Key Findings
-
Trust functions as financial capital in the nonprofit sector, shaping funding stability and donor behaviour.
-
Governance mechanisms such as audits, reporting systems, and oversight structures act as signals that strengthen stakeholder trust.
-
These mechanisms reduce information asymmetry and transaction costs between NGOs and funders.
-
At the same time, governance can create a “compliance tax”, consuming staff time, administrative resources, and organisational capacity.
-
The central financial challenge for NGOs is therefore optimising governance intensity: building sufficient trust to secure funding while avoiding excessive diversion of resources from mission delivery.
Introduction
In the nonprofit sector, trust is often framed as a moral virtue. Financially, however, it behaves more like capital. NGOs depend on stakeholder trust to attract donations, secure grants, and maintain long-term partnerships. When trust is high, funding relationships tend to be longer, less restrictive, and administratively lighter. When trust erodes, contracts become detailed, compliance-heavy and costly.
Governance mechanisms such as audits, reporting systems, and oversight structures therefore serve an important financial function: they signal credibility and reduce information asymmetry between organisations and their stakeholders. Yet these same systems are not costless. As governance requirements expand, NGOs may face what can be described as a compliance tax - a growing diversion of staff time, managerial attention, and financial resources away from programme delivery.
Understanding governance as an investment in trust capital, therefore, raises an important financial question: at what point does additional governance strengthen funding stability, and when does it begin to undermine mission capacity?
Trust as an Economic Asset
A 2025 trust tracker commissioned by the Charity Commission for England and Wales reports sustained public trust in charities (5.7 out of 10) and identifies regulation, public registers, and oversight mechanisms as core drivers of confidence (Charity Commission for England and Wales, 2025). Governance, therefore, is not merely bureaucratic custom. It is part of how trust is produced and maintained.
Under signalling theory, first formalised by Spence (1973), credible but costly signals such as audits, board oversight, conflict-of-interest policies, whistleblowing channels, and structured reporting distinguish trustworthy organisations from opportunistic ones. Audits and formal controls serve this signalling function precisely because they reduce information asymmetry between NGOs and their stakeholders.
A quasi-experimental study exploiting audit-mandate thresholds finds that mandatory audits cause charities to adopt formal governance mechanisms, including whistleblower policies and CEO compensation approval procedures, and are associated with reduced indicators of managerial private benefits (Duguay, 2022). Governance can thus be understood as a trust-building expenditure. It strengthens internal accountability structures and raises external confidence.
The Cost of Accountability
Yet governance is not costless. The systems that build trust may also create what can be described as a compliance tax: a diversion of cash, staff capacity, and managerial attention away from mission delivery. A humanitarian NGO case study published in the Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal records an increase in contractual audits mandated by institutional funders. Finance staff reported spending approximately one-third of their time on audit-related activities (Cazenave & Morales, 2021). The organisation experienced administrative burnout and turnover within finance roles.
Separate research by the Center for Effective Philanthropy (2023) reports a median administrative burden of 22 staff hours per funder per year: approximately 15 hours for proposal and selection processes and 6 hours for reporting and evaluation. For NGOs with diversified funding portfolios, this burden scales mechanically with funder fragmentation and the heterogeneity of reporting requirements.
Increasing Regulations
The growth of audit and reporting requirements also raises a broader institutional question. In sectors where assurance services are mandatory, professional services firms naturally benefit from the expansion of compliance regimes. Similar dynamics have been observed in areas such as ESG reporting, where regulatory expansion significantly increased demand for external assurance. While audits play an important role in building trust, the political economy of expanding compliance requirements deserves further scrutiny.
This tension reveals a finance-relevant optimisation problem. Governance can raise external trust and funding stability, but beyond certain thresholds, marginal effort may yield diminishing trust returns while steepening internal costs.
Evidence from principal–agent theory, developed by Jensen and Meckling (1976), and transaction cost economics, articulated by Williamson (1985), suggests that lower trust corresponds to longer and more complex contracts with more restrictive clauses. When trust is low, monitoring intensity increases and transaction costs rise. When trust is high, safeguards can be lighter and contracting simpler. Sustained trust-building may therefore eventually simplify contracting if funders convert confidence into flexibility.
The empirical literature built upon the signalling theory of Spence (1973) further suggests that NGOs operate multiple simultaneous trust contracts, each with distinct monitoring structures and failure modes.
Donor trust rests on belief in stewardship and impact. Contributors must believe that funds reach the intended cause and are spent legitimately. Financial transparency therefore, functions not merely as reporting compliance but also as a revenue driver. Clear expenditure breakdowns and audited statements reduce information asymmetry and signal credibility.
Funding Mix and Monitioring Intensity
Beneficiary trust operates differently. Accountability scholarship, particularly within NGO accountability literature, distinguishes between upward accountability to funders and downward accountability to service users (Ebrahim, 2003, 2010). Beneficiary trust reduces execution risk. Weak confidence among service users may undermine programme uptake, service quality, and reputational resilience even when formal controls appear robust.
