The Role of Responsible Leadership in NGOs in Frames of Sustainable Development

Need help with assignments?

Our qualified writers can create original, plagiarism-free papers in any format you choose (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, etc.)

Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.

Click Here To Order Now

Introduction and Statement of the Problem

State of the Art Summary

The global community is becoming increasingly concerned about the environmental changes together with social and economic problems. UNEP (2020) identified 2019 as the year when the past harms to nature have caught up with the present, and humanity had to deal with the significant impact of climate change in forms of weather disasters. In 2020, all the countries felt how environmental problems made the response to COVID-19 pandemic less efficient. Thus, the call for sustainable development became even more urgent as the number of people affected by ecological issues increases.

The idea behind sustainable development is satisfying the current needs of humanity without interfering with future generations’ ability to meet their needs (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development [UNWCED], 1987). The most recent UN conference on sustainable development identified seventeen goals in different spheres, including economics, equality of opportunity, healthcare issues, and food supply. Achievement of sustainable development is possible only with the engagement of all stakeholders, including universities and other education facilities, financial institutions, government, business, non-government organizations (NGOs) and communities.

Responsible leadership arises in the practice of corporations and other organizations in connection with the phenomenon of social responsibility of the company. The essence of such responsibility is that the company must take into account the interests of many parties in the implementation of activities, as well as comply with the norms of society (Maak & Pless, 2012). In the literature, it is proposed to decompose the concept of “responsible leadership” into formulas that reflect those areas to which organizations are responsible, and therefore their leaders are responsible. Richardson (2015) argues that there are four classes of responsibility for a company in relation to society: economic, legal, ethical, and what he called “discrete responsibility.” In this case, responsible leadership can be expressed as a formula:

Responsible leadership = f (Economics, Politics, Ecology, Morality).

This formula of responsible leadership is interpreted as follows: responsible leadership is a function of the interaction of the firm and society in the economic, sociopolitical, environmental, and moral spheres (Richardson, 2015). Responsible leadership can enrich and align each of these areas. Responsible leadership can also be seen as a function of the personality of the leader (who adheres to the principles of responsibility when making decisions), a responsible company, and a responsible group of all stakeholders surrounding the organization (investors, consumers, competitors, regulators, etc.). This aggregate responsibility of all participants in the business world can be called “business ecology” and displayed using the scheme shown in the figure below. This figure shows a holistic view of responsible leadership, in which all its participants are in the process of communication, seeking and moving towards equality, mutually participating in the process of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development goals.

The basis of modern business ethics is considered to be the social contract and social responsibility of the company. The social responsibility of entrepreneurs consists not so much in generous donations for the education of the people, but in the organization of a business that would provide the working people with a stable property status, social protection, opportunities for education and spiritual growth (Parry et al., 2019). Social responsibility is a concept that reflects the voluntary decision of an organization to participate in the improvement of society and the protection of the environment. This is a set of obligations that an organization must fulfill in order to strengthen society. Today, not all companies adhere to business ethics and social responsibility included in this concept (Parry et al., 2019). This is due to the fact that with a very developed competition, many companies begin to chase not the quality of the goods and the number of consumers, but the maximization of profits. Any created commercial organization has a primary goal in its creation to enrich itself.

However, in the pursuit of revenue, many organizations cease to comply with any moral or social principles: for example, they pollute the environment, or the quality of the goods begins to deteriorate. This often happens in large companies with little competition in the market. Thus, the business etiquette of the company suffers, enterprises simply begin to forget about their responsibility to society. In addition, opponents of the socio-ethical approach believe that this kind of business policy primarily leads to a violation of the principle of profit maximization (Parry et al., 2019). Their opinion is based on the fact that funds allocated for social needs are costs for the enterprise. Among the arguments “against” also highlight the lack of ability to resolve social problems. The company’s staff lacks the experience to make meaningful contributions to solving social problems. The presence of such opposing arguments explains the lack of an unambiguous attitude to social responsibility. This is a very critical issue that needs to be addressed.

As a solution, he proposes a model of responsible leadership, thanks to which it is possible to motivate managers and employees and make them responsible for their actions. Motivation can be both positive and negative. The pessimistic direction and motivation is mainly widespread in the world. For example, when a large corporation takes on the problem of the environment and how to overcome critical points, any presentations or projects touch on the topic of disasters. If the impact will show, for example, how “profits and the number of consumers will fall” then the opposite is possible (Parry et al., 2019). With the right motivation, the focus of companies on maintaining social responsibility will only grow. Perhaps it will even become a mandatory feature, as it is now beginning to spread in foreign companies.

Despite the fact that the state supports social policy and tries with all its might to maintain and control the market, risks are possible. Excessive bureaucratization and corruption in public authorities are also common, due to which the state closes its eyes to the lack of social responsibility that all companies should theoretically bear. To reduce such effects, attention should be paid to leadership in the field of ethics and social responsibility. Organizations and businesses should follow certain rules and try to engage in non-profit activities whenever possible. Any person can understand that they do not want to give their profits to the social good or the state, while feeling great risks and costs (Parry et al., 2019). But if organizations do not trust charitable foundations or the state, then they should take the initiative in their own hands and begin leadership activities to effectively support social culture. The more numerous the composition of the middle or upper strata of the population, the better it will be for producers, because the product will sell even better (Parry et al., 2019). Moreover, at the mention of the company, people will have positive associations.

If the society begins to feel that it helps the society and does it also for its own benefit, then the company’s fame is ensured. For well-known companies, Intel is a good example of a leadership motivator. In 2008, Intel received the Business Ethics Award for Leadership in Corporate Social Responsibility (Parry et al., 2019). This is the first time this award has been established, and Intel Corporation has thus become its first laureate. Business Ethics magazine, in the words of its editor-in-chief Marjorie Kelly, “recognized Intel’s leadership and success in the field of business ethics and corporate social responsibility” (Parry et al., 2019, p. 197). It should be clarified that the corporation participates in more than 50 socially responsible mutual funds of various kinds. In the world, only a few companies are so actively engaged in this kind of activity. In addition, the company’s achievement is that, as part of the worldwide Global Reporting Initiative, Intel was one of the first organizations in the United States to introduce the practice of reporting on its activities to ensure corporate social responsibility and environmental protection (Parry et al., 2019). Such a reputation immediately begins to positively influence consumer psychology.

Today, corporate leaders of NGOs are required, first of all, to be able to work effectively in conditions of uncertainty and to coordinate the interests, needs, and requirements of all stakeholders. Responsible leaders recognize, respect, and reconcile the multiple interests, needs, demands and conflicts that arise between employees, customers, suppliers and other contractors, different communities, other non-governmental organizations, regulators, the environment and society at large (Lawrence & Beamish, 2012). In an era of economic globalization, corporate leaders find themselves in a dynamic and complex multicultural business environment characterized by increasingly close interconnections between technology, people, organizations and society at large. Leadership models created for more traditional and stable eras have lost their relevance. Leadership in the conditions of widespread dissemination of the idea of sustainable development and related regulatory and advisory norms should be systemic and flexible enough to adapt to the extreme complexity and dynamics of the external environment, as well as the peculiarities of the internal environment of NGOs.

It is interesting to note that among non-governmental organizations, the World Wildlife Fund (28% of expert votes) and Greenpeace (18% of expert votes) continue to hold global leading positions (Schinzel, 2018). The experts highly appreciated their efforts to effectively engage stakeholders and actively interact with other organizations. This is clear evidence of the importance of effective leadership in contributing to the achievement of sustainable development goals. In addition, NGO leaders have, one might say, a “double” responsibility, since by their example they should inspire leaders of commercial organizations, their employees, and other citizens to apply the principles of CSR, corporate citizenship and responsible leadership on a large scale. In these conditions, the interaction of NGOs with communities is of particular importance, determining the need to identify and clarify the relationship between NGOs and the community in achieving sustainable development.

Recently, scholars began to realize the growing impact of sustainable development on NGOs. Thus, a phenomenological approach will be used to establish causal relationships between the sustainable development of an NGO and its relationship with the community. The study uses semi-structured interviews to answer research questions formulated to acquire a holistic understanding of the relationship between NGOs and the community in building sustainable development.

Background Information

Environmental Concerns

The global community is experiencing a significant rise in concern about environmental changes. According to the United Nations environment report, the global temperature has risen by 1°C compared to the pre-industrial era, causing significant economic losses associated with environmental and weather disasters, such as heatwaves and wildfires, hurricanes, and droughts (UNEP, 2019). The UN’s under-secretary-general and UNEP executive director wrote that 2019 was the year “when our past finally caught up with us and science provided an unambiguous call for urgent action” (UNEP, 2020, p. 3). In 2019, the world continued to see the devastating effects of mindless consumption resulting in storms, melting of ice sheets, and floods (UNEP, 2020). Even though most governments understand the importance of reducing the impact on the ecology of the planet, most of them fail to accomplish it. In 2019, only the countries of the European Union (EU) were able to slightly decrease greenhouse gas emissions, while other top greenhouse-gas emitters failed to do so (UNEP, 2019). If the countries continue to ignore global environmental emergencies, the number of natural disasters, threats to public health, and biodiversity loss will continue to grow rapidly.

In general, there are ten crucial environmental problems most commonly mentioned by scholars and organizations. They include climate change, pollution and associated health problems, protection of oceans, energy consumption, sustainable food model, protection of biodiversity, sustainable urban development and mobility, water scarcity, overpopulation and waste management, and extreme meteorological phenomena (Abernethy, Maisels, & White, 2016). All these problems are interconnected, and their root cause is human activity. Since humanity is responsible for environmental changes, the issues mentioned above can be addressed by altering human activity on all levels. UN (2020) calls on all the countries for immediate action to protect the planet and slow down or reverse the current processes leading to environmental problems.

“The main challenge for the development of society,” wrote Mahbubul-Haq in the first Human Development Report in 1990, “is to create an environment conducive to people enjoying long, healthy, and constructive lives” (ul-Haq, 1995, p. 19). According to him, the true wealth of nations is people. At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, the generally recognized supranational task of the world community was the movement towards sustainable development, which is understood as the preservation of the environment in unity with social and economic well-being in the interests of the present and future generations. Today ensuring sustainable development is impossible without a radical renewal of the management of social processes, norms and traditions of the community, without replacing the market economy with an economy of values. The development of an optimal scheme of social relations in the interconnected world with a limited resource base has moved from the plane of scientific discussions to the plane of urgent practical problems. However, despite certain positive results achieved in a number of highly developed countries, a radical change in social management did not occur. There are many reasons for this, including the underdevelopment of the fundamental foundations of leadership by sociological science, the transition period from the modern era with a goal-oriented community to postmodern with a human value orientation, interpersonal relations, and interaction between society and nature.

Based on the law of proportional development of social systems, for the system to acquire the properties of sustainable development, a relative change in all elements of this system is necessary. Violation of this law, regardless of the subject’s intentions, leads to the subsequent inhibition of development, followed by destruction of the entire system (David, 2012). There is no alternative to sustainable development, but today the participation of all actors in the UN Global Compact is insufficiently coordinated. There was no proper transition from discussions and concepts to the level of methodological and technological support of distributed leadership for value-oriented social management, a sustainable “economy of values” (Sachs, 2015). In addition, the corresponding system of indicators has not been fully formed, which often leads to sustainable development management based on common sense management, increasing entropy.

Meanwhile, at the level of organizations, the concept of sustainable development actually coincides with the implementation of the concept of management based on knowledge and CSR, and at the level of the individual, the leader – with the understanding of human dignity and the resulting value orientations in the “nature-society-human” system. Today, there is no doubt that any conceptual scheme can remain unrealized if the organization does not have dynamic leadership that is optimally distributed among all personnel at all levels of the organization, and this applies to both the micro level (that is, the company level) and the macro level (community). In this regard, an in-depth understanding of the theoretical foundations of leadership in the context of providing an effective relationship between NGOs and the stakeholders in building sustainable development, when leadership acts as a link between human and social capital, the main element of social management, seems to be highly expedient and urgent.

Sustainable Development

Defining deep roots and the very essence of sustainable development, one can say that this concept is the key to resolving the environmental issues discussed above. In 1987, the UNWED (1987) defined sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ ‘ (para. 27). Sustainable development principles require that more economically advantageous people adopt life-styles within the planet’s ecological means (UNWCED, 1987). The changes should be made in the amount of consumed resources to ensure equity (UNWCED, 1987). In order to achieve sustainable development, the UN (2015) set seventeen comprehensive goals associated with 163 targets to achieve by 2030 to address the problems related to poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace, and justice. Even though the new agenda that came in effect in 2016 is a set of intergovernmental commitments, it gained support from many actors, such as public policy bodies, NGOs, and many public sectors and private sector organizations (Bebbington & Unerman, 2018). Sustainable development goals are commonly referred to as “the Global Goals” (Bebbington & Unerman, 2018).

The UN’s agenda prioritizes changes associated both with the environment and the global community. All the seventeen goals are briefly outlined below:

1. No poverty: making economic growth more inclusive to provide sustainable jobs and promote equality;
2. Zero hunger: decreasing food waste and support to local agricultural producers;
3. Good health and well-being: promotion of vaccination and preventive care;
4. Accessible education: helping to educate children in communities around the globe;
5. Gender equality: empowering of women and girls to ensure their equal rights;
6. Clean water and sanitation: promotion of efficient water use;
7. Affordable and clean energy: promotion of utilization of only energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs;
8. Decent work and economic growth: creating job opportunities for youth;
9. Industry, innovation, and infrastructure: funding projects that provide necessary infrastructure and innovation;
10. Reduction of inequality: supporting the marginalized and disadvantaged;
11. Sustainable cities and communities: providing access to basic services, energy, housing, transportation, and more for everyone;
12. Responsible consumption and production: recycling paper, plastic, glass, and aluminum and using recyclable materials;
13. Climate action: action to stop global warming;
14. Preservation of oceans: avoiding pollution of the world’s essential resource;
15. Preservation of life on land: carefully managing forests, combating desertification, halting and reversing land degradation, and halting biodiversity loss.
16. Peace justice and strong institutions: building effective, accountable institutions at all levels.
17. Partnerships: revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable development (UN, 2015).

As seen from the goals described above, sustainable development does not mean only environmental sustainability. Instead, the UN’s agenda aims at addressing all the problems that may prevent future generations from meeting their needs. However, even though the idea behind the goals is evident, it is unclear how the UN’s directives should be translated into action. In other words, the role of these goals may seem vague for an unprepared reader. According to Leal Filho et al. (2018), sustainable development goals are important for two central reasons. First, clear articulation of priorities revitalized researchers worldwide to work together to find practical solutions for the fundamental problems before humanity (Leal Filho et al., 2018). Scholars working in one of the seventeen areas mentioned above have improved chances of receiving financial and institutional support to close the current gaps in knowledge that prevent sustainable development (Leal Filho et al., 2018).

Second, the fact that the UN set a relatively tight timeframe for achieving the goals added a sense of urgency to the problem (Leal Filho et al., 2018). This urgency created an imperative not only for researchers but also for policymakers and other actors to put the results of the latest research into use (Leal Filho et al., 2018). Sustainable development goals provided significant incentives for institutions and research teams to collaborate to benefit people, partnerships, justice, prosperity, dignity, and the planet.

Achieving the goals set by the UN’s framework is impossible without engaging all the stakeholders to work efficiently together. The benefits of engaging all the stakeholders are evident: it leads to achieving maximum productivity and effectiveness, it ensures equity in decision-making, and it allows the ideas to be tested before implementation (Leal Filho & Brandli, 2016). Without the engagement of all stakeholders, it is impossible to reach the balance of rare and human resources (Wojewnik-Filipkowska & Węgrzyn, 2019). However, there are various barriers that abstract the engagement of all stakeholders at a needed level. First, even though there are many methods for stakeholder engagement, the current engagement process lacks a unified scheme (Leal Filho & Brandli, 2016). Second, groups of stakeholders have varying interests, which may contradict each other leading to a conflict of interest (Kent, 2010). Third, different stakeholders have insufficient capabilities, as the transition to proactive forms of stakeholder management requires additional resources (Rhodes, Bergstrom, Lok, & Cheng, 2014). Fourth, a growing number of stakeholder participation leads to stakeholder fatigue and cynicism (Leal Filho & Brandli, 2016). Fifth, all the steps of governments require disclosure, which may lead to additional risks for them due to intense scrutiny (Kent, 2010). Finally, some stakeholders are challenging to have a direct dialog with for various reasons (Leal Filho & Brandli, 2016). However, these barriers are to be addressed to ensure that all sustainable development goals are achieved.

Changing Role of Governments

While the engagement of all stakeholders is crucial, governments play a central role in facilitating sustainable development. UN (2015) recognizes the critical role of governments in engaging citizens and stakeholders and providing them with relevant information on all aspects of sustainable development. In general, governments’ central roles are policy development, regulation, facilitation, and internal sustainability management (Young & Dhanda, 2013). When developing policies, governments need to set and prioritize realistic goals aligned with the overall strategy to achieve sustainable development (Young & Dhanda, 2013). As facilitators, governments stimulate breakthroughs and set boundaries for other stakeholders by establishing clear criteria for governmental support and creating financial and non-financial incentives (Young & Dhanda, 2013). Under regulation, scholars understand all governments’ initiatives in legislation, administration, and enforcement used to set legal frameworks supporting sustainable development (Young & Dhanda, 2013). Finally, when managing internal sustainability, governments should promote social responsibility among all governmental bodies (Young & Dhanda, 2013). Currently, however, governments started to realize the wide variety of roles they play beyond the central ones described above.

When cooperating with other stakeholders, governments need to help set vision and strategy to promote sustainable development. Second, governments should continuously improve their environmental performance to set an example for other stakeholders (Kent, 2010). Third, governments need to create “open, competitive, and rightly framed markets that would include pricing of goods and services, dismantling subsidies, and taxing waste and pollution” (Young & Dhanda, 2013, p. 217). Fourth, governments should commit to fiscal reforms that amend businesses for their commitment to sustainable development goals (Young & Dhanda, 2013). Finally, governments should understand their role as a catalyst that should promote innovation on all levels, as sustainable development demands much change to be adopted (Young & Dhanda, 2013). Thus, the role of governments is shifting towards close cooperation with different stakeholders.

Non-government Organizations

One of the most controversial stakeholders in sustainable development is NGOs, as their role in sustainable development initiatives is unclear. NGOs include a wide variety of organizations, in particular, private voluntary organizations, civil society organizations, and nonprofit organizations (Young & Dhana, 2013). While during the first sustainable development conferences organized by the UN acknowledged states as primary actors, current research started to accept the idea that the decision-making process is no longer the responsibility of governments (Pacheco-Vega, 2010). NGOs started to play a significant role in international conferences dedicated to sustainable development. Evaluating the degree of NGOs’ influence on sustainable development is a challenging task that is yet to be achieved. At the same time, as it is evident from the features of leadership with regard to sustainable development, considering this influence in frames of NGOs leadership practices can serve as a basis for phenomenology analysis and constructivist paradigm application.

NGOs are believed to be one of the most active groups of partners playing supportive roles in the implementation of sustainable development initiatives (Muazu & Abdullahi, 2019). Simultaneously, they are more effective than governments “to get attached with the grass root level developmental initiatives” (Muazu & Abdullahi, 2019, p. 1). While numerous studies appeared not able to evaluate how many governments failed to acknowledge and appreciate the impact of NGOs on sustainable development, numerous studies confirm that their impact keeps growing worldwide (Muazu & Abdullahi, 2019). According to Sustainability Degrees (2014), influential NGOs that facilitate the achievement of sustainability goals outlined by the UN are Ceres, Conservation International, Doctors without Borders, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and others. All the organizations have different agenda supporting the achievement of one or several of the seventeen goals. For example, Ceres is a sustainability nonprofit organization that promotes sustainable business practices and solutions by working with companies around the world (Sustainability Degrees, 2014). It is worth noting that the above firms have a close relationship with society, since they promote and study the interests of citizens. This is evident in their practice of interacting with community leaders, polling citizens on certain topics, and tailoring their actions in line with the expectations of the majority (Leinarte, 2021). By exercising responsibility, these firms create quality and lasting credibility. It is realized in the opinion among people, for example, that WWF serves to protect humanity and animals from disasters and aims to improve the world (Leinarte, 2021). The vision of the organization is to transform the economy to build a sustainable future (Ceres, 2020). The company developed a unique change theory that aims at moving investors, companies, policymakers, and other influencers to act on four global challenges: climate change, water scarcity and pollution, inequitable workplaces, and outdated capital market systems (Ceres, 2020). The company utilizes Ceres Roadmap for Sustainability as a comprehensive framework for leading change with a special commitment to inclusion and equity (Ceres, 2020).

Relationship between NGOs and Communities

One of the NGOs’ central roles mentioned above is to interact with local communities to achieve sustainable development. Bashir (2016) defines community development as “voluntary participation of local community individuals in a systematic process to bring some desirable improvements, especially health, education, housing, recreation in the targeted community” (p. 124). Today, community development is seen as the central practice in social development as it creates social capital and supports the self-dependency of communities (Bashir, 2016). Therefore, local communities often benefit from participating in the activities and programs designed by NGOs. The benefits can be financial; as local representatives may start working for the NGOs. Thus, NGOs can be seen as potential employers for the representatives of the local community, which contributes to the overall financial sustainability of communities. However, this impact is rather small in comparison with other spheres of influence.

According to Bashir (2016), when interacting with local communities, NGOs seek to achieve the following goals:

1. Improve the various aspects of community well-being including health, education, housing, and recreation;
2. Motivate communities to create and implement community-based plans to address their issues;
3. Help the communities identify their strengths and resources to implement the plans;
4. Develop community leaders through employment, leadership programs, and participation in volunteer programs.
5. Build cooperation between communities and governments;
6. Develop functional community groups and organizations.

However, community development is a laborious endeavor that requires a number of planned interventions strategically aligned to meet the needs of every specific community. The implementation of these interventions is impossible without positive relationships between the NGOs and the community. However, some communities have a strong resentment towards NGOs, which undermines the achievement of sustainability goals. For example, in Afghanistan, citizens have developed a strong resentment towards NGOs (Jelinek, 2006). The root cause of negative relationships is often general distrust of foreigners and lack of information about NGOs’ zones of responsibility (Jelinek, 2006). Citizens may blame NGOs for the absence of effective food distribution or the lack of means to assess the needs of the education system, which is the government’s responsibility (Jelinek, 2006). The dysfunctional relationship between community and NGOs prevents effective cooperation and achievement of sustainability goals. In turn, these dysfunctional relationships represent the consequence of lack of proper leadership in NGOs, inability to apply stakeholder management principles. Like business companies working on increasing customers’ loyalty, without which they will not have sound market success, NGOs also should work in this direction, trying to achieve maximum possible loyalty of communities, without which they will not be able to meet their goals in contributing to sustainable development.

Statement of the Problem

Sustainable development involves multiple stakeholders that need to operate together to achieve the 17 goals outlined in the UN’s agenda. Thus, the roles of every stakeholder need to be clear in order to achieve maximum efficiency of efforts. Currently, the roles of different stakeholders are often unclear, making the collaboration complicated. Therefore, defining the roles of various stakeholders is a matter of increased importance for achieving sustainable development worldwide. Currently, NGOs have a significant impact on all aspects of sustainable development through direct and indirect interaction with governments and communities. Even though the impact of NGOs on sustainable development is a matter of increased attention from scholars, it is unclear how the relationship between NGOs and the community affects sustainable development.

Lack of a clear understanding of the role of relationships between different stakeholders may pose significant problems for policymakers and actors. Without refined knowledge of the matter, NGOs will face difficulty engaging the community to become self-sufficient. Issues like general distrust to foreigners and lack of comprehensive communication plan, which are in turn the “derivatives” of not proper leadership, may lead to decreased efficiency, which can prevent the society from achieving sustainable development goals.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of the article is to analyze and establish the cause-and-effect relationships that ensure the sustainable development of NGOs. In order to achieve the purpose, the following objectives were set: 1) Identify community and NGO interactions; 2) Establish goals and prospects for sustainable development and activities of NGOs; 3) Consider potential losses and risks when building unfavorable strategies; 4) Establish a correlation between sustainable development and the community related to NGOs; 5) Establish the most optimal type of leadership for these enterprises, its features and potential.

The present research aims at answering the following research questions:

• RQ1. What are the factors contributing to functional relationships between NGOs and communities?
• RQ2. What are the factors contributing to dysfunctional relationships between NGOs and communities?
• RQ3. What is the impact of functional relationships between NGOs and communities on achieving sustainable development?
• RQ4. What is the impact of dysfunctional relationships between NGOs and communities on achieving sustainable development?
• RQ5. What is the role of leadership in NGOs’ stakeholder management (i.e. functional community and sponsor relationship)?
• RQ6. What is the role of leadership in contributing to sustainable development?
• RQ7. What steps should NGOs take to adopt leadership practices for building functional relationships with communities?

The research questions will be answered by conducting semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, NGO managers/leaders and community representatives. The study synthesizes the experience of experts to acquire a holistic understanding of the relationship between NGOs and the community in building sustainable development.

Definitions

1. Non-governmental organization (NGO) – a private organization that aims at reducing human suffering by addressing one or a combination of sustainable development problems (Bashir, 2016).
2. Sustainable development – development that meets humanity ‘s needs without compromising the needs of future generations (UNWCED, 1987).
3. Functional relationship – generally positive relationships that promote effective functioning of all stakeholders.
4. Dysfunctional relationships – generally negative relationships that obstruct the effective functioning of all stakeholders.
5. Stakeholder Management
6. Agile leadership – the practice of creating change that contributes to building an agile organization.

Literature Review

Sustainable Development Paradigm

Today, the global problem of climate change and the deterioration of social conditions for mankind is not a problem of any particular state, not of any region or even a continent, but a problem of the entire world community. One of the most vivid examples of how human activity affects public health is the COVID-19 pandemic. While a direct link between the disease and climate change was not established, there are clear indirect correlations between the two matters. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2020), climate change made the response to the coronavirus epidemic less efficient. Climate change undermines the state of health of all people worldwide, creating significant pressure on healthcare systems. Moreover, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2020) reports that the majority of deaths among COVID-19 patients was caused not by the virus, but by the aggravation of pre-existing conditions, such as severe heart problems, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity, sickle cell disease, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Additionally, WHO (2020) mentions that all pandemics originate in wildlife, and increased human pressure on the environment and contact with animals positively affects disease emergence, especially infections.

Another problem is water scarcity caused by global climate change. Around 80% of the global population experience the direct effects of water scarcity (WHO, 2020). Almost 25% of all healthcare facilities on the planet lack basic access to clean water, which directly impacts services provided to over 2 billion people (WHO, 2020). In five years, half of the world’s population will live in water-stressed areas due to devastating livestock farming, which is responsible for 29% of worldwide water consumption (Greenpeace, 2020). Thus, climate change affects public health in a variety of obvious and subtle ways.

The environmental emergency is also caused by a significant decrease in biodiversity reported by numerous government and non-government organizations. UNEP (2020) states that the average abundance of species has fallen by at least 20% since 1900. In particular, the number of species of amphibians decreased by 2.5%, mammals – by 2%, birds – by 1.75%, reptiles – by 1.1%, and fishes – by 1% (UNEP, 2020). If biodiversity continues to decrease at the current rate, it can be a significant threat to the sustainability of numerous ecosystems, as different species often play unique roles that humans are unable to identify (Lohbeck, Bongers, Martinez‐Ramos, & Poorter, 2016). Even though not all species currently have an equal effect on ecosystems due to varying dominance levels, given the spatial and temporal turnover in species dominance, all species may have a significant impact on ecosystems (Lohbeck et al., 2016). Thus, the global community needs to address the problem of shrinking biodiversity without hesitation to avoid adverse outcomes.

Realizing the tendency of the experienced needs to constant growth and modification, and the possibilities for their satisfaction, on the contrary, to a steady narrowing, given that economic activity leads not only to the depletion of resources, but also to environmental pollution with industrial waste, mankind was forced to admit the formation of serious global problems that threaten not so much its progress but rather its survival. At the same time, most threats to the survival of mankind (land degradation, environmental pollution, loss of biological diversity, military conflicts, problems of poverty and social inequality, terrorism) not only continue to be relevant, but are also growing and aggravating. As noted in most studies on sustainable development, all this indicates a serious crisis situation, the way out of which the world community sees in a progressive transition to sustainable development, which requires the unification and coordination of efforts of all countries (Robertson, 2017). Given these circumstances, the modern world is trying to move from an exhausted top-down model of socio-economic development, which is based on spontaneous, unstable activities that negatively affect the environment and undermine human health, to a promising ascending model, characterized by sustainable progressive dynamic development, contributing to improving the quality of life and the environment.

Sustainability is a popular topic in modern business discourse, incorporated into activities at various levels. With varying degrees of awareness, companies are beginning to understand that global emissions – joint exceeding of the planet’s environmental limits – is a serious threat to organizations, society, and the Earth itself (Robertson, 2017). Progress has been made, and in many ways continues to grow, but the complexity of sustainable development issues is becoming increasingly evident, together with the importance and need for large-scale change to address these issues.

The concern of the world community about the state of these problems has led to the need to revise the existing doctrine of socio-economic development, develop a new paradigm and create international scientific organizations for the study of global processes, such as the Club of Rome, the International Institute for Systems Analysis, and the International Federation of Advanced Research Institutes.

The next stage in the formation of a new economic paradigm as a paradigm for sustainable development was the United Nations Conference on the Environment (Stockholm, 1972), which resulted in the development of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). In the same year, at the request of the Club of Rome, the study The Limits to Growth was published. In this document, in accordance with the idea of the transition from extensive economic growth (by involving additional resources in economic activity) to intensive growth (due to the rational, more efficient use of existing resources) and the new world economic order, twelve scenarios for the development of mankind based on various resource provision alternatives were presented (Hess, 2016). However, the very concept of sustainable economic development has entered scientific circulation since the publication of the report Our Future in 1987 by the International Commission on Environment and Development. The report formulated the thesis of a new era of economic development, safe for the existence of mankind and the environment. In this regard, the researchers note that it is about development, which implies a model of socio-economic development in which the satisfaction of the vital needs of the current generation of people is achieved without future generations being deprived of such an opportunity due to the depletion of natural resources and environmental degradation (Hess, 2016). Finally, as the main strategy of the current stage of the functioning of the world economy, as shown by modern research, sustainable development was first identified at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) (Sachs, 2015). The conference made a historic decision to change the direction of the evolution of the entire world community, demonstrating the awareness of the pernicious nature of the traditional path, which is characterized by instability, fraught with economic crises and man-made disasters.

Many authors, defining the main signs of the failure of the existing paradigm of the development of modern civilization, note its inability to solve the problems faced by mankind, expanding economic activity and exhausting the possibilities of nature to provide this activity with the necessary resources. In this regard, they point to the need for the formation of a new economic theory that can correctly explain and propose directions for correcting the socio-economic behavior of participants in economic activity in the context of an increasing resource shortage and decreasing environmental safety at all its levels. Such a theory, in their opinion, should be namely the theory of sustainable development (Ashmarina & Vochozka, 2019).

Sachs (2015) notes that the countries that created the welfare state have made some progress in adapting industrial civilization to the requirements of human existence. However, the fundamental problem remained, and neoliberal market fundamentalism did a lot for the new ‘deification’ of the economy (Ashmarina & Vochozka, 2019). The authors do not see a worthy alternative in economic development among the modern most dynamic development models, citing as an example the anti-sustainable Chinese modernization, which puts economic growth and mass consumption at the forefront and creates a modern and far from environmentally friendly economy in the most populous country in the world (Hess, 2016). Exploring the problems of sustainable development and arguing within which economic system (model) it is possible, the experts write that given that the Agenda 21 contains a steady circulation of economic and market terms, it can be assumed that the economy of sustainable development is not identical to the market economy though uses its tools (Tietenberg & Lewis, 2019). Indeed, the economy of sustainable development is replacing the traditional (market) economy. In accordance with the main thesis of Agenda 21 about the discrepancy between traditional ideas about economic growth and emerging patterns of consumption and production that meet the existing needs of mankind, and the conclusions of the above-mentioned scientists, the following basic principles of sustainable development can be formulated (Bebbington & Unerman, 2018):

1. Ethical norms based on respect and care for each other and for the planet as a whole are the basis for the sustainable development of modern society.
2. Improving the quality of life, the indicators of which should be, in accordance with the United Nations Development Program, life expectancy, health, education, income. At the same time, the quality of life should be determined by such important factors as lifestyle, anthropogenic activity (the nature of production and consumption) and the course of natural processes.
3. Preservation of the vitality and diversity of all life on earth. This principle requires the formation of a life support system that makes our planet livable, the conservation of biological diversity, and the guarantee of sustainable use of renewable natural resources.
4. Minimizing the use of non-renewable resources. Work in this direction involves the all-round development and application of resource-saving technologies by countries of the world, the expansion of the use of secondary waste in economic activity, and the switch (where possible) to renewable resources.
5. Encouraging the interest of society and its members in preserving the environment. Realizing this principle, society should in every possible way stimulate the implementation of environmentally responsible economic activities and more fully express its concerns and interests in preserving the living environment of mankind.
6. Integration of the processes of socio-economic development and environmental protection, which provides for the formation and implementation of economic policy aimed at the rational use of resources, and constant monitoring of compliance with the proper level of environmental safety.

In 2015, the member states of the United Nations adopted a document entitled “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (“Agenda 2030”), which enshrined the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the main guidelines for the evolution of the world community for the next fifteen years. This international event became evidence that the concept of sustainable development has won the status of a key and backbone theory of global development in the 21st century. The expansion of the range of challenges and threats that humanity has faced in the new millennium has led to the expediency of a “triune” interpretation of sustainable development, providing for the need to simultaneously address social, economic, and environmental problems at the national and global levels.

The Sustainable Development Goals, formulated in the updated UN agenda, formalized the “threefold” approach to this concept. Thus, humanity is faced with the urgent task of looking for additional sources and innovative approaches to financing development and ensuring “socially inclusive” and environmentally sustainable economic growth (Robertson, 2017). In this regard, the contribution of the private sector, NGOs, and local communities to the implementation of the SDGs at the global level takes on a special role, which is emphasized in the documents adopted by leading international organizations in recent years. In turn, this determines the need to apply a stakeholder approach to sustainable development issues. At the same time, there is currently a significant lack of serious academic research in science devoted to the problems of interaction between the state and the private sector, aimed at the practical implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as assessing the role of various stakeholders, including NGOs, in financing and ensuring global development. Meanwhile, as shown below, at the country level, a number of practical steps are being taken to involve stakeholders in addressing sustainable development issues.

Stakeholder Approach and the Role of HGOs in Building Sustainable Development

The sustainability goals help all stakeholders acquire a unified understanding of the situation and the way to approach it. Even though many leaders understand the negative impact of human development on the environment and the society, they often do not know how climate change, shrinking biodiversity, water scarcity, and poverty are just symptoms of “an inherently unsustainable basic design and mode of operation of society” (Broman & Robèrt, 2017, p. 22). Sustainable development goals help to understand the close interconnections between different problems humanity faces today. According to Broman and Robèrt (2017), a 25-year learning process between scientists and practitioners helped numerous organizations to understand and put themselves strategically towards sustainability. This implies that the UN’s framework helped companies around the world to decrease their negative impact on the environment and the society by embracing innovation, integration of new business models, exploration of new markets, and improving manufacturing efficiency (Broman & Robèrt, 2017). Thus, sustainable development goals constitute a vital framework that helps address the central problems before humanity.

The complexity and versatility of the seventeen goals mentioned by the UN entail the involvement of a large variety of stakeholder groups. While there are two apparent stakeholders, which are businesses and higher education institutions, scholars name many other stakeholder groups. According to Leal Filho and Brandli (2016), stakeholders are “those who have an interest in a particular decision or course of action, either as individuals or as representatives of a group” (p. 336). In simple words, stakeholders are those who have been in any way affected by the issues. Considering the fact that problems mentioned in the UN’s framework affect every creature on the plane in some way, the stakeholders of sustainable development are all the people. In particular, Leal Filho and Brandli (2016) mention universities and other education facilities, financial institutions, government, business, and communities. In other words, sustainable development is highly dependable upon the partnership between the public and private organizations, together with social entities and NGOs (Wojewnik-Filipkowska & Węgrzyn, 2019).

In 2015, the network organization Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data was created, bringing together more than 150 representatives of the business community, government authorities, civil society, international organizations and scientists to collect data on the achievement of the SDGs in the United States (Hoff et al., 2019). In the UK, at the moment, the development of a national sustainable development strategy for the UK, a plan for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at the inter-ministerial level and the creation of mechanisms for coordinating the policies of individual departments in this direction remain an urgent task for the British government. The UK Stakeholders for Sustainable Development (UKSSD), a multi-stakeholder network that brings together representatives of the public, private, academic and non-profit sectors, is currently developing a national plan for the implementation of the SDGs with the participation of all key stakeholders (Hoff et al., 2019).

In January 2017, the German Federal Government approved a new version of the Strategy for Sustainable Development, which defines specific measures and targets on a wide range of issues related to the SDGs. All government institutions are called upon to contribute to the achievement of specific SDG targets within their areas of competence. Germany’s Sustainable Development Strategy is a measure of the seventeen SDGs at three levels: 1) measures by the German government to achieve the SDGs in Germany; 2) measures with “global implications”; 3) direct support of other countries, carried out in the format of bilateral cooperation (Hoff et al., 2019). In order to inform society about the results of the implementation of the SDGs, the German Federal Government established the Sustainability Forum (‘Nachhaltigkeitsforum’), which is a platform for dialogue between business, society, and political power structures.

In 1999, the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) initiated a special government-business cooperation program “develoPPP.de” as a tool to involve the private sector in promoting international development. Projects carried out on the basis of this platform together with German and European companies are being implemented with the participation of one of three authorized state partners – the financial development institution DEG (Deutsche Investitions – und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH), which is a subsidiary of the state development bank KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau), German development agencies (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH) and the international non-profit organization sequa gGmbH, sponsored by the largest German business associations (Hoff et al., 2019).

In 2016, France adopted a strategy called “Let’s Innovate Together,” aimed at adapting concepts of corporate social responsibility to the social and economic challenges articulated in the 2030 Agenda. In order to achieve the SDGs, the French digital platform Agendafrance2030 was launched, which serves as a platform for interaction between various stakeholder groups, creating multi-stakeholder partnerships and disseminating best practices in the field of sustainable development, as well as monitoring progress in this area (Hori et al., 2019).

The participation of NGOs in building sustainable development within and with the participation of communities acquires different forms. Thus, for example, Conservation International is a multicultural organization working since 1987 to protect nature for people (Conservation International, 2020). The company has an extensive network of offices and partners worldwide that helped preserve more than 6 million square kilometers of sea and land across 70 countries (Conservation International, 2020). The organization’s mission is to empower societies to responsibly and sustainably care for nature, biodiversity, and well-being of humanity with a strong foundation of science, partnership and field demonstration (Conservation International, 2020).

Doctors without Borders is an international organization that provides emergency care to people affected by global conflicts, epidemics, disasters, or exclusions since 1971 (Sustainability Degrees, 2014). The company operates under the principles of medical ethics, independence, impartiality, neutrality, accountability, and behavioral commitments to address the threats to human health around the globe (Doctors without Borders, 2020). The members of the organization work under dangerous conditions to life, health, and well-being to help people in need of medical help (Doctors without Borders, 2020).

Greenpeace is one of the most famous non-violent direct-action NGOs, with more than 3 million members. The company values courage and immediate action to help achieve all the seventeen sustainable development goals (Greenpeace, 2018). The organization is known for numerous eco-protests focused on climate change, oceans, forests, toxics, nuclear energy, and sustainable agriculture (Sustainability Degrees, 2014).

WWF is one of the oldest NGOs that started working almost 60 years ago (Sustainability Degrees, 2014). The central effort of the organization is to transform markets and policies toward sustainability and make sure that “the value of nature is reflected in decision-making from a local to a global scale” (WWF, 2020, para. 3). The central focus of the organization is to make a difference in climate, food, forests, freshwater, oceans, and wildlife preservation (WWF, 2020).

Moreover, innovative mechanisms for financing global development in modern conditions are becoming increasingly more in demand. In particular, mixed finance is becoming increasingly important in the international development assistance agenda, which, as defined by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, involves the strategic use of capital from government or philanthropic sources to attract additional private sector funding required to implement the SDGs (Rhodes et al., 2014). According to estimates, this instrument is capable of attracting additional private capital in the amount of up to 1-1.5 trillion. dollars annually, i.e., the amount of funding required to implement the 2030 Agenda in developing countries (Tietenberg & Lewis, 2019). For the period from 2012 to 2017, the total amount of funds attracted from private sources within the framework of mixed financing mechanisms is estimated at $ 152.1 billion (Tietenberg & Lewis, 2019). Development capital under mixed finance can be provided on both concessional and commercial terms.

Concession capital is provided by specialized government agencies of donor countries (USAID, DFID, JICA, etc.) or private charitable foundations, which can place funds directly into mixed financing instruments or channel them through the participation of intermediaries in the form of multilateral banks development and bilateral financial institutions (Browne, 2017). At the same time, it is emphasized that the management of relationships with stakeholders is carried out not only in order to reduce the negative impact on organizations from disgruntled groups of stakeholders, but also in order to find opportunities to create additional value for different stakeholders (Freeman, 2018).

However, stakeholder identification has been the least studied stakeholder management process for a long period of time. Corporate stakeholder identification methodologies have never been made public. Aubrey Mendelow, in Stakeholder Positioning (1991), proposed the use of a matrix (known as the Mendelow’s Power-interest grid), similar to a SWOT analysis matrix, to classify stakeholders (Harrison et al., 2019). It was planned to position the stakeholders according to two parameters: influence (“power”) and interest, thus dividing them into four groups. One of the main goals of this method was also to rank the stakeholders according to the degree of influence on corporate sustainability. Ronald K. Mitchell, Bradley R. Aigl, and Donna J. Wood (1997), in their article “Towards a Theory of Stakeholder and Identity Identification: Defining Who and What Matters,” set out to complement the original stakeholder theory in terms of environmental governance organizations and contribute to the theory of stakeholder identification according to the “relationship attributes”: (1) power, (2) legitimacy and (3) urgency. Based on the combination of these qualities, a typology of stakeholders was generated, and their characteristics were formulated, as well as their influence on management, strategy, and research implications for the company was shown.

Minu Hemmati, Felix Dodds, Justin Neneity and Ian McHarry (2002) in their work “The Multistakeholder Process from a State and Sustainability Perspective” investigated the phenomenon of multi-stakeholder processes (MSP for short) that come into effect when normal policy no longer works. MSP engages in debate with all those whose interests in the most important social, economic, and environmental issues are at stake. The purpose of the MSP is to find practical ways to continue development. The book serves as a practical guide to organizing MSPs to address complex sustainability issues, including detailed examples of stakeholder management.

Anne Fletcher et al. (2003) describe how NGOs are strategically managed in terms of intangible assets using the Australian Red Cross Blood Donation Service (ARCBS). The purpose of the study was to identify and analyze ARCBS’s external stakeholders. The results include the creation of a “value hierarchy” of 11 stakeholder groups in the organization. These results show similarities and differences between different interest groups in their perception of the key performance area (KPA) of the organization. As a result of the research, ARCBS has received a basis for strategy management and stakeholder engagement. Derek Walker, Linda Margaret Bourne, and Arthur Shelley (2008) look at stakeholder identification from a toolkit and methodological perspective. In particular, the authors pay great attention to the issue of visualization of stakeholder management. In particular, a structure of the ontological positions of stakeholders is proposed, showing “stakeholder value” in space relative to five extremes: radicalism, voluntarism, liberalism, regulation, and analysis.

Stakeholder participation is also recognized as an important factor in the successful implementation of water management plans, particularly when competing decisions or other conflicting demands are made in water-stressed areas. Stakeholder identification allows for greater understanding of the parties involved in water management issues and can also significantly contribute to conflict resolution. An article by a group of Greek scientists (2009) focuses on the development of urban water management plans through stakeholder participation in decision-making in the Cyclades island of Paros (Greece). Since almost all the islands of the Aegean Sea are experiencing a lack of water resources, this topic is very relevant from the point of view of social responsibility. The presented approach focuses on the identification and selection of primary and secondary key stakeholders. The problem analysis was carried out through a problem tree based on the DPSIR framework (Gerasidia et al., 2009). This approach contributed to the development of generally accepted and agreed goals, which led to the identification of alternative water management plans. Public participation was recognized as successful in terms of long-term planning and key recommendations to meet the ever-increasing urban water consumption.

Research by Lisa Edens (2009) focused on identifying key stakeholders for the development of a management plan for Abaco National Park. Using stakeholder mapping, the study identified the current and expected future stakeholders of the park. The results show the diversity of stakeholder groups on the basis of which the priorities for the future development of the park, ecotourism and infrastructure were developed. This research is of practical value and is one of a kind. The method of processing social information for planning subsequent management can, with a little refinement, be applied in many industries.

The widespread use of stakeholder analysis in natural resource management reflects the growing recognition that stakeholders can and should influence environmental policy. Stakeholder analysis is used with the aim of neutralizing conflicts and reducing the marginalization of certain stakeholder groups; it is illustrated using the example of the Peak District National Park in the UK (Leal Filho & Brandli, 2016). The information obtained helps to determine which stakeholders are more important and which are more peripheral, allowing for a study in the area of combining social network analysis with stakeholder analysis.

An article by Guillermo Mendoza and Rabbi Prabhab (2009) describes a multi-pronged value tree approach, created using the value focused thinking method developed by Keeney (1992). This approach allows defining the goals and objectives of stakeholders. The approach is implemented in two stages. Phase I is designed to identify stakeholders and identify a collective “value tree” structured as a hierarchy of goals and objectives, consisting of relationships, connections, and interactions between various alternatives and goals. Hierarchies and networks allow breaking down the complex task of detailed stakeholder assessment, which makes it easier to work and gives a clearer picture of what is happening, without ignoring the relationship of units or assessments of other elements. The second stage allows stakeholders to express their preferences for each item assessed through a voting system, which ultimately leads to data on the importance or relative weights of each item. The study uses the so-called “Analytic Network Process” to process voting results. Findings from a study in Zimbabwe indicated that the proposed approach is easy to implement and can address the questions of whether a particular project can lead to positive change in relationships, and whether the changes that occur are positive for the organization.

Riccardo Gomez, Joyce Liddleb, and Luciana de Oliviera Miranda Gomez (2010) published a study on stakeholder management issues in the public sphere of local government relations in Brazil and England. The authors provided a cross-cultural study of Brazilian and British municipalities using statistical methods. The paper identifies two stakeholder lists for the countries under study in the research and concludes that, despite the cultural differences between Brazil and England, there is a similarity in the methods applied by local government leaders in identifying stakeholders. According to Gomez et al. (2010), the empirical evidence presented in the study supports the hypothesis that stakeholder identification should be viewed as a universal phenomenon. A review of the existing literature has shown that this study is the first of its kind at a cross-cultural level to identify stakeholders.

Thus, the evolution of views on the role of stakeholder management has gone through a long period of formation and subsequent development. The actualization of the problem of stakeholder identification emphasizes the importance of strategic stakeholder management and the introduction of an integrated strategic approach to defining and implementing social responsibility and its distribution among various actors in the framework of sustainable development. As noted above, NGOs represent one of the most controversial categories of stakeholders, and their activities in the context of sustainable development are of particular interest.

The role of NGOs in solving problems of global governance manifests itself in various forms. Today, these structures are actively involved in humanitarian assistance, human rights protection and environmental protection, peace and security, participate in educational programs, sports projects, etc. Namely non-governmental organizations bring the needs of governments and the world community to the attention of and the aspirations of ordinary people, exercise civilian control over the activities of state bodies and promote the active participation of the masses in public and political life at the local and international levels (Islam, 2016). They provide analysis and expertise on a wide variety of issues, including global ones, act as an “early warning” mechanism and help monitor the implementation of international agreements. NGOs traditionally participate in the lawmaking process, including in the field of sustainable development, influencing the position of states, developing draft agreements, which are subsequently submitted for consideration of national governments and intergovernmental organizations.

The need to resolve issues related to the environment on a global scale presupposes the unification of efforts of the international community, the development of international cooperation of actors of different quality. The international importance of global problems requires the search for specific measures to maintain the stability of natural ecological systems. In turn, effective international environmental cooperation is impossible without the active participation of international organizations, both intergovernmental and non-governmental. In the area of rule-making, standardization and global governance, the new role of environmental NGOs in world politics is especially evident. For example, without reliable certification systems for legal diamond mining, like the Kimberley Process certification scheme, which was initiated by activists from the NGO Global Witness and the world’s largest corporation De Beers, which is engaged in the extraction, processing and sale of natural diamonds, it would be, in fact, impossible to block the access of participants in protracted civil conflicts in countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia to their main source of income (Kontinen, 2020). If the World Commission on Dams had not played its mediating mission, the supporters and opponents of the construction of large dams would have continued a fierce struggle, which would not only deplete the resources of both sides, but also lead to an increase in unnecessary costs, and a number of reasonable and necessary projects would be implemented.

The establishment of the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling (ISEAL) Alliance in 2002 is a good example of the increasingly widespread adoption of the organizational model standard for environmental international NGOs (Lang, 2014). Today, there are twelve organizations in the Alliance. ISEAL has created a Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards (mandatory for all members since December 2013), which clarifies the general requirements for the preparation, adoption and revision of standards related to social and environmental practice. Through this, a standard organizational model for transnational norm-setting environmental NGOs has been codified.

By placing a strong emphasis on values such as internal community (inclusiveness), openness, responsibility, rationality, and positioning themselves accordingly, environmental NGOs are much closer to the normative ideal of global governance organizations than intergovernmental organizations such as UNEP or FAO. Thus, environmental NGOs not only promote a specific concept of their own identity, but also contribute to the strengthening of a more general model of global governance organizations (Young & Dhanda, 2013).

According to researchers, with whom it is difficult to disagree, at the beginning of the 21st century, NGOs are active in the following areas (Oliveira, 2019):

• Raise issues that are not addressed by government activities;
• Collect, process and disseminate information on international issues that require public attention;
• Initiate concrete approaches to solving such problems and encourage governments to conclude appropriate agreements;
• Lobby governments and interstate structures in order to make the necessary decisions;
• Monitor the activities of governments and interstate structures in various spheres of international life and the fulfillment by states and intergovernmental organizations of their obligations;
• Mobilize public opinion and foster a sense of the “common man’s” involvement in major international problems.

In particular, due to their dynamism, flexibility, close proximity to existing reality, international non-governmental organizations quickly respond to the changing socio-economic and political agenda, not only informing government structures about such changes, but often proposing and using new scientific methods, approaches, options, ways out of the current situations. Acting at the public, professional, scientific and other levels, nongovernmental organizations have the opportunity to study in detail the existing issues and problems and provide assistance where government structures cannot provide it or do not know that assistance is needed. Often, NGOs unite into single “umbrella” structures, federations and transnational networks, which greatly increases the efficiency of their work and enhances their influence on global processes.

NGOs in the field of environmental protection implement many programs, both field and global: together with governments and interstate structures, they initiate the search for approaches to solving environmental problems of mankind, participate in the development and monitoring of the implementation of treaties in the field of environmental protection. Over the past decades, environmental INGOs have participated in the preparation of six major international treaties for the protection of the environment, including the development of the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (2000) (Jelinek, 2006). Environmental international NGOs (INGOs) are actively and sometimes very successfully engaged in lobbying governments, transnational corporations and interstate structures, since one of their main tasks is to put pressure on more influential and powerful actors in the world political system in order to change their environmental policies (Oliveira, 2019). This is a very laborious task, because not all governments and TNCs are ready to follow the instructions of ecologists, sacrificing their own interests for the sake of saving nature. That is why the international NGOs in the field of environmental protection have to come up with new and original ways to achieve such goals.

The most important condition for the full and active participation of INGOs in the processes of global governance is their interaction with national states. These relationships take a variety of forms and are not only businesslike and imbued with the spirit of interaction, but also the relationship between two opponents. For the most part, international non-governmental organizations prefer to cooperate with states, which brings mutual benefit – INGOs receive financial and legal support from the country’s political elite, and the latter uses the capabilities of the third sector, primarily informational, to improve the efficiency of the public administration system. An important function of international non-governmental organizations is their role in establishing links between states and non-state segments. In the international arena, INGOs can act as intermediaries between states or various state structures in solving certain pressing problems. At the same time, sometimes the activities of INGOs turn out to be even more effective than the efforts of the state, since they concentrate all their energy on solving certain specific problems (preserving biodiversity, combating deforestation, promoting education in the field of sustainable development, combating inequality caused by climatic conditions, etc.), which allows, in contrast to states, not to scatter forces, using all their resources in one direction. The so-called personalization of services is exactly what non-governmental organizations are doing in various spheres of social life (Lang, 2014). The richer the choice of services provided by NGOs, and the more complete the information about them, the faster and more efficiently various problems in a particular social segment can be resolved. In addition, to achieve their goals, INGOs operate at two levels at once: local, with the participation of homegrown activists, and international – relying on the support of their own global network structure and world public opinion.

At the same time, due to the extreme heterogeneity, the activities of NGOs, especially of international ones, are sometimes quite contradictory. They often enter into a relationship of competition both among themselves and with government agencies. The autonomous actions of non-governmental organizations have more than once led to the development of conflict situations. In addition, one must not forget that many nongovernmental organizations are undemocratic in their structure, overly bureaucratic; there is a division into a minority of real activists and a passive majority of ordinary members; they do not always fit organically into the system of legislation of the countries where they work, etc.

In addition, the actions of environmentalists, sometimes radical, create a very contradictory reputation for most international environmental non-governmental organizations. Often, nature conservation INGOs are perceived not as real defenders of the environment, but as disturbers of public peace or even as a “fifth column” carrying out someone’s political order. For example, today the number of Greenpeace’s opponents is almost less than its supporters. Among the first ones, there are the Norwegian whalers who have lost their jobs and livelihoods, Canadian lumberjacks, employees of other companies ruined by Greenpeace, public and political figures whose careers were cut short “thanks to” the efforts of the “green,” tribes of hunters-aborigines suffered from global campaigns (Muazu & Abdullahi, 2019).

A typical example of the ingenuity of environmental INGOs is their way of lobbying for TNCs: activists of an environmental organization actively buy up a small number of shares of a large corporation, which is noted to be dismissive of environmental standards. Received amount of 1% of shares allows environmentalists to attend the annual meeting of shareholders and managers of this TNC. Naturally, the meeting turns into a ‘performance by one actor’: using the moment, the INGO activists manage to provide a scandalous resonance, thereby riveting the attention of the world community to a specific problem, for example, against hunting for animals and many others.

Greenpeace International itself has long turned into a prosperous economic giant and a strictly hierarchical global structure modeled after military formations with special forces and support units, uniforms, and autonomous means of communication. Greenpeace’s level of preparation for a particular action corresponds to the planning of an army operation, and it includes (or collaborates with) hundreds of scientific laboratories, computer centers, analytical departments and marketing groups, whose work is coordinated from a single center of the organization. Greenpeace puts pressure on “sympathizers” in the government, parliament, business circles of the chosen country, competently covers actions in the local and world press, carefully developing literally everything, from the symbolism of the events to the selection of photogenic performers. At the same time, not a single event can take place without approval from the Board of Greenpeace International. Such organization of work allows solving the assigned tasks with a high degree of efficiency. Moreover, Greenpeace has managed to develop and widely advertise its own moral principles in relation to the norms of environmental behavior, which sometimes categorically impose their environmental ideals.

There are other examples of extremely controversial activities of international environmental NGOs, however, the contribution of global non-governmental organizations to the protection of the environment and the conservation of biodiversity on the planet is extremely significant. Possessing significant human and financial resources, they may well be considered established players on the world stage, players who sometimes come into confrontation even with the governments of the great powers. It will not be an exaggeration to say that environmental INGOs (WWF, Friends of the Earth and others) have a real impact on solving a number of global problems of mankind. However, in order to avoid ill-considered actions inconsistent in the interests of other stakeholders, and, accordingly, the formation of a negative image of NGOs carrying out activities in the field of promoting sustainable development, it seems especially expedient to develop the concept of responsible leadership, which allows combining synergistically the goals of NGOs and the interests of all actors and stakeholders, with the goal of achieving the best result not only of one-time nature and short-term, but also in the long term.

Responsible Leadership: The Role of NGOs

Responsible leadership is key to the performance, success, trust and sustainability of every organization. Responsible leadership involves the responsible use of power to define and achieve ethical goals for all people, and the creation and implementation of certain values. Accountability and leadership are two complementary components. It is impossible to talk about the high quality of any organization and about its activities if one of these two factors is missing. Any leader must be responsible. In this regard, responsible leadership is a topic that politicians, entrepreneurs, and ordinary people are interested in today in order to use it in their field of activity.

The pace of organizational changes over the past decade, fueled by globalization and abrupt breakthroughs in technological innovation, is very high. Since organizations of all types and sizes have relied on the Internet to connect with customers and business partners globally and streamline business processes, the form and composition of organizations has changed. The question of how organizations should interact with the rest of the world: within the community, the market, and the planet is complementing this transformation in how companies interact with stakeholders.

For a complete consideration of the model of responsible leadership, one should turn to the evolution of the CSR concept, revealing all its diversity. The concept of CSR has transformed from the concept of responsible leadership as a moral principle to the positive interaction of companies with society. The concept of stakeholders was formed due to the objective complication of corporate relations and the increasing variety of market agents that have a significant impact on the decisions made by the company. Interested parties or stakeholders are represented by consumers, employees, owners, contractors, competitors, local communities, government agencies, environmentalists, the media – the list is not exhaustive, other interested parties can also be identified (Okpara & Idowu, 2013). The theoretical provisions of this concept will allow us to systematically consider the influence of all stakeholders for the successful functioning of the organization.

The concepts of corporate citizenship and corporate sustainability also deserve special attention. The concept of corporate citizenship emphasizes that companies have civil rights and obligations. Its idea is based on the fact that the company itself, to the extent that it considers it necessary, can formulate its own program of responsible leadership, and the relevance of the concept is due to the growing tendency to transfer part of the responsibility for social development from the state to private business (Chandler, 2016). The concept of corporate sustainability is based on the need for development that meets the needs of the present generation, without conflicting with the needs and aspirations of future generations. The concept defined the paradigm of a “triple bottom line,” which includes financial, environmental dimensions, as well as an assessment of social and broad economic impact (Schwartz, 2011).

The concept of corporate citizenship is used as a kind of metaphor for socially responsible and ethically motivated behavior of a corporation in areas that lie outside the scope of achieving economic results (Logan, 2018). The corporate citizenship model directs the company towards a sober and responsible assessment of the impact of its own activities on social relations and institutions, on the environment that ensures the quality of life (Logan, 2018). In addition to companies, government institutions and network non-profit organizations play a key role in building a system of corporate citizenship.

Recent research on corporate citizenship is focusing on the nature of company motivation as the foundation of the corporate citizenship model. As a “responsible organization,” it articulates a philosophy of corporate citizenship and implements it in activities that generate profit for shareholders while meeting obligations to both business participants and a wide range of stakeholders. Such an approach ideally directs the corporation to develop production not only for the sake of profit, but also to provide the goods and services necessary for society. This paves the way for the development of new parameters of the “social contract” between the corporation and society (Osuji et al., 2019).

Although the issues of religious and spiritual motivation occupy peripheral positions in the discussion on corporate citizenship, the idea that one can speak is not only about the ethical motives of company leaders and their awareness of their moral responsibility to society, but also about the “projection” of ideas of responsibility and morality to the level of the entire organization. Within the framework of this approach, corporations are viewed not only as “legal entities vested with responsibility,” but also as social systems – carriers of a responsible corporate culture based on the common values and attitudes of those who support it, i.e., all employees of the company (Logan, 2018). However, on the way of approving such an approach in real entrepreneurial activity, there are serious limitations of both non-economic and economic nature. Not least among them, there is the danger of substituting responsible practices and real activities with attempts to gain public trust by promoting codes, codes of practice, and sophisticated reporting (Osuji et al., 2019).

Australian academics believe that corporate citizenship is built on the recognition by the manufacturing company of goods and services of social, cultural and environmental responsibility to the community in which it seeks to conduct economic activities, as well as economic and financial obligations to its stakeholders (Anderson & Landau, 2007). Such an organization positions itself as a constantly evolving, open, socially and ethically responsible community. In order to confirm its adherence to the principles of corporate citizen behavior, the company must adhere to the benchmarks of sustainable development and be a leader in this direction in its industry, ensure the production of ethically impeccable goods and services, promote positive changes inside and outside the company, use as the measure of successful development not only financial, but also non-economic indicators. No less important is the dissemination of positive experience, the desire to accumulate and effectively use human and social capital both within the company and outside it. At the same time, it is especially emphasized that socially oriented activities, including involvement in the implementation of the development tasks of local communities and territories of the company’s presence (corporate community involvement), is an important component of the corporate citizenship, since it involves interaction with interest groups. However, one cannot simply “fit” existing good practices into this model. According to the Australian researchers, corporate citizenship assumes a revision of the traditional business model and requires the adoption of a system of obligations and significant changes within the company itself (Anderson & Landau, 2007).

This definition is dominated by an approach focused on the value motivation of activity. The implication is that corporations not only can but must be “citizens.” A key aspect of corporate citizenship, according to senior executives at large Australian firms, is the ability of the business to “align public expectations with business development strategies” (Anderson & Landau, 2007). Many representatives of the corporate sector itself speak of the need for “a new holistic approach to doing business, in which the company exists in harmony with the environment, with its counterparties. This is a question of mentality first of all, it should become part of the philosophy of all employees of the companies around the world.

The theory of citizenship as an institution of a democratic society can serve as a frame of reference for describing this perspective. With the exception of the model of “liberal minimalism,” which recognizes only the political and legal status of the institution of citizenship and focuses on protecting the rights of citizens from encroachment by the state, other models (civil republican system of government, developing democracy, deliberative democracy) assume, in addition to recognizing the legal status of an individual, various forms of citizens’ participation in political governance (Logan, 2018). Such opportunities are not limited to individual participation, they also extend to corporations as representatives of group interests. The model of deliberative democracy presupposes the identification of common solutions through the mechanisms of involving stakeholders in their development and, in fact, merges with the well-known model of “democracy of participants” and “society of stakeholders” (Logan, 2018).

The approach based on the criterion of involvement in the management of social processes allows drawing parallels (albeit not unconditional) between the customary individual citizenship and corporate citizenship, and forming the mechanisms and norms of corporate participation (Osuji et al., 2019). Since political citizenship also has a purely territorial dimension, in the current corporate policy, interaction with the community (corporate community involvement), primarily at the level of the territory of presence, becomes the most important direction in the implementation of the corporate citizenship model.

One cannot agree with those analysts and practitioners who equate the concepts of CSR to corporate citizenship, because while CSR focuses on the social aspects of corporations’ activities and specific priorities of their interaction with stakeholders, corporate citizenship emphasizes the socio-political component of such interaction. Effective dialogue with stakeholders is viewed by both theorists and practitioners of corporate citizenship as a key element of “good” corporate citizenship (Freeman, 2018). The level of stakeholder involvement and the effectiveness of interaction depends on a clear identification of not only the whole circle, but also specific stakeholders. It is equally important to discuss and realistically define the expectations of the parties in order not to face obviously unrealistic requirements and to find forms of effective dialogue with each participant. In these processes, namely NGOs play the role of mediator and a kind of arbiter, helping to institutionalize the dialogue. During the dialogue, a field of interaction and an agenda can be formed, a range of potential problems and real disagreements can be identified, information and ideas can be exchanged for improving corporate strategy (Kontinen, 2020). An important strategic challenge is to build relationships of trust, overcome bias regarding business intentions and commitments. Thus, the “institutional” provision of the practical implementation of the concept of corporate citizenship at the community level is one of the key roles of NGOs in the framework of functional relations with communities.

The institutionalization of dialogue is not in itself a measure of the willingness of the parties to make real commitments. Representatives of NGOs have repeatedly pointed out the dangers of using the tool of negotiation and consultation to create a positive image of a company open to interaction without making significant changes to its practical policy (Zoeteman, 2012). During the dialogue, a field of interaction and an agenda can be formed, a range of potential problems and real disagreements can be identified, information and ideas can be exchanged for improving corporate strategy. An important strategic challenge is to build relationships of trust, to overcome bias regarding business intentions and obligations. In the long term, according to some researchers, the result of the exchange of information, ideas and knowledge can be “feeding the innovative strategies” of the company (Zoeteman, 2012).

Corporate citizenship has become one of the focal points in the sustainable development debate. At the center of the controversy, there are the problems of assessing the economic efficiency of entrepreneurial activity focused on practices and standards of corporate social responsibility. However, the question to what extent the company’s socially responsible model of behavior works for its economic results (“business case for corporate citizenship”) has a logical continuation: how much the activity of the corporate sector itself meets (or ideally can meet) the long-term interests of social development? Could the corporate sector’s focus on a corporate citizenship model contribute to greater global governance? To what extent can its consistent implementation lead to minimizing the risks caused by uneven development and lowering the security threshold in the context of the marginalization of large groups of the population outside the developed world? Is it able to prevent the degradation of the human environment? (Zhang et al., 2017).

For the successful implementation of the principles of corporate citizenship on the part of civil society structures, a systemic request for interaction with NGOs should be formulated. However, until now in society, such interaction is often initiated by individual companies and NGOs, but not by society and the state. Some authors also consider it important to note a fundamentally relevant and requiring further study trend in the analysis of interactions between business and public authorities (Demars, 2015). The tendency is that partnerships between NGOs, corporations and the state, the increased social activity of the business community have led to the fact that groups of organizations are often formalized, structured and represent legal institutions of public authority – business associations, unions, non-commercial partnerships, being an example-case of the work of the business community in a particular region. Such business associations become a conduit for social change and form a new phenomenon of the so-called expertocracy, providing unique professional information and expert assessments for government officials in various areas: financial and social investments, international standardization of processes, environmental safety, etc. (Demars, 2015).

The civic component inside and outside corporate relations, going beyond the framework of the socially responsible behavior of corporations, creates an objective basis for revising the system of relations between the corporation and the civil society and the state. This thesis finds a reasoned confirmation in the model of public-private partnerships (PPP). To some extent, this model of relations develops and concretizes the concept of a “company of participants,” but unlike the latter, it focuses on a more purposeful and far-reaching penetration into specific forms and methods of relations between the corporation and the state and civil society institutions. In a fundamental study by a group of leading social scientists from Western countries, devoted to the theory and practice of public-private partnerships, this institution of interaction between the state represented by authorities at different levels, civil society and business is called a “public institution” (Wojewnik-Filipkowska & Węgrzyn, 2019). The corporation, while remaining private, functions in the course of the implementation of public-private partnership projects as a subject of public policy, i.e., as an organization that represents and implements not only a purely private, but also a public interest (Pattberg et al., 2013). Although this by no means excludes conflict situations that can give the PPP itself a dual (Janus-face) character, on the whole, as the authors believe, this system is predominantly of a partnership nature, from which all its participants benefit. One of the most important conditions for the effectiveness of a partnership is the creation and strengthening of trust between its parties.

As well as the changes associated with the new role of those whose professional activities embody the “new economy,” the development of public-private partnership mechanisms plays a significant role in the evolution of both the concept and practice of corporate social responsibility. To a large extent, the system of public-private partnerships, which has become especially widespread since the 1990s, is aimed at solving acute social problems (employment, integration of immigrants, urban development, etc.), as well as cooperation between the state, business and non-profit organizations in organizing social work. spheres – health care, transport, education (Chon et al., 2018). This multilateral interaction is a mechanism for the implementation of the “new strategy” of CSR, encouraging business to more actively participate in social investment and innovative activity (Chon et al., 2018). The state carries out regulatory functions, while NPOs can provide a kind of “social license” for business activities.

This is especially important due to the fact that the interests of different groups may overlap (management and staff are often shareholders or may be NGO activists), which makes special requirements for ensuring the transparency of corporate governance. Some of these groups are unwillingly interested parties, in addition to their own choice, but precisely because of the damage that they are or may be caused by the company’s business activities. These can be groups of citizens living in the airport area and suffering from noise, or residents of neighborhoods where there are environmental risks. Others, such as institutions of higher and special education, on the contrary, may be interested in systematic and long-term interaction with the corporate sector and, accordingly, consider their sphere of activity as an area of “cross-obligations” between business, government, and their own.

To develop effective interaction with business, it is necessary to adapt the behavior models of civil society actors. Relationships of patronage or, conversely, maintaining a state of permanent conflict of interest should (ideally) evolve towards a systemic dialogue, and for this, all participants – both business and NGOs, trade unions, and government representatives need to reconsider the traditional understanding of their roles and functions.

Non-profit organizations can also act as intermediaries between business and communities of citizens in the provision of social services. This is not least because it is NPOs that are “experts” in various areas of social activity. However, the relationship between business and local authorities and NGOs is not so simple. A number of studies note that “equilibrium” relations between business and NGOs and local communities are not always established (Kontinen, 2020). In a number of cases, there is a clear imbalance in ensuring the participation of local communities and their representatives in interaction with both business and, especially, with local authorities58. This undermines trust between the parties and thus undermines the foundation without which neither genuine CSR nor corporate citizenship is possible (Lang, 2014).

One of the essential aspects of public-private partnership interaction is a change in the role of the state, and not only in terms of turning it into a more “equilibrium” partner of business and NPOs, but also in terms of strengthening its role in interaction (Hori et al., 2019). In fact, we are talking about a significant departure from the neoliberal principles of the “clean market,” in accordance with which the state was completely removed from interference in economic spheres outside its direct management functions (defense and the military-industrial complex, some infrastructure sectors, etc.).

However, in conditions where there are no agreed mechanisms for tracking results and clear criteria for assessing the effectiveness of social initiatives, the role of the state in promoting CSR practices at the international level “remains minimal” (Hoff et al., 2019). The corporate players themselves are not in favor of expanding this sphere of state responsibility, and, moreover, the introduction of a mandatory reporting system or regulation. Meanwhile, the very subject of regulation goes beyond the competence of the national state or interstate agreements. Maintaining the norms of interaction with stakeholders in the countries where it is exported and where production is located is a serious problem. Both the nature of legislative regulation, and the role of the state different from that in the West, and the traditions of entrepreneurial activity, and labor practices, and the standard of living and social security in the host countries require careful adaptation of CSR practices. Issues related to the use of child labor, social protection of workers, compliance with environmental standards, which in Europe and the United States have long been regulated by law, are here under the scrutiny of numerous international NGOs. Nevertheless, outside the legal field of developed countries, there are frequent cases of the use of double standards and outright abuses. At the same time, the problems cannot be solved solely by introducing Western standards, even with an amendment to local traditions (as, for example, the fight against the exploitation of child labor shows, its complete prohibition can deprive many families of their only source of livelihood, and the minors themselves can be thrown out into the street, if the problem is not solved in conjunction with the development of a network of educational institutions and the creation of alternative forms of employment for the poorest families) (Habib, 2015). In this context, the role of NGOs seems to be especially important, since they are, in fact, the only link in this chain that has the necessary expertise and the ability to use “soft power” to resolve the above contradictions.

The concept of global citizenship is closely related to corporate citizenship in the aspect of relations between NGOs and communities. The UN stresses that civil society is responsible for experimenting with models of effective global citizenship, as well as deepening understanding, caring for and acting on behalf of humankind and the planet, based on environmentally responsible and socially inclusive principles and practices (Browne, 2017). Global citizenship is one of the most distinctive conceptual changes in the world today. It is a way of life in which our world is viewed as an increasingly complex web of connections and interdependencies, within which our decisions and actions can influence people and society at the local, national or international level (Browne, 2017). Moreover, without a commitment to global citizenship, the SDGs remain just a set of national commitments. Global citizenship creates opportunities for vibrant new global partnerships that accelerate progress towards the SDGs, which in turn foster a new model of shared global prosperity.

In turn, the role of NGOs in promoting the ideas of sustainable development can be briefly defined as follows (Hoff et al., 2019):

• Generation and adaptation of meanings;
• Translation of meanings, the process of implementing the National Strategy for Sustainable Development;
• Communication strategies for the public and the media.

The work of NGOs in communities includes the following methods and tools (Maak & Pless, 2012):

• Mass media campaigns
• Round tables for decision makers
• Information campaigns for schools and universities
• Talk show
• National competitions
• Information materials
• Other forms

Among the first to introduce the principles of corporate citizenship as “the basis of business ethics” and “an integral part of business activity,” the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum proclaimed its priority task. Founded in 1990 at the initiative of the UK business community to work in Central and Eastern Europe, this organization promotes the principles of “responsible and forward-looking business leadership” and “cross-sectoral” (i.e., multi-stakeholder) interaction between business and other stakeholders. Projects under the auspices of the Forum are being implemented today in 60 countries of the world (Demars, 2015).

Numerous initiatives of a sectoral nature, similar in focus, but narrower in their stated goals, also involve not only discussion, but also the introduction of mechanisms for solving specific problems. For example, the Forest Stewardship Council organizes interaction between companies (more than 2 thousand), NGOs, representatives of the interests of indigenous peoples, as well as organizations involved in certification of industry products. The result of the Council’s activities is the introduction of international standards for the labeling of goods produced in accordance with the norms for ensuring the sustainable development of forests. The key task is to stop deforestation catastrophic for the habitat (over the last decade of the 20th century, forest areas have decreased in Africa and South America by 8% and 4%, respectively) (Demars, 2015). The Microcredit Summit is a global initiative to combat poverty, the effectiveness of which can be measured using, among other things, purely economic indicators. The initiative involves lenders, donor organizations, educational institutions and international financial institutions, as well as NGOs. The task is to disseminate best practices, expand the circle of loan recipients to develop their own business and exchange information. The initiator and founder of the idea of micro-crediting Yunus and the bank Grameen created by it became laureates of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for their “contribution to the fight against poverty and economic and social development”. Microcredit promotes “the right to receive credit as a human right.” This practice is not supported by legally binding documents, it works on the confidence of the borrower and the lender, the condition for obtaining a loan is to join a group of borrowers. Loans are distributed mainly through NGOs (Schinzel, 2018).

These and similar initiatives form the so-calledGlobal Action Networks. The network structures themselves do not manage or coordinate the actions of participants in the usual sense. They bring together stakeholders who are interested in solving problems that go beyond the national level and are ready to develop a common agenda (Oliveira, 2019). The contribution that participants in such network interaction make is to raise the level of awareness of problems and to determine priorities for the development of an effective systematic approach to solving them (Oliveira, 2019). Interested participation in interaction can be considered as one of the criteria for the implementation of the corporate citizenship model.

NGO representatives actively engage relevant communities in work on key policy issues and programs of the sustainable development agenda and, together with UN Member States (and their governments) and co sponsoring organizations, advocate comprehensive improvement in the implementation and evaluation of SD policies and programs (Demars, 2015). The UN structures, in turn, are also interested in developing relations with NGOs, since the activities of the UN specialized agencies are multifaceted and in solving the numerous issues and problems facing humanity, they are obliged to reflect the views of the widest layers of the public and competent specialists from different countries, who in abundantly represented in international non-governmental organizations.

Local and national authorities, civil society, academia and the scientific community, the private sector and international multilateral organizations are among the stakeholders that can contribute to the implementation of global programs such as the 2030 Agenda (Osuji et al., 2019). Civil society, the private sector and multilateral partnerships can provide significant funding, implementation and accountability support for the new agenda, and NGOs play an essential role in this by providing functional engagement with communities. Largely due to the activity of NGOs, an important result of the implementation of the Agenda was the growth of civil society activity (Islam, 2016). The challenge today is to build even more effective partnerships with civil society.

The initiators of the Global Compact are looking for effective channels for translating the proclaimed principles into real CSR and CG practices and involving the widest possible number of participants in this process. In 2006, the Treaty announced a “strategic partnership” with the most popular international initiative in the field of organizing non-financial reporting) – the Global Reporting Initiative. For this, a system of compliance with the principles of the Global Compact with GRI standards has been developed, which proceeds from the understanding that the standards are “a concrete embodiment of the principles of social responsibility set forth in the text of the Global Compact” (Logan, 2018). It is proposed to use these guidelines when compiling reports and monitoring the company’s progress in implementing the principles of social responsibility. Within the framework of the Global Reporting Initiative, established in 1997, the third generation of performance indicators has been developed in the three areas mentioned – economic, environmental and social. Today it is perhaps the most popular international reporting initiative. By the end of 2006, the third generation of guidelines and standards had already been developed in the three aforementioned areas – economic, environmental and social (Logan, 2018). The initiative promotes universal reporting standards. Being at the same time an expert platform, it aims to involve investors, environmental and human rights organizations, representatives of business and trade unions, etc. in the dialogue at the international level. Among the participants, in addition to corporations and business associations, are UN structures, NGOs, centers of expertise and audit firms.

Thanks to the efforts of NGOs, the concept of integrated reporting has emerged and continues to develop. It was born at the dawn of the current millennium, becoming a new form of modification of the concept of corporate social responsibility. From a responsible leadership perspective, it should be noted that integrated thinking is at the heart of the concept of integrated reporting. Thus, according to the International Integrated Reporting Standard, “the development of integrated thinking, the result of which is an effective and efficient allocation of capital, will contribute to financial stability and sustainable development” (Lawrence & Beamish, 2012). Integrated reporting, on the other hand, is a strategic management tool that enhances a company’s transparency by combining financial and non-financial information. The main factor contributing to its implementation is the type of leadership based on social responsibility.

Industry codes of conduct address pressing issues in the industry. Thus, the Common Code for the Coffee Community, adopted under pressure from NGOs (in particular, OXFAM, which organizes campaigns and coordinates projects to combat poverty) and retail chains, provides for the payment of salaries at the enterprises – suppliers of salaries not lower than the established minimum, suppression the use of child labor, the provision of conditions for trade unions, the adoption of international standards for the use of chemicals and water pollution. Joining the “fair trade” standard of coffee enables companies that guarantee the purchase of goods directly from the manufacturer at a price not lower than the established one to use social labeling. About 35 thousand European companies participate in this initiative, although their share in the world coffee market is still small (0.4%) (Hori et al., 2019).

The NGOs themselves develop initiative codes to track negative practices and raise the level of public expectations in relation to the activities of corporations in third countries. Among the most widely known is the Clean Clothes Campaign (1998), there is a network of NGOs and trade unions. In the field of her attention – enterprises in developing countries – clothing manufacturers working under contracts for large European firms.

However, difficulties in implementing consistent and rigorous reporting and in involving stakeholders such as NGOs in monitoring processes are also obvious. No agreement has yet been reached on the parameters of standards and, moreover, mechanisms for tracking them. Among the reasons that determine the optional nature of social reporting (as opposed to financial, and in some countries – and environmental), experts call “the lack of uniform criteria by which social investments can be assessed as successful or unsuccessful,” as well as “reliability of conclusions” which are formulated on the basis of the subjective opinion of stakeholders and focus groups (Hori et al., 2019). Despite the extensive discussion of the problem (in particular, within the framework of the mentioned initiatives of the GMO and the UN Global Compact), the issue of taking into account the specifics of reporting practices depending on the country, region, industry and form of company ownership remains open. In this dialogue, the role of NGOs also seems to be key. Indeed, the lack of generally accepted criteria for assessing the economic return of activities for the accumulation and reproduction of human capital, as well as the impossibility of reducing these assessments to a common methodology, hinder the development of a unified scale for econometric calculation of CSR efficiency. Measuring the return on social capital, which accumulates in the course of interaction with hired personnel, the local community and other stakeholders, remains no less problematic today.

The philosophy of socially responsible corporate governance is designed to minimize the risks of global development and respond to challenges from civil society (and, if possible, prevent them). The latter’s pressure often makes adjustments to entrepreneurial practices and corporate social programs. Particularly indicative in this regard is the activities of international NGOs that reveal facts of violations of human rights or environmental safety in countries that host TNCs and mobilize public opinion to put pressure on the company that allowed them. Among the well-known cases of this kind are a boycott of goods produced at the enterprises of suppliers of the corporations Nike, Disney, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s in Asia and Latin America, high-profile actions of Greenpeace against Shell, whose plans to flood a spent oil platform in the Atlantic became public, and protests against the activities of the same company in Nigeria.

Large-scale boycott campaigns for genetically modified products have forced British retailers to either completely abandon them, or to withdraw such products released under their own brands. They stimulated public debate and expert development to assess the impact of bioengineered foods on human health. Manufacturers were legally obliged to print on labels information about the presence of genetically modified components in the composition of the sold product.

A significant number of non-governmental actors can rightfully be considered as an integral part of modern diplomacy, if we understand diplomacy as the communication system of the international community. To a certain extent, we can say that international NGOs, as important social institutions that establish and develop intensive contacts in the framework of multilateral diplomacy, fill the “voids” that exist in the modern context of overly “bureaucratic” international politics.

The plurality of international actors, the information and digital revolutions, and the openness of world space are leading to a gradual blurring of the lines between domestic and foreign policy. In many areas of international interaction, NGOs occupy niches where states are gradually losing their functions. The exceptional complexity of the topics of multilateral negotiations – on climate change, genetic engineering, environmental protection, interreligious dialogue, etc. – required the involvement of experts, scientists, representatives of business and culture in the negotiation process. To a large extent, the personnel for this is supplied by international NGOs that have actively engaged in informal diplomacy. There is a development of what was once called “track two diplomacy” (Lang, 2014). It is about entering the international arena for specialists who are able to establish contacts, develop cooperation, conduct informal negotiations, and mediate in the settlement of conflicts. NGOs should also be viewed as an essential component of soft power.

However, even such large-scale actions can highlight only isolated abuses within a company or industry, or draw public attention to a specific problem. This often happens to the detriment of others, no less significant, and here a lot depends on the lobbying efforts of NGOs. There are also known examples when revelations were successfully used in competition. The consumerist approach to business ethics is one of the dangers that lie in wait for both NPOs and the corporate sector itself. In a sense, anti-corporate social movements themselves can be considered “the highest achievement of branding,” they often “balance on a fine line between selfish consumer protection and conscious political activity” (Okpara & Idowu, 2013). Therefore, at the center of a keen public discussion, there is the question of how to get these problems out of corporate control and transfer them into the sphere of public interest. This task is among the key priorities of the global civil society agenda, and this is where responsible NGO leadership becomes critical. It is not only the citizens themselves that are involved in the exercise of civil rights and obligations. The other side of interaction is the state. It is the scarcity of resources designed to ensure control over the institutions of the nation-state, and the insufficient level of legitimacy of supranational structures such as the EU, in the eyes of ordinary citizens, that stimulate the search for ways to fill this deficit. One of these ways is to diversify the channels of access of interest groups to the development and decision-making processes. Such diversification can be ensured through the activities of NGOs.

The involvement of society in the activities of NGOs, that is, the desire and need to act in the name of the common good, allows one to characterize NGOs as carriers of a new political culture. Civil society organizations help build trust among public actors. Trust is the factor that lowers transaction costs by helping to simplify the diversity of social structures and relationships in society.

As the number of NGOs grows, the problems of their functioning are becoming more acute. Often, these organizations are faced with bribery, nepotism, embezzlement, bribery of representatives of the elites who support their activities. Corruption undermines the reputation of a number of organizations, reducing the level of trust on the part of sponsors and the public, preventing access to assistance to those who really need it. Inevitably, the question of transparency of NGO budget expenditures arises. For example, the largest Danish organization DanChurchAid, which strives for transparency in its budget, conditioned financial management with annual reports on corruption, which list all the scandalous cases that occurred over the past year (Kontinen, 2020). The data concerning the financing of NGOs cannot but be alarming. Many of these organizations have significant budgets. However, the question arises – do their funding sources meet the noble goals proclaimed in the policy documents? Statistics show that in almost 56% of NGOs at least one member of the leadership is associated with the production of weapons, and in 54% – with the tobacco industry. The significant (59%) presence of representatives of the banking sector among the heads of NGOs is also noteworthy (Okpara & Idowu, 2013).

With a weak political opposition and severe restrictions on political activity in general, NGOs demonstrate three types of behavior in relation to political power. The first is constant cooperation with the authorities. The second group is made up of those NGOs that agree to limited cooperation and maintain channels of communication with the authorities to resolve practical issues. The third group of NGOs is close to the so-called non-systemic opposition and makes contact with the authorities only when absolutely necessary.

If the inertial scenario is implemented, social, economic, infrastructural and other problems may worsen, which will most likely lead to a further increase in protest activity. The confrontation between the state and NGOs will periodically intensify, depending on the political environment, the situation in the economy and foreign policy, as well as the course of election campaigns. In public policy, as before, different interests will compete. On the one hand, the authorities will try to attract NGOs that have both good diagnostic mechanisms and the ability to settle conflicts and problems as allies. On the other hand, the state will seek to control NGOs as part of the political opposition, into which they have partly become thanks to the state’s policy.

At the same time, the conditions in which relations between the organizations of the Third Sector (NGOs) and local self-government bodies are developing leave much to be desired: the latter still often consider NPOs as an object of management, which must be monitored, organized, and controlled. NPOs, in turn, ‘breathing’ the “spirit of separation and individualism,” consider their independence an end in itself and categorically reject relations where there is even a hint of control by the authorities. Due to ineffective information exchange, many representatives of NPOs are convinced of the uniqueness of their organization and what it does, this leads to an overestimation of their own importance and, accordingly, to unwillingness to constructively discuss the possibility of uniting with other NPOs.

Nevertheless, the formation and development of a new socio-political culture is a long-term process, based on the awakening of civil and legal consciousness in society, the activation of civil public initiatives, the development of local self-government, the involvement of various categories of the population in solving problems of the local community on the principles of social partnership. Moreover, NGOs, in fact, opposing themselves to the commercial sector, make the fundamental mistake, so sponsors do not come. NGOs are a part of society and must interact with other sectors to solve common problems, and not oppose other actors without urgent necessity.

The formation and development of a new socio-political culture is a long-term process, based on the awakening of civil and legal consciousness in society, the activation of civil public initiatives, the development of local self-government, the involvement of various categories of the population in solving problems of the local community on the principles of social partnership.

However, the state is also under pressure from organized public opinion, which is reducing the spheres of its own social obligations that have expanded over the past decades. The redistribution of responsibility for the development of the social sphere stimulates an active search for channels and forms of interaction between business, government, social interest groups represented by NGOs, and the public that expresses the positions of interested consumers. At the junction of the interaction of these actors, the so-called. civil economy; its mechanisms should contribute to solving social problems in the system of market relations (Oliveira, 2019). The scale, complexity and ambiguity of the above-described aspects of the role of NGOs in sustainable development in the framework of interaction with the state, business and communities determines the need for both secondary and primary empirical research with the aim to deepen holistic understanding of the relationship between NGOs and the community in observing the concept of sustainable development and meeting its goals.

Methodology

Research Design/Type of Study

Since the study in question seeks to delve into the nature of relationships between NGOs and communities, as well as identify the reasons for these relationships to become either functional or dysfunctional, the application of the qualitative research method is recommended. Seeing that the qualitative research method is used to scrutinize the nature of a specific phenomenon or the relationships between variables at hand, the selected research method appears to be the most suitable in the case at hand. Additionally, to locate the presence of connections between NGOs and communities, as well as evaluate them qualitatively to understand what constitutes functional and dysfunctional ones, the use of phenomenology is strongly recommended. Defined by Perrin (2015, p. 228) as “the study of human experiences and interpretations of an occurrence within a population,” which “explores an event or situation within a study population so that researchers can understand how the event,” phenomenology will allow looking at the underlying factors shaping the observed relationships between NGOs and communities.

The main reason for choosing phenomenology over other methods of qualitative research in this study concerns the fact that phenomenology enables researchers to embrace the lived experiences of individuals in regard to a specific research question. Indeed, according to Frechette et al. (2020), in its nature, phenomenology is expected to reflect the “lived experiences” of individuals. However, the author also explains that there is a tendency in academia to conflate the interpretation of phenomenology as the exploration of unique lived experiences of people and the idea of an abstract study of a phenomenon. Namely, Frechette et al. (2020, p. 1) state that, due to the loose definitions, “Many scholarly writings have delved into phenomenology from a philosophical lens, but few have provided methodological guidelines.” As a result, the application of a phenomenological approach becomes complicated due to the lack of a coherent definition of the described qualitative method.

However, the emphasis on the lived experiences of individuals appears to be the prevalent definition in the existing discourse, which is why the specified interpretation will be applied in this study as well. By embracing the phenomenon of relationships between NGOs and communities that they are expected to represent, one will be able to locate the nature of the current trends in these relationships, as well as select the methods of improving them in the future (Neubauer et al., 2019). Specifically, the phenomenon of relationships between NGOs and communities needs to be perceived through the lens of phenomenology in this study since the lived experiences of individuals is what is at the forefront of the analysis. Representing the target communities, these individuals offer the experiences that, when combined, create a complex tapestry of interactions between NGOs and their target communities, in general, allowing to identify and dissect different nuances while also representing a whole picture.

Therefore, for the specified research, the selection of phenomenology is fully justified. Since the study will focus on the nature of the observed phenomena and aim to examine the intricacies of relationships between NGOs, which represent legal entities, and communities, which are represented by people, the focus on the lived experiences of authorities in sustainable development and community development is central to the analysis. Moreover, the integration of phenomenology as the tool for locating the inherent links between people in question and the phenomenon at hand will help to discover the underlying philosophy of the said relationships, thus introducing one to the possibilities of improving these relationships in the future. As a result, phenomenology will lead toward embracing the nature of both functional and dysfunctional relationships between NGOs and communities, causing the researcher to develop an intuitive idea of how these relationships can be strengthened and improved in the future. Therefore, phenomenology should be seen as a reasonable solution for the research in question.

Participants, Sampling, Recruitment, and Protection

Due to the large scale of the problem under research, the assessment of relationships between NGOs and communities will have to be performed by observing the interactions in question within a local community and the NGO that is represented in the said community. Thus, the unique connections that NGOs can form with their target demographic will be scrutinized closely. Particularly, the rapport established between the participants in question, or the absence thereof, will be studied in this research.

Participants

The key participants to be considered in this research include the NGO in question Amnesty International, and the target community. The specified NGO has warranted a rather impressive reputation over the decades of its functioning, mainly, due to its intersectionality and the focus on different types of vulnerable groups. According to the current mission statement of Amnesty International (2021, para. 1), the NGO seeks to create “a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.” It is important to note that this organization is characterized by the presence of sustainable development, since its goals and plans are long-term and require constant modernization. In other words, having generally recognized and effective characteristics, the company increases its reputation and image in the long term. This attracts more investors and participants, and also allows you to consider the company as stable and reliable.

In turn, the target community is represented by a mixed population with high diversity rates. The community under analysis is located in the UK and can be characterized by high levels of diversity, with the presence of multiple cultures that have affected the setting of the UK to a considerable extent and shaped the culture, values, and philosophy of the community to a noticeable extent. Furthermore, the community in question is represented by a comparatively small number of people, namely, 37 residents, of whom 20 will be selected for the participation in the study. Interaction with this group is promising in the long term, since it demonstrates the position of culturally and ideologically diverse indicspecies both in the organization and in society as a whole. The situation in the state changes depending on external and internal factors, so the effectiveness of adaptation and flexibility of the target community is especially noticeable in a large interval.

Long-term relationships are capable of providing an exchange of experience and knowledge, since in the process of cooperation, both weaknesses and advantages will be exposed. At the same time, long-term communication can increase the level of trust and professionalism in a number of issues, which will improve the effectiveness of collaboration. Finally, the impact of such relationships can also be assessed as large-scale. Since one of the functions of the relationship will be analytical, the interaction process will help to find weaknesses in a timely manner, as well as integrate innovative methods and strategies.

Sampling

Since the qualitative research design has been selected for the research in question, the recommended sample for this study is 20 participants. Moreover, all these 20 members will be interviewed, and their opinions will be analyzed and summarized. The selected number is justified by the existing standards for phenomenological research and for the qualitative method, in general. The need to restrict the range of participants for the further analysis to the identified number is justified by the further necessity to operate a vast variety of qualitative data obtained from each participant of the research. Additionally, since the importance of lived experiences of individuals is prioritized in this research, the selected sample will allow focusing on each experience individually, whereas a larger number would make the specified task unnecessarily complicated.

Separately, it is worth noting that from this number it is necessary to use 3 investors, 3 interested parties, and 3 leaders, and 11 community members. The rest of the participants are directly representatives of the target community. This can be explained by the fact that the priority for interviewing is the employees themselves, who are able to provide the most detailed and tonal information about the current state of the company. Their number is due to the fact that in this case the chance of compiling an objective assessment increases. Investors, leaders and stakeholders were chosen three each, as they analyze the same topic from a different angle. The numerical choice is due to the fact that three points of view can potentially be considered, since there can be no more. In other words, they can assess the situation either positively, or negatively, or stably. Therefore, a sample of 20 participants was chosen for this research.

Regarding the sampling method, the use of the maximum variation sampling approach was selected in order to obtain the desired results. Due to the small sample, the choice of the convenience sampling approach or the snowball sampling is likely to result in increased bias. Specifically, the threat of obtaining homogeneous data due to low variation increases. In turn, the maximum variation sampling technique will help to select the data that will be representative of every possible opinion about the NGO, as well as the multiple ways in which it may fail to serve the specified function. As a result, the provided framework will help to elicit varied information that will guide the further study toward discovering the methods of addressing NGOs dysfunction in present-day communities.

Recruitment

In order to recruit participants for an interview, you must first get to know the company from the inside. For the selection of ordinary workers, one of the effective methods will be to conduct a survey among the team. Based on the results of such interaction, 11 people will be selected who took part in the survey in the most interesting manner. In the case of leaders, the interview facilitator needs to schedule a face-to-face meeting or an online interview. It is through the leader that the interviewer will be able to contact interested parties and investors. With a more detailed explanation to the leader of the goals of this interview and the format, an agreement is made to hold this event.

Furthermore, the recruitment process implies the necessity to ensure that the participants are capable of meeting the requirements set in the criteria for participation in the study and can provide extensive information on the subject matter. As noted above, among employees, the main criterion for being shortlisted should be their sympathy and interest in the event. This is established by conducting a survey, through which it will be possible to identify the desire for interaction. As for leaders, it makes sense to address directly to the individuals who influence the development of the firm. In other words, not just any leader or manager can fit, but those who carry out organizational activities.

Protection

In order to ensure that the participants remain safe and their personal data is secure, additional precaution measures aimed at protection of privacy will be utilized. First, every participant will be provided with a consent form that they will have to sign in order to participate in the research. The consent form will detail the goals of the study (locating connections between communities and the functioning of NGOs), the role of participants in the research (providing the account of their interactions with NGOs), and the information that will be used in the study (specifically, only the data concerning the relationship between the NGO and the target community). Thus, the key ethical requirements, namely, the need for informed consent and the safety of personal data, will be met.

Additionally, maintaining contact with researchers will help to add another extra layer of protection to the participants to shape the policies for enhancing the safety of participants. Namely, providing participants with a certain extent of control over their access to the research procedures and the extent of their involvement in the study needs to be reinforced as the opportunity to keep their protection at the proper level. As a result, the threat of any personal identifiers leaking into the study will be avoided accordingly.

Given the level of anonymity that the global web provides, coupled with the level of danger and threat that leaving an individual online unprotected, creating an approach that will prevent any data leakage into the community and help to keep the identities of the participants completely safe must be provided. Since the participants of the research are entitled to their personal data security by law, the research project must ensure that their identities remain unknown to the general audience. For this purpose, strategies such as the use of pseudonyms, as well as the avoidance of mentioning any personal data of the research participants in the study, must be followed exactly in order to avoid the disclosure of any personal data to third parties.

Measures and Instrumentation

In the course of the research, data that will involve primarily opinions of the participants and their perception of their relationships with a local NGO, will be elicited. Therefore, an accurate measurement tool will be required for the evaluation of the obtained data and its contextualization in the target environment. Specifically, several measures will be incorporated into the assessment process. First and most importantly, the identification of essential factors affecting the relationships between an NGO and a community will be included into the measurement framework (see Fig. 1). Afterward, the specified factors will be categorized as either positive or adverse, with the following evaluation of their effect on the sustainability levels within the target community, as well as the further development of the community in question. Finally, strategies for reducing the adverse effects of negative factors and enhancing the positive impact of the good ones will be introduced based on the general objectives and goals of sustainable development, as well as the pursuit of community members’ well-being.

As Table 1 above indicates, the main measures to be introduced into the analysis will be based on the successful performance of semi-structured interviews that will be used to identify and isolate essential information. Moreover, the use of the content analysis technique will be vital for isolating the crucial data about the current problems and infer key trends in the current relationships between the community and the NGO that represents it. Thus, the integration of techniques that allow for the assessment of the proposed tools should be interpreted as central to the overall management of the set tasks and, particularly., the identification of the frameworks for enhancing sustainable development of the community.

In this context, the introduction of instrumentation such as checklists and content analysis are vital for the proper evaluation of data. Due to the profuse amount of information to be obtained in the course of the interview, tools for systematizing it and categorizing the obtained data will be needed. In turn, content analysis as the mechanism for locating key segments addressing a specific criterion will serve the described purpose perfectly due to the emphasis on isolating communication trends within a particular group and defining the emotional state of the respondents along with the identification of the factual information. Thus, the assessment of participants’ attitudes toward the idea of promoting sustainability within the community, as well as the general sense of comfort in maintaining the dialogue with the target audience, will be located and evaluated.

Instruments

The application of a semi-structured framework as an interview format can be supported by the opportunity to direct the conversation the way that will allow covering the crucial issues, as well as lead to important discoveries that may not have been anticipated when setting the interview. Indeed, according to aaa, the use of semi-structured interviews allows participants to express their opinions freely while providing reliable and useful information. Namely, the open structure of the interview and the opportunity for the participant to approach questions from a creative and unique perspective leaves a plethora of opportunities for examining the personal perspective of the participant. Specifically, the lived experience mentioned above and marked as a crucial part of the research, namely, one of the essential variables needed for the analysis, will be obtained.

At the same time, semi-structured interviews may introduce several problems into the research process. Namely, there will always be the threat of participants misrepresenting information and slightly deviating from the truth to represent their organization or themselves in a favorable light. To avoid the specified scenarios, every interview and its results must remain anonymous, of which every participant must be made aware. Thus, interviewees will be less reluctant to point out the problems observed in the relationships with the community and build a rapport with them to encourage sustainable development.

Data Collection Procedures

In turn, the process of collecting data will be based on the use of semi-structured interviews. As stated previously, the described tool allows for a significant range of flexibility, unlike structured interviews, which adhere to a pre-established framework. As a result, semi-structured interviews can be shaped to follow the course of discussion selected by the interview participant, unlike structured interview, which makes the interviewee comply with the pre-set order of questions and the themes that the conversation is expected to touch upon.

The application of the semi-structured interview format will imply that the participants will be given a series of questions and asked to contemplate on each individually. These questions will allow addressing the inherent conflicts that the participating managers may have noticed when building relationships between community members and the NGOs that the said members represent. Moreover, the factors contributing to the improvement of the relationships in questions will be examined in the format of a semi-structured interview as well. Likewise, several questions concerning the factors that may be at play in implementing the principles of sustainability within the target community while maintaining the dialogue with its members will be incorporated into the interview. Thus, the correlation between the strategies chosen by the NGO under analysis and the extent to which it aligns with the set environmental requirements will be isolated.

It is believed that the answers to the interview described above will help to construct the framework that will guide the NGO under analysis, as well as NGOs, in general, toward more prolific cooperation with community members and more active promotion of sustainable development among its members. Specifically, several major issues can be observed within the selected setting. Namely, the lack of cohesion in the dialogue between the NGO at hand and the members of the specified community represents a serious impediment in creating a bond that will propel the relationships between the parties in question toward a new stage. Consequently, more efforts will have to be put into the creation of mutual trust.

In turn, the semi-structured interview format will help to discover the obstacles toward complete transparency and mutual trust between community members and the NGO. Consequently, the approaches toward the enhancement of clarity, information management, communication, and honesty will be explored after the implementation of the research. Due to the opportunity to intimately know each other through the communication process, both an interviewer and interviewee create a bond that can be used in this scenario to ensure that NGOs recognize the importance of sustainable development and promote it to target communities.

Data Analysis/Presentation of Data

Finally, the data analysis will be structured in a way that will encourage an accurate and unbiased representation of the situation observed in the target community currently. Namely, the content analysis framework will be utilized to ensure that the essential information is obtained and interpreted fully. By definition, the content analysis technique as a part of the qualitative research implies “narratively describing the meaning of communications, in specific contexts” (Drisko & Maschi, 2016, p. 1). Therefore, the application of the context analysis technique as the element of the quantitative research method will lead to a more nuanced understanding of the issues affecting the relationships between the target community and the NGO in question, as well as the assessment of the sustainability-driven strategies that work within the target context and those that seem to fail. Therefore, even though containing biases defined by the presence of subjective opinions voiced in the interviews, as well as the possibility of data misinterpretation by the researchers, the proposed tool will elicit critical concerns.

To analyze the information that is expected to be collected shortly after the consent form signed by the participants of the study, its every single provision must be followed exactly. Otherwise, the party that breaks the approved range of requirements for the research will damage the options for building relationships within the community context. In addition, the presented information must not contain any personal data of the participants to ensure complete anonymity.

In turn, the data will be presented in a way that will reflect the outcomes of the research as clearly and effectively as possible. Namely, when representing the data, researchers will follow the following model: data processing, data exploration and visualization, data mining, model building., results identification and optimization, and results validation. The proposed tool allows representing the research results in a meaningful way since it provides an opportunity to visualize the information and build a model that reflects the underlying processes and relationships between the variables accurately. As a result, the framework will serve to expose the intricacies of relationships between the variables, which, in turn, will lead to a detailed assessment of said relationships. Consequently, the model creates premises for modifying the specified interactions between the community and the NGO in question to promote sustainable development. Moreover, by utilizing the model in question, one will be able to set the stage for introducing a framework for enhanced relationships between NGOs and communities on a global level. Specifically, the problem of sustainability in different community contexts will be solved by the reinforcement in the relationships between the parties in question. With the clear and unfiltered focus on sustainable use of resources and sustainable development, an NGO can serve as a guide for community members to follow in their efforts at enhancing the economic performance of the community under analysis. As a result, the options for providing the strategy that can be used worldwide will be created.

Therefore, the analysis stage of the project implementation, being rooted in the context analysis as one of the major qualitative research tools, will allow improving the current sustainability rates significantly. Consequently, the reinforcement of the connection between communities and NGOs must be explored further and seen as the essential source of building productive strategies for encouraging sustainable economic and sociocultural development.

Limitations

However, despite the effectively developed tools for data collection, measurement, and Notably, there are several limitations connected inherently to the choice of the data collection tool. Interpretation, the proposed methodology still has several limitations to be considered. These limitations are endemic to the nature of the research type and method, as well as the selection of the data collection tools to be used for this study. Nevertheless, the suggested methodology is expected to produce the expected positive effect as the tool for collecting, assessing, and interpreting data regarding interactions between NGOs and communities, as well as the outcomes that these interactions have on the sustainability within the target setting. Namely, the obvious lack of statistical representation even with the presence of descriptive statistics creates the environment where the presence of subjective judgments is highly probable. In addition, the lack of control over the obtained data, which stems from the absence of a statistics-based framework, suggests a lower extent of data credibility. Although the outlined characteristics do not devalue the qualitative research method as a tool for analysis, they create noticeable obstacles to effective data management.

Apart from the bias described above, the possibility of misinterpreting the acquired data at the stage of processing the interviews is also highly possible in the described environment. Due to the lesser extent of control over every stage of research implementation, phenomenology does not provide the same range of opportunities as other similar methods, such as the grounded theory framework. Combined with the fact that phenomenology implies spending significant time to collect the necessary information, specifically, by conducting an individual interview with every participant of the research, phenomenology implies considerable time limitations and requires the undivided attention of researchers.

Moreover, the use of the interview as the tool for collecting data also suggests facing multiple limitations, such as the forced reliance on the accuracy of the information supplied by the respondent, as well as the threat of possible misinterpretation of the specified data. Namely, due to the presence of emotional coloring of a particular part of the interview, it may be misunderstood or misrepresented, which is particularly possible in the scenarios where the interviewer and interviewee belong to different cultures. Due to the possible mismatch in culture-related language norms, misinterpreting the data becomes a clear threat and a possible limitation.

Nevertheless, the limitations mentioned above can be managed so that they could not skew the trustworthiness and reliability of research results in the future. Namely, the focus on seeking objective data and following the set ethical standards, as well as the foundational principles of research, will help one to avoid the misrepresentation of the acquired research data. Therefore, the limitations detailed above can be handled successfully, and their negative impact on the success of the research can be minimized.

References

Abernethy, K., Maisels, F., & White, L. J. (2016). Environmental issues in central Africa. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,41, 1-33.

Anderson, H., & Landau, I. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Australia: A review. University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 279.

Ashmarina, S., & Vochozka, M. (2019). Sustainable growth and development of economic systems: Contradictions in the era of digitalization and globalization. New York, NY: Springer.

Bashir, S. (2016). The role of NGOs in community development in Balochistan. Pakistan Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 4, 123-135.

Bebbington, J., & Unerman, J. (2018). Achieving the United Nations sustainable development goals. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(1), 2-25.

Broman, G. I., & Robèrt, K. H. (2017). A framework for strategic sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production,140, 17-31.

Browne, S. (2017). Sustainable development goals and UN goal-setting. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Evidence used to update the list of underlying medical conditions that increase a person’s risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Web.

Ceres (2020). About us. Web.

Chandler, D. (2016). Strategic corporate social responsibility: Sustainable value creation. New York, NY: SAGE Publications.

Chon, M., Roffe, P., & Abdel-Latif, A. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of public-private partnerships, intellectual property governance, and sustainable development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Conservation International (2020). About Conservation International. Web.

David, E. (2012). Social systems, social lives: Introduction to sociology. Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Demars, W. (2015). The NGO challenge for international relations theory. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Derek, H., Walker, T., Bourneb, L., Shelleyc, A. (2008). Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization. Construction Management and Economics, 26(6), 645-658.

Doctors without Borders (2020). Principles. Web.

Eadens,L. M., Jacobson, S. K., Taylor, V., Conferd, J., Gapee, L. (2009). Monique Sweetinge “Stakeholder Mapping for Recreation Planning of a Bahamian National Park.”Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 22(2), 111-127

Fletcher, A., et al. (2003). Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4), 505-527.

Freeman, R. (2018). Stakeholder theory: Concepts and strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gerasidia, A S., Apostolakis, E. Magnolia, D.,Vlachos, E. (2009). Towards the formulation of a new strategy of water resource management for urban areas achieved through participatory processes. Urban Water Journal, 6(3), 209-219

Gomes,R. C., Liddleb, J., Gomesc, L. (2010). Five-sided model of stakeholder influence: A cross-national analysis of decision making in local government. Public Management Review, 12(5), 701-724.

Greenpeace (2018). Our three-year strategic plan. Web.

Greenpeace (2020). Water. Web.

Habib, L. (2015). Environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Jordan. Challenges and obstacles: An analysis inspired by grounded theory. GRIN Publishing.

Harrison, J., Barney, J., Freeman, R., Philips, R. (2019). The Cambridge handbook of stakeholder theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hemmati, M., Dodds, F., Enayti, J., McHarry J. (2002). Multi Stakeholder process for governance and sustainability. London Earthscan.

Hess, P. (2016). Economic growth and sustainable development. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Hoff, J., Gausset, Q., &Lex, S. (2019). The role of non-state actors in the green transition: Building a sustainable future. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Hori, S., Takamura, Y., Fujita, T., Kanie, N. (2019). International development and the environment: Social consensus and cooperative measures for sustainability. New York, NY: Springer.

Islam, S. (2016). Theory and practices of NGO management: A study and overview on some NGOs in Bangladesh. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

Jelinek, E. (2006). A study of NGO relations with the government and communities in Afghanistan. Web.

Kent, P. (2010). National round table on the environment and the economy. Web.

Kontinen, T. (2020). Learning and forgetting in development NGOs: Insights from organizational theory. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Lang, S. (2014). NGOs, civil society, and the public sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence, J., & Beamish, P. (2012). Globally responsible leadership: Managing according to the UN Global Compact. New York, NY: SAGE Publications.

Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U., Alves, F., Pace, P., Mifsud, M., Brandli, L.,… & Disterheft, A. (2018). Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: the role of the sustainable development goals (SDG). International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology,25(2), 131-142.

Leal Filho, W., & Brandli, L. (2016). Engaging stakeholders for sustainable development. In Engaging Stakeholders in Education for Sustainable Development at University Level (pp. 335-342). Springer, Cham.

Leinarte, E. (2021). Functional responsibility of international organizations. The European Union and international economic law. Cambridge University Press.

Logan, D. (2018). Corporate Citizenship: The role of companies as citizens of the modern world. St Albans, UK: Panoma Press.

Lohbeck, M., Bongers, F., Martinez‐Ramos, M., & Poorter, L. (2016). The importance of biodiversity and dominance for multiple ecosystem functions in a human‐modified tropical landscape. Ecology,97(10), 2772-2779.

Maak, T., & Pless, N. (2012). Responsible leadership. London: Routledge.

Mendoza,G. A., &Prabhub, R. (2009). Evaluating multi-stakeholder perceptions of project impacts: a participatory value-based multi-criteria approach. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 16(3), 177-190.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-888.

Muazu, N. B., & Abdullahi, A. (2019). The impact of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) on sustainable development projects in Katsina Metropolis.Journal of Economics, Management and Trade, 24(6), 1-8.

Okpara, J., & Idowu, S. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: Challenges, opportunities and strategies for 21st century leaders. New York, NY: Springer.

Oliveira, E. (2019). The instigatory theory of NGO communication: Strategic communication in civil society organizations. New York, NY: Springer.

Osuji, O., Ngwu, F., Jamali, D. (2019). Corporate social responsibility in developing and emerging markets: Institutions, actors and sustainable development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A. (2013). Public-private partnerships for sustainable development: Emergence, influence and legitimacy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub.

Pacheco-Vega, R. (2010). NGOs and sustainable development. In International Encyclopedia of Civil Society, pp. 1049-1054. Web.

Parry, K., Kempster, S., & Maak, T. (2019). Good dividends. Responsible leadership of business purpose. Taylor & Francis.

Robertson, M. (2017). Sustainability principles and practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Rhodes, J., Bergstrom, B., Lok, P., & Cheng, V. (2014). A framework for stakeholder engagement and sustainable development in MNCs.Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1), 82-103.

Richardson, T. (2015). The responsible leader: Developing a culture of responsibility in an uncertain world. London: Kogan Page.

Sachs, J. (2015). The age of sustainable development. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Schinzel, U. (2018). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Luxembourg. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 26(3), Web.

Schwartz, M. S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility: An ethical approach. Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press.

Sustainability Degrees (2014). The 14 most influential sustainability NGOs. Web.

Tietenberg, T., & Lewis, L. (2019). Natural resource economics: The essentials. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Ul Haq, M. (1995). Reflections on human development: How the focus of development economics shifted from national income accounting to people-centered policies. Oxford University Press.

UNEP (2019). Programme performance report. Nairobi, Kenya: UN Environment Programme.

UNEP (2020). Letter from the executive director. Nairobi, Kenya: UN Environment Programme.

United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York, NY: United Nations.

Walker, D.H., Bourne, L., & Rowlