we also examined a number of financial reporting artefacts during participant observation, these materials were confidential organisational documents and could not be reproduced in this paper. However, detailed field notes describing their structure, visual presentation and use in board meetings informed the analysis presented in the findings section.

The findings, which highlight the structural constraints and enablers to this process of communication and its outcomes, are described in the next section.

In this presentation of our findings, we closely examine the role of the CFO as the “agent in focus,” and their interactions with directors within broader structural conditions shaping governance and accountability. Drawing on our conversations with CFOs and longitudinal observations of Purple House's board meetings, we analyse how reporting practices evolve through repeated interactions, negotiations and adjustments over time.

We begin our presentation of findings with an ethnographic vignette of CFO reporting to the directors of Purple House, showing how CFO agency both responds to and transforms structural conditions over time. We then analyse the dynamics of the case along with a broader range of perspectives collected through our semi-structured interviews.

The directors of Purple House are meeting for the third consecutive day, and several are sitting outside in the garden, waiting for the others to arrive. There is an issue with quorum because the Chair has been caught up with urgent family business. After a short time, the quorum for the meeting is reached and so Clare ^[10], the CEO, ushers everyone in to start the meeting. The 12 directors of Purple House are Aboriginal men and women from Central Australia, respected leaders of their communities chosen as the “bosses” of the organisation. Today, the CFO is going to “tell the money story ^[11]” using a new reporting format.

John, the CFO, had been working with the Chair and CEO to gradually introduce changes to the financial report over the past five months. He wants to change the way he presents the financials to empower Purple House's directors to understand and interrogate the organisation's financial information and to address gaps he believes exist in the information previously presented. He had attended a course on NFP governance which addressed the types of information directors should receive. Consequently, he doesn't feel the directors have been getting enough information about the financial controls in place to safeguard Purple House's future. Purple House has a 20-year history and has grown rapidly in recent years with funding from the Commonwealth government to establish a presence across South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. This growth has not necessarily been matched by expanding the governance capabilities of the directors, and this is something John wants to address. For example, John would like the board's nominated Treasurer to have the confidence to present the financial information to the board, but he does not feel that the current financial report is set out in a way that the Treasurer can do this. John believes better reporting will help to strengthen the governance environment. Several of Purple House's directors have been involved with the organisation for 20 years; they understand what their communities need and have been chosen to represent them, but they did not have the formal financial training required to interrogate a set of financial accounts.

John had also observed that the existing reporting format was not generating meaningful engagement with financial information. In the past, the finance report included charts and graphs showing financial metrics (income, expenses and net assets) alongside photos of patients smiling and looking happy. The directors were interested in the photos when they recognise friends and family members, but they didn't seem to engage directly with the financial information, except to say “yuwa yuwa”, (yes, yes) to show they accepted the report. The new format includes several new elements such as a section on financial controls in place with traffic lights showing how they are tracking with regulatory compliance, that they are up to date with ATO payments and on track with the annual audit. John has also introduced key operating performance measures such as number of clinical treatments provided, clinic utilisation rates and patient time on Country. Another key performance indicator is Aboriginal employment, measured by the number of Aboriginal workers currently employed. This is of critical importance to the directors who commented “we need our local Indigenous people to be properly trained to be nurses”. The directors frequently mention their desire to recruit more Aboriginal nurses and community health workers for their remote health clinics.

John and the Chair, Nancy, have also been working to include translations of key terms into Pintupi-Luritja, the language spoken by most of the directors. There are no direct translations for some of these words, for example “money” is transliterated to “mani”, so Nancy has suggested short phrases that explain the broad ideas. For example, “income”, “expenses” and “profit” become “mani tjarpangu”, “mani out” and “mani tjuku tjuku”. “Assets” and “liabilities” are translated to “Nganampa mani, bildingi, mutukayi” and “Intjanulu yungani malakukutu” (what we have, what we owe). The new performance measures in the report also spark conversations between John, Clare and the directors about other measures they can include and start tracking, for example, the number of days in a year that community clinics are closed due to nursing shortages. At the end of the finance report, Nancy enthusiastically thanks John, saying “that was a good one, thank you for all your hard work”.

A few weeks after the board meeting, John tells us the directors were happy with the new report format and they want to create a sub-committee to spend more time talking through the money story between board meetings. The idea of this committee is to help a small group of directors develop greater confidence with the financial information so that they can present the financial report at future board meetings. The committee will be called “Mani Tjukarruru”, which means “Talking about and managing money the right way”. This hybrid governance structure allows directors to spend extended time reviewing financial information in a supportive environment where they can ask questions and build confidence without the time pressures of full board meetings.

John also says they recently had two ORIC examiners look through their corporate records, board reports, meeting minutes and so on to ensure regulatory compliance. The examiners had looked at the new finance report and commented that it was the clearest presentation of financial information to a board they had seen. Their comments highlight Purple House's achievement in creating a new reporting format designed collaboratively with directors to address their needs, but also that the directors of other Aboriginal corporations do not receive financial reports with the same level of transparency and accountability from the CFO.

There is more John still wants to do, such as adding detailed information about the income and expenses for different service areas so that the directors can see the financial performance of each team, making the teams more directly accountable to the board. This might be something he will prepare for the new Mani Tjukarruru committee, when they can spend more time on the financials.

Purple House's story illustrates the complex, iterative interactions between the CFO and directors through which reporting practices were gradually reshaped. The CFO's strategic responses altered both the format of the financial report and governance expectations and practices that will influence future reporting. In this way, outcomes of agency become the conditions of subsequent practice, demonstrating the recursive dynamics of structuration over time.

Building on the Purple House vignette, we now synthesise findings from our fieldwork to identify three interrelated dynamics shaping CFO reporting practices in First Nations NFP governance. First, CFOs operated within structural tensions generated by compliance regimes, professional norms and uneven governance resourcing. Second, many engaged in strategic cultural and relational work to navigate these structural tensions and align reporting with community-defined priorities. Third, these initiatives unfolded incrementally, producing divergent, recursive effects in which some reporting practices became institutionalised while others were routinely reproduced. Together, these dynamics illustrate how structuration operates in culturally embedded and politically constrained governance contexts.

In this study, CFO reporting practices were shaped by external structural conditions that both enabled and constrained their capacity to engage directors. These conditions reflected the broader political economy in which their organisations operate, in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs are accountable simultaneously to funders, regulators and communities. Reporting systems were therefore often configured primarily to satisfy compliance and funding imperatives, generating tensions between upward accountability and community-related governance. These tensions take on a distinct character in a settler-colonial context where state-imposed regulatory frameworks coexist with First Nations governance traditions that have historically been subordinated or displaced, meaning that formal accountability requirements may not always command the same legitimacy or trust as community-defined authority structures. That is, where “cultural match” may be absent.

Turning first to regulator and funder requirements, several CFOs identified that these requirements shaped the accounting systems in place for recording and reporting financial information, which in turn determined the format of management reporting. To save time, management reports were often generated directly by these systems and presented in summary form to the board. However, this presentation of financial information could cause confusion and disengagement among directors, as Roger (CFO) explained:

Further, these standardised forms of financial reporting typically lacked contextualised measures of operational performance, such as community outcomes or Aboriginal employment, which were thought to be of most interest to directors. Bethany (CFO) observed that culturally relevant indicators were critical for director engagement:

These examples illustrate that external structures embedded within funding and regulatory regimes encourage CFOs to prioritise financial compliance over community-defined success. In response, several CFOs sought to  supplement standardised reports with more holistic measures, as the case study of Purple House illustrates. The CFO's decision to introduce measures such as time on Country and Aboriginal employment is an example of culturally relevant indicators that would not ordinarily appear in a standard financial report.

CFOs' responses to these tensions were also shaped by their conjuncturally-specific role expectations, i.e. their situated understandings of what a CFO ought to do in a particular context. These expectations were influenced by their professional training, previous commercial experience and governance training. For example, Tony (CFO) introduced a one-page summary based on his previous experience working for a Japanese manufacturing company. Similarly, governance and professional accountancy training encouraged some CFOs to view financial reporting as a strategic decision-making tool rather than merely a compliance exercise. Bethany, working toward her CPA qualifications, believed it was her role to make financial information useful for strategic decision-making, prompting her to rework reports to enhance accessibility.