Regulator trust is embedded in the legitimacy infrastructure. As described by Suchman (1995), legitimacy reflects a generalised perception that organisational actions are appropriate within socially constructed norms. Compliance spending therefore, contributes to how the donation market prices authenticity, particularly in contexts where fraud risk is salient.
Partner trust, especially with institutional funders, is structurally closest to a contracting problem. Research on trust-based philanthropy suggests that lower trust is associated with more complex and restrictive grant agreements (OECD, 2024; Williamson, 1991). Low trust, therefore, does not merely reduce funding probability; it increases the transaction costs attached to funding and lowers effective programme expenditure.
Partner trust, especially with institutional funders, is structurally closest to a contracting problem. Research on trust-based philanthropy suggests that lower trust is associated with more complex and restrictive grant agreements (OECD, 2024; Williamson, 1991). Low trust therefore, does not merely reduce funding probability; it increases the transaction costs attached to funding and lowers effective programme expenditure.
Taken together, these trust relationships generate what can be described as a trust premium. This premium is observable through contract simplicity, reduced clause intensity, longer commitment horizons, and lower monitoring repetition. In transaction cost terms, trust lowers the need for extensive safeguards and enforcement. Funding becomes administratively lighter and financially more efficient. Taken together, these four contracts form the financial logic of governance.
The compliance tax manifests in three measurable forms.
First, staff time. Governance workload increases not only with organisational size but also with funder fragmentation (Center for Effective Philanthropy, 2023).
Second, direct assurance costs. In the documented humanitarian case (Cazenave & Morales, 2021), nearly €64 million in expenses were audited, approximately €53,000 were deemed ineligible, and audit costs exceeded €200,000. These figures illustrate diminishing marginal assurance returns. Beyond a certain threshold, the cost of detecting marginal irregularities may exceed their financial value.
Third, organisational strain. Audit proliferation contributed to burnout and turnover within finance teams. Turnover increases recruitment and training costs, reduces institutional memory, and may increase error probability. Funding mix shifts can steepen this burden. The same case documents a transition from roughly 50 percent private donations to 33 percent, while institutional funding increased from 49 percent to 66 percent. Institutional funding typically carries stricter compliance and reporting requirements. As the revenue mix shifts, the compliance load per euro of income may rise unless contracts simplify or systems are automated (Cazenave & Morales, 2021).
Governance as an Optimisation Problem
The debate about NGO overhead often becomes moralised. A financial perspective reframes the issue as an optimisation problem. Trust behaves like capital: it reduces transaction costs and stabilises funding relationships. Governance mechanisms such as audits, reporting systems, and oversight structures therefore play an essential role in producing this trust.
Yet governance is not costless. It consumes cash, staff time, and managerial bandwidth. When reporting requirements multiply across fragmented funding sources, the result can be a growing compliance tax that diverts organisational capacity away from programme delivery.
The central financial question is therefore clear: at what point does additional governance cease to increase mission capacity? For NGOs scaling operations or shifting toward institutional funding, this threshold determines whether governance functions as a value-enhancing trust infrastructure or as a compliance burden that erodes impact.
The challenge for the sector is therefore not simply to increase governance, but to optimise it. Greater standardisation of reporting frameworks and increased trust-based grant-making could significantly reduce administrative duplication while preserving accountability. Financial maturity in the NGO sector ultimately requires recognising governance not merely as a symbolic virtue, but as a strategic investment in trust capital that must be balanced against mission impact.
References
Cazenave B, Morales J. NGO responses to financial evaluation: Auditability, purification and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2021;34(4):731-756. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2020-4397
Charity Commission for England and Wales. Public Trust in Charities 2025. UK Government; 2025.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6867bd2e2557debd867cbcbd/Public_Trust_in_Charities_2025.pdf
Duguay R. Audits and Governance: Evidence from Nonprofit Audit Thresholds. Yale School of Management Working Paper; 2022.
https://som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2022-08/6_Duguay_Audits_Governance.pdf
Ebrahim A. Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development. 2003;31(5):813-829.
Ebrahim A. The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In: Herman RD, ed. The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Jossey-Bass; 2010.
Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics. 1976;3(4):305-360.
Spence M. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1973;87(3):355-374.
Suchman MC. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review. 1995;20(3):571-610.
Williamson OE. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. Free Press; 1985.
Williamson OE. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1991;36(2):269-296.
Center for Effective Philanthropy. Before and After 2020: How the Pandemic Reshaped Foundation Practices. 2023.
https://cep.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Before_and_After_2020.pdf
OECD. No Strings Attached? Making Sense of Flexible Financing in Philanthropy. OECD Publishing; 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1787/0264b47f-en