Factors that can be addressed in the statement of credibility
| Type | Description | Reason | Support |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legitimacy | Description of CO’s legal structure and country of incorporation | As a CO’s size increases, its formal legal incorporation becomes more important as an indicator of credibility | D1-3, D6, P2-4, P5, P7–8, A1-2, C1, S1-2 De Villiers and Maroun (2017) |
| Description of the CO group where applicable (for instance, franchises and branches) | Being part of a legitimate “franchise” enhances the franchisee’s credibility by association | ||
| Statement of whether it is recognised by the government as CO | Formal recognition by the national government enhances credibility, as it is assumed formal checks have been performed and passed | ||
| Statement of whether it is recognised by the national taxation authority and provides tax-deductible certificates for donations | |||
| List of key strategic or formal partners (associational networks) | Formal partnerships with large and/or legitimate companies/institutions increase the legitimacy of the CO by association | ||
| Number of employees and staff turnover | Disclosure of employee numbers and staff turnover provides insight into staff confidence in the organisation and enables users to assess whether reported activities and outcomes are plausible given the scale and stability of the workforce | D6, P6-8, C1, Sowa et al. (2004) | |
| Core values | To ensure CO values align with those of the relevant stakeholders | D4, D6, P8 Carman (2010) | |
| Governance and management | Description of governance structures and controls. Can include an organogram and the qualifications and experience of key personnel | Reflects how formal a CO is as well as the extent to which key duties are segregated to avoid fraud | D1-6, P1-8, A1-2, C1-2, S1-2, Sowa et al. (2004), Maroun (2020) |
| Description of the level of sophistication of the IT environment | |||
| Accounting framework used | Users can assess the suitability of the accounting framework relative to its CO’s size | ||
| Assurance provider, assurance obtained and the outcome thereof | Increased assurance promotes confidence in reported information | ||
| Description of key risks and mitigating controls | Enables users to assess the appropriateness of risk assessment processes and implementation of appropriate controls | ||
| Its stakeholder engagement strategy | To address upward and downward accountability (see Section 2.2) | ||
| Charitable performance | List key charitable achievements | To ensure there is accountability and transparency between good and bad performance | D1-6, P1-8, C1, S1-3 |
| List material failures and lessons learnt | |||
| Key financial metrics and information | Description of the financial health and sustainability of the CO | Enables users to assess the CO’s sustainability | All interviewees |
| Description of funds used for charitable versus management expenses | Enables users to assess approximately how much of each dollar is spent on management and charitable expenses | P8, S1-2, See Sowa et al. (2004) | |
| Continued support | Financial donations over past 5 years (or less if CO is younger than 5 years) | Reflects different dimensions of continued support for the CO. This may provide indicators of CO credibility Examples of categories for non-financial donations include kilograms of dry dog food and number of tins of canned food. Volunteers should be reflected by the skill level of tasks they perform | D1-6, P1-8, C1-2, S1-3 |
| Non-financial donations, by meaningful categories, over the past 5 years | |||
| Key management personnel turnover for the past 3 years | |||
| Volunteer hours, by meaningful categories, turnover for the past 3 years | |||
| Sustainability | Description of the extent to which the CO is self-sustainable (financial) | Alert users to the extent to which CO is dependent on continued donations | D1, D3-6, P3, P6-8, S1-3, C1-2 |
| Description of CO’s preparedness to scale operations | Important for potential donors looking to invest to scale up a CO’s charitable operations |
| Type | Description | Reason | Support |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legitimacy | Description of CO’s legal structure and country of incorporation | As a CO’s size increases, its formal legal incorporation becomes more important as an indicator of credibility | D1-3, D6, P2-4, P5, P7–8, A1-2, C1, S1-2 |
| Description of the | Being part of a legitimate “franchise” enhances the franchisee’s credibility by association | ||
| Statement of whether it is recognised by the government as | Formal recognition by the national government enhances credibility, as it is assumed formal checks have been performed and passed | ||
| Statement of whether it is recognised by the national taxation authority and provides tax-deductible certificates for donations | |||
| List of key strategic or formal partners (associational networks) | Formal partnerships with large and/or legitimate companies/institutions increase the legitimacy of the | ||
| Number of employees and staff turnover | Disclosure of employee numbers and staff turnover provides insight into staff confidence in the organisation and enables users to assess whether reported activities and outcomes are plausible given the scale and stability of the workforce | D6, P6-8, C1, | |
| Core values | To ensure | D4, D6, P8 | |
| Governance and management | Description of governance structures and controls. Can include an organogram and the qualifications and experience of key personnel | Reflects how formal a | D1-6, P1-8, A1-2, C1-2, S1-2, |
| Description of the level of sophistication of the | |||
| Accounting framework used | Users can assess the suitability of the accounting framework relative to its CO’s size | ||
| Assurance provider, assurance obtained and the outcome thereof | Increased assurance promotes confidence in reported information | ||
| Description of key risks and mitigating controls | Enables users to assess the appropriateness of risk assessment processes and implementation of appropriate controls | ||
| Its stakeholder engagement strategy | To address upward and downward accountability (see Section 2.2) | ||
| Charitable performance | List key charitable achievements | To ensure there is accountability and transparency between good and bad performance | D1-6, P1-8, C1, S1-3 |
| List material failures and lessons learnt | |||
| Key financial metrics and information | Description of the financial health and sustainability of the | Enables users to assess the CO’s sustainability | All interviewees |
| Description of funds used for charitable versus management expenses | Enables users to assess approximately how much of each dollar is spent on management and charitable expenses | P8, S1-2, See | |
| Continued support | Financial donations over past 5 years (or less if | Reflects different dimensions of continued support for the | D1-6, P1-8, C1-2, S1-3 |
| Non-financial donations, by meaningful categories, over the past 5 years | |||
| Key management personnel turnover for the past 3 years | |||
| Volunteer hours, by meaningful categories, turnover for the past 3 years | |||
| Sustainability | Description of the extent to which the | Alert users to the extent to which | D1, D3-6, P3, P6-8, S1-3, C1-2 |
| Description of CO’s preparedness to scale operations | Important for potential donors looking to invest to scale up a CO’s charitable operations |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.