From an SST perspective, these examples illustrate how internal structures such as professional dispositions and conjunctural knowledge mediate how external constraints are interpreted. CFOs did not respond uniformly to compliance-driven reporting environments; rather, they filtered these conditions through their own role conceptions and strategic aspirations.

Yet, even where CFOs recognised the limitations of compliance-oriented reporting, they often encountered resource constraints that limited their ability to redesign reports. For example, Roger explained that time pressures prevented him from producing visual reports that would be easier for directors to understand, and so would instead provide the information “in a raw format”. Timothy (CEO) noted the difficulties with securing funding to support governance, which limited his CFO's ability to improve financial reporting:

These resource constraints reflect another dimension of the sector's political economy: that governance capacity-building is rarely funded directly, leaving organisations to absorb the labour required to make reporting meaningful. In SST terms, such constraints were often interpreted as relatively irresistible external structures, narrowing the scope for innovation.

However, variation was evident. Some organisations strategically prioritised resourcing governance support, for example, employing a governance officer to assist the CEO and CFO in preparing the board reports and mediating between senior managers and directors. Others engaged an external consultant to support the CFO and directors in evaluating their governance practices and identifying areas to improve. These decisions demonstrate that resource constraints were not uniformly determinative; rather, differences emerged at the meso level in how organisations allocated scarce resources and how CFOs positioned governance work within organisational priorities. We explore these variations in agency more fully in section 5.2.3.

In summary, CFOs operated within structural tensions produced by compliance regimes, professional norms and uneven governance resourcing. These tensions help explain why standardised reporting often reproduced disengagement and why meaningful change required significant CFO effort. As we show next, some CFOs responded to these constraints through strategic cultural and relational work aimed at reshaping the structural conditions of governance interaction.

Through our extended interactions with Purple House and interviews with senior leaders of 19 other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs, we identified the cultural governance context within which reporting occurred as a defining structural condition of the sector. Boards were composed predominantly, and often entirely, of First Nations directors who were representatives of their communities and their interests. Their governance responsibilities were not solely an oversight function but a culturally embedded practice concerned with continuity, legitimacy and community accountability. These expectations constituted enduring external structures that shaped the conditions under which CFOs operated.

At the same time, many CEOs and CFOs were non-Indigenous professionals working within regulatory and financial systems derived from settler-colonial governance frameworks. Reporting interactions therefore unfolded within cross-cultural institutions in which different normative orders intersected. CFOs and directors were required to navigate what was often described as “two worlds”: the formal compliance regime and First Nations cultural law. This intersection produced distinctive structural tensions that influenced the ways CFOs reported to directors.

We observed several ways in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural protocols operated as primary structural constraints, at times taking precedence over corporate governance timetables or compliance routines. For example, Sarah (CFO) noted that observing cultural protocols “is just embedded in everything that we do” and was enforced through cultural sub-committees and mentors. Other examples included postponing board meetings during “sorry business ^[12]” out of respect for a significant member of the community who had passed away, allocating board roles to members of particular language or family groups, and deferring to individuals with culturally grounded authority. These practices structured the rhythm and legitimacy of organisational governance.

In the case of Purple House, the CFO secured support for the redesigned report through collaboration with the Chair, respecting her cultural authority as an Elder as well as her formal role as Chair. Her involvement provided legitimacy to the new format and facilitated its acceptance by other directors. Similarly, creating the “Mani Tjukarruru” committee reflected accountability practices aligned with directors' preferences for small, trusted groups to deliberate before reporting back to the board. These examples illustrate how cultural protocols functioned as enduring external structures that delineated which reporting innovations were legitimate and sustainable.

CFOs' strategic responses also extended to the relational dynamics of board interaction. Several described paying careful attention to directors' body language and non-verbal cues to assess whether directors were comfortable with the financial information provided. Directors themselves acknowledged that financial reporting could be overwhelming and that shame avoidance sometimes inhibited direct questioning. As Frankie (director) explained, “people might nod and say they agree, but they may not really understand. They don't want to put their hands up and say they don't understand”. Strategic innovations such as the Mani Tjukarruru committee provided non-threatening settings where directors could build financial confidence without appearing uninformed in front of the full board.

CFOs who recognised these dynamics often reframed reporting practices in response. For example, the CFO of Purple House redesigned their reporting after sensing limited engagement with prior formats. Others adjusted the financial report to foreground community priorities, linking funding to tangible outcomes or incorporating measures such as Aboriginal employment to align financial reporting with directors' strategic obligations to their communities. Such reframing extended beyond technical compliance to reshape what counted as legitimate performance.

Translation was another recurrent form of strategic work. Some CFOs simplified financial terminology, incorporated visual representations or adapted presentation styles to enhance accessibility. As Alasdair (CEO) described:

Similarly, Bethany (CFO) described explaining financial performance “sitting under a tree … using mangoes” to communicate in ways that resonated locally. These strategic responses also included work to translate key financial terms into Aboriginal languages, where this was relevant for directors. We observed the success of the initiative between the CFO and Chair of Purple House to translate key financial terms and empower directors to build their financial expertise. These examples illustrate how active agency practices extended beyond content selection to communicative form. Importantly, such translation work was approached carefully to avoid paternalism or diminish directors' decision-making power; simplifying information without undermining directors' authority.

Beyond report content and presentation, cultural responsiveness also involved sustained relationship-building. We identified trust as a prerequisite for effective communication of technical financial information. This relational work reflects fundamental social values in Aboriginal and many other First Nations cultures (Scobie et al., 2023; Wildcat and Voth, 2023). Managers occupy positions of trust within their organisations and are expected to spend time nurturing these relationships with directors and community leaders. Joe (CEO) reflected that his directors' trust had been “earned” over many years, conferring a degree of latitude to act. Bethany similarly linked improved reporting outcomes to strengthened engagement across teams and communities.

From an SST perspective, this relationship-building can be understood as part of the “connecting tissue” linking external structures and active agency (Feeney and Pierce, 2016). Trust-building operated as an enabling condition for recursive structuration and to develop relational legitimacy. This relationality could be critical for CFOs to build acceptance for new performance measures or modified reporting formats.

We interpret these initiatives as strategic cultural work. CFOs were actively navigating and reconfiguring external cultural structures to render reporting practices meaningful and legitimate within First Nations governance contexts. In doing so, they pursued forms of “cultural match” between reporting systems and community-defined accountability obligations. However, as we show in the next section, such initiatives required time, incremental adjustments and sustained relational investment to become stabilised within governance routines.

SST emphasises that the outcomes of agency practices become the structural conditions shaping subsequent interaction (Daff and Jack, 2018; Stones, 2015). In our study, reporting innovations generated new expectations, routines and governance practices that structured future interactions between CFOs and directors.

The Purple House case illustrates how active agency can become institutionalised over time. The CFO's introduction of additional performance measures such as clinic utilisation rates, time on Country and Aboriginal staffing levels gradually established new expectations of what constituted a legitimate financial report. The inclusion of translations into Pintupi-Luritja further normalised culturally grounded reporting practices. These elements were stabilised through the creation of report templates and supporting spreadsheets, embedding the redesigned format within routine administrative processes.

The recursive effects extended beyond the organisation. When ORIC examiners reviewed the revised format and described it as an example of “best practice”, the CFO's innovation potentially reshaped regulatory expectations regarding how financial information might be presented to First Nations boards. Internally, the establishment of the Mani Tjukarruru sub-committee created new governance spaces that enabled deeper financial scrutiny. This new committee also imposed additional procedural obligations, such as creating new reporting timelines and additional logistical work for administrative staff. In SST terms, the CFO's active agency reconfigured their position and practice relations with directors through which future reporting interactions might unfold.

A similar recursive dynamic was evident in other organisations where reporting design unfolded through extended experimentation. Timothy (CEO) described “mucking around with it for a couple of years”, trialling different visual and verbal approaches before engaging external expertise to co-design a revised reporting model. Over multiple board cycles, incremental adjustments were made in response to director feedback. Eventually, a standardised model was created that could be updated routinely: “every board meeting, we'll just be able to plug the current numbers into that.” What began as iterative experimentation became a new reporting routine.

Notably, these reporting transformations took time. CFOs who initiated strategic projects to improve their financial reporting expected these projects to unfold incrementally, recognising that trust, familiarity, and board confidence developed gradually. Sarah reflected that building trust made her cautious about abrupt reporting changes, noting how difficult it was to “get a board or community comfortable with something and then to change it, you know, the very next year”. Quarterly meeting cycles, competing agenda pressures and relational dynamics meant that structural shifts occurred incrementally rather than through sudden redesign. Recursivity was therefore not automatic but required sustained effort over time.

However, these transformative dynamics were uneven. SST's hermeneutic cycle suggests that agents interpret structural conditions differently and act with varying degrees of reflexivity (Stones, 2015). In our study, some CFOs reproduced established reporting formats with minimal adaptation, often citing time constraints, resource limitations or prioritising compliance demands. In such cases, reporting practices tended toward routine reproduction rather than structural modification. For example, Tony (CFO) described his lengthy report as “fairly useless”, yet continued to present it in largely unchanged format:

Taken together, we observed marked variations in CFOs' active agency practices and in the structural outcomes that followed. These differences were shaped by CFOs' role expectations, professional dispositions and strategic interpretations of constraint, but also by meso-level organisational conditions such as access to governance resources, external expertise, board expectations and the degree of relational trust established over time. Where CFOs worked to understand directors' expectations and align financial communication with strategic and cultural objectives (such as supporting local employment, protecting knowledge or providing culturally safe services), reporting practices became more dialogic and engaged, contributing to strengthened governance processes.

However, such collaborative and contextually responsive reporting required sustained relational investment and, in many cases, additional financial and organisational resources. In contexts characterised by administrative burden, limited governance funding or weaker relational foundations, compliance-oriented routines often prevailed. In these cases, external structures were experienced as relatively irresistible, narrowing the scope for innovation. Divergence in reporting practices therefore reflected not only individual motivation but the interaction between internal dispositions and structurally conditioned opportunities for strategic action.

These findings show that structuration within First Nations NFP governance settings is characterised less by abrupt transformation and more by incremental, relationally embedded reframing of reporting practices. Strategic initiatives become stabilised through repetition across meeting cycles, the gradual consolidation of trust and legitimacy, and alignment with culturally grounded authority. Where such alignment and relational investment are absent, reporting practices tend toward routine reproduction. SST therefore enables us to trace how governance reform unfolds as a temporally extended process shaped by structural tensions, strategic agency and culturally grounded legitimacy.

To conclude our findings, we now turn to the practical implications of these dynamics and offer suggested guidelines for effective reporting.

Drawing on these examples of CFO position practices, we offer a set of practical recommendations to strengthen financial reporting in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs. These recommendations, aimed at CFOs, directors and governance organisations, reflect the study's findings that reporting reform emerges through iterative, relational processes rather than the simple adoption of technical reporting templates. Table 1 translates the empirical insights from this study into a set of practical reporting prompts, suggested report contents and supporting activities that CFOs and boards can use when reviewing their reporting practices. We emphasise that the development of an appropriate reporting framework is best created through an iterative process of consultation and co-design, and that these suggested contents and additional contextualising activities could be a starting point for CFOs and directors to revise their board reports and strengthen the governance environment.

We also extend our recommendations to key stakeholders who can help facilitate and support this important work to develop directors' confidence and engagement with financial information. One avenue is to attract more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander accountants. This objective has been identified by accounting professional bodies such as CPA Australia and CAANZ, who wish to encourage accountants to “play a vital role in Australia and their communities, providing role models, supporting business and helping to close the gap” (Stuart, 2025). Addressing underrepresentation in the accounting profession through scholarships, mentoring and pre-accounting courses can help attract First Nations students to accounting (Hill et al., 2022; Stuart, 2025). These developments are positive, and we believe they should be extended to include content related to First Nations accounting and governance in tertiary accounting courses and as part of professional accreditation requirements. The professional bodies could incorporate First Nations governance and culturally responsive reporting practices into professional accreditation requirements and continuing professional development programs. Accounting bodies should work with First Nations knowledge holders to develop specific cultural competency training for existing CFOs and accountants working in First Nations contexts.

Efforts to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander directors in deepening their expertise in governance are also important, such as training and resources provided by the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute (AIGI) and the Aboriginal Governance and Management Program (AGMP). These First Nations-led organisations work with directors to embed Indigenous knowledges in learning, training and advocacy to strengthen governance practices (AGMP, 2025; AIGI, 2025). Their work includes specific training to support directors' understanding of financial information and co-creating bespoke governance toolkits with directors to meet their needs. The Chair of an Aboriginal land management organisation affirmed the benefits of completing a training program with AGMP:

The annual Indigenous Governance Awards, a joint initiative of AIGI and Reconciliation Australia, showcase examples of innovation, self-determination and cultural legitimacy in governance practices (AIGI, 2024). These initiatives disseminate best practice and support directors to strengthen governance in ways aligned with cultural values and community priorities. We believe key stakeholders such as ORIC and the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) should extend the support and resources available to directors, specifically in the area of financial reporting, such as developing and sharing culturally responsive reporting templates and providing funding for bespoke governance services such as translation and governance officers.

In summary, improving financial reporting in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs requires coordinated action. CFOs and directors should co-design culturally grounded reporting frameworks that enhance relational accountability and provide detailed reporting against community-defined priorities. Professional bodies, universities, and policymakers must embed First Nations governance and cultural competency into training, accreditation, and capacity-building initiatives. This work requires significant resourcing, and agencies such as ORIC and NIAA can look to extend their support of Aboriginal-led governance institutes such as AIGI, AGMP and Reconciliation Australia. Without these resources, there is a risk that reporting remains technically compliant but disconnected from community priorities, limiting directors' engagement and governance effectiveness. Implementing these reforms can strengthen decision-making, confidence in financial information and culturally aligned accountability.

In the absence of these additional governance supports, reporting practices may remain oriented primarily toward regulatory compliance rather than community accountability. This risks limiting directors' engagement with financial information and weakening the governance capabilities available to support community-controlled organisations. Over time, such outcomes may reinforce governance arrangements in which decision-making occurs for rather than by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs are required to establish and maintain effective systems for financial control that simultaneously meet the expectations of both Western and Indigenous norms of governance while also achieving accountability to diverse stakeholders (Gibson, 2000; Guthrie et al., 2022; Norris et al., 2023). Previous studies have identified the primacy of cultural accountability in First Nations contexts and the benefits of culturally aligned governance to achieve community objectives (Brigg et al., 2022; Cornell and Kalt, 2000; Scobie et al., 2023). However, it is unclear from these studies what role the CFO plays in empowering directors as strategic decision-makers and how they can support directors in navigating the “two worlds” of Western compliance versus cultural governance protocols.

The findings of this study contribute to the literature on NFP board dynamics by presenting new insights from an intercultural organisational setting. Prior studies of NFP accounting, accountability and governance emphasise the complexity of financial reporting in the sector, highlighting the incompleteness of accounting information as an indicator of performance (Chenhall et al., 2016; Daff and Parker, 2021; Parker, 2007), resource constraints, competing accountability demands and directors' limited engagement with financial information (Daff and Parker, 2020, 2021). Several of these challenges also exist for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs, but our findings show that they take on additional complexity in intercultural governance contexts. Specifically, we show that CFOs operating across cultural divides must undertake additional relational and cultural work to ensure financial information is meaningful and legitimate for directors. Whereas previous studies have identified links between directors' financial literacy and their confidence to challenge management (Bay et al., 2014; Collier, 2005), these studies do not adequately reflect the essential relationship-building work that must precede effective financial communication. Our findings suggest that financial literacy alone is insufficient to enable effective governance in intercultural settings; rather, relational trust and culturally legitimate communication practices are preconditions for meaningful financial oversight. More broadly, our study highlights the consequences of misaligned governance obligations where Western-centric accountability frameworks are applied in culturally diverse contexts. In doing so, we support ongoing critical accounting scholarship that questions the global standardisation of corporate governance models (Chand and White, 2007; Hopper et al., 2017; Lehman, 2005) and the imposition of corporate accountability structures in culturally diverse contexts (Bettington et al., 2014; Uddin and Choudhury, 2008).

Our first research question examined CFOs' navigation of structural tensions between Western compliance and reporting requirements and First Nations governance protocols. CFOs faced competing demands between standardised regulatory reporting (designed for efficiency and compliance) and directors' needs for culturally meaningful information that connects to community priorities. Professional training and organisational resource constraints often reinforced compliance-oriented reporting routines. For some CFOs, these limitations resulted in the continued reproduction of standardised reporting practices that satisfied compliance requirements but did little to support director engagement. However, other CFOs navigated these tensions more strategically by recognising cultural norms as external structural constraints requiring innovative responses. These CFOs invested in relationship-building and collaborative redesign of reporting practices, recognising that structural transformation must occur incrementally through repeated interactions with directors. Structural change was most evident where CFOs worked collaboratively with directors to create hybrid governance arrangements that bridged Western reporting requirements with First Nations governance expectations.

Our second research question examined how CFOs ensured financial information contributed to effective governance in the sector. We identified culturally responsive, hybrid approaches to financial oversight as critical to director engagement, cultural legitimacy and going “beyond compliance” in terms of community self-determination. These approaches succeeded when CFOs recognised cultural protocols as external structural constraints shaping how directors could engage with financial information. Our study identified specific examples of the structural transformation that occurred through gradual, repeated interactions that sustained effective governance over time. Through reporting innovations such as the translation of financial reports into Aboriginal languages, working with governance officers to mediate intercultural domains and empowering directors through targeted training and meetings in small group settings, governance relationships and directors' engagement with financial information were gradually transformed. Yet, where such relational and structural work was absent, financial reports often remained abstract and poorly contextualised for directors. As a result, directors risked losing oversight of compliance and their organisations faced increased risks of financial mismanagement and regulatory breaches.

Our findings make two theoretical contributions to SST by testing the theory's explanatory and analytical power in an intercultural setting. SST typically treats cultural factors as part of agents' internal structures (habitus and dispositions) rather than external structural constraints (Stones, 2015). By contrast, our findings demonstrate that cultural protocols in First Nations governance contexts operate as external structures that shape the boundaries of legitimate action and authority within organisational decision-making. Treating cultural law as an external structure reveals dynamics that would otherwise remain analytically obscured when culture is conceptualised primarily as an internal disposition of actors. For example, shame avoidance constrained some directors' ability to critique financial reports directly, while Elder authority was required to legitimate reporting innovations introduced by the CFO. Similarly, cultural ceremonies such as “sorry business” overrode formal governance schedules. Conceptualising cultural protocols as external structures therefore reveals how governance actors must actively secure cultural legitimacy in order to enact organisational change. These processes require time, relational investment, and access to governance support mechanisms such as translation, cultural guidance and director training. When cultural protocols are interpreted merely as individual cultural dispositions, the need for such structural resourcing remains largely invisible. These changes require adequate time, resourcing and cultural guidance to be effective. These insights extend SST by demonstrating that in intercultural governance contexts, structural legitimacy may derive from cultural authority systems that operate alongside, and sometimes supersede, formal regulatory structures.

Our second theoretical contribution identifies relationship-building as structural work. SST typically focuses on how agents respond to existing structures through position-practices, with limited theorisation of how relational processes themselves transform structural conditions (Daff and Jack, 2018). Our study shows that in intercultural governance settings, relational work is not simply interpersonal behaviour but a mechanism through which structural legitimacy is constructed. CFOs' creation of culturally safe environments for financial discussions, spending time on Country and working collaboratively with directors to redesign reporting formats represents purposeful structural work to transform constraining conditions into enabling ones. These findings reflect forms of relational accountability in First Nations contexts, wherein individual identity derives from relationships with others and with the natural and spiritual worlds (Scobie et al., 2023). The findings further suggest that effective managerial agency depends on the extent to which managers recognise and internalise these cultural expectations, adapting their decision-making processes, communication practices and accountability relationships accordingly. Through recursive interactions and sustained efforts to build relationships, CFOs gradually changed the structural conditions in which they operated, creating governance innovations, transforming expectations of CFO position practices, and strengthening directors' financial oversight. For SST, these insights suggest that in intercultural contexts, relational work constitutes a distinct form of structural work that must be theoretically recognised alongside traditional position-practices, requiring expansion of SST's analytical framework to account for relationally derived agency and temporally extended structural transformation processes. By foregrounding these dynamics, the study demonstrates how culturally informed engagement can facilitate more trusted and effective organisational outcomes, while cultural misalignment may limit the enactment of intended governance practices. Collectively, this extension deepens SST's capacity to explain structure–agency interplay in complex cross-cultural and historically situated institutional environments.

This research also has implications for practitioners and policymakers in the sector. Accounting educators and professional accounting bodies should respond to the sector's need for expertise in First Nations accounting by both supporting the development of First Nations accountants and improving the cultural capability of existing practitioners (Tanima et al., 2026). This could include embedding First Nations perspectives within professional accreditation requirements and continuing professional development, mentoring programmes pairing First Nations governance experts with accounting professionals and ethical guidelines for working in First Nations contexts. We further encourage accounting practitioners and standard setters to engage deeply with First Nations leaders to develop management reporting approaches that resonate with directors and communities, building on innovative work such as Finau et al.’s (2023) insights into alternative approaches to account for land assets. Our research shows that innovations in governance are being led by community-controlled organisations, quietly redefining how accountability works. Government agencies such as NIAA and ORIC could strengthen governance capability by providing targeted support, including governance grants to fund governance officers and translators, culturally responsive training for financial report preparers and resources to support CFOs in creating bespoke reports tailored to their organisational contexts. This support should also extend to enabling governance innovations like committee structures that provide safe spaces for director capacity building. Aboriginal-led governance institutes such as AIGI and AGMP would be best placed to develop and implement these solutions given their leadership in culturally grounded governance development. We have offered a set of prompt questions and outlined key report components as a starting point for directors and CFOs seeking to strengthen financial oversight through culturally responsive reporting practices. With appropriate resources, directors can more effectively navigate the competing expectations of Western compliance frameworks and First Nations governance responsibilities. This work is urgently needed, as confirmed by ORIC's 2025 focus areas, designed to strengthen governance capability and financial oversight in the sector.²

The findings of this study are limited to the extent that our qualitative interview participants do not fully represent the diversity of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander NFPs and may not be generalisable to other First Nations or intercultural governance contexts. As non-Indigenous researchers, our interpretations are inevitably shaped by our own social and epistemic positioning and therefore, may not fully capture the depth and nuance of cultural protocols as they are experienced within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance systems. While we adopted a decolonising methodology and sought to foreground participants' perspectives, we recognise that our analysis represents an interpretation of participants' accounts rather than an authoritative representation of Indigenous knowledge systems. There is a further risk with qualitative interviews of participants presenting their experiences inaccurately or misrepresenting their organisational reality. However, the combination of participant observation with interviews has assisted in the interpretation of our findings from multiple perspectives (Peck, 1995). Future research avenues might include a closer examination of cases of mismanagement to reveal the causes of organisational failure and develop strategies to protect community-controlled NFPs from fraudulent managers. Longitudinal studies tracking the ongoing effects of governance innovations could reveal how hybrid structures evolve over time and their impacts on organisational outcomes and director engagement. Comparative studies across different cultural contexts could illuminate how governance practices can be adapted to serve diverse community needs.

The authors would like to thank Lee Parker and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive reviews. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the AFAANZ and ASOP conferences in 2023 and 2024 respectively, and at research seminars hosted by Queensland University of Technology and the University of Canterbury, and we are grateful to participants for their supportive comments. This research would not have been possible without the support of our research participants who shared their experiences, stories and knowledge with us. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the significant contribution of the directors and staff of Purple House to the present study. They have generously assisted us to develop this work and given their permission for Purple House to be named in this paper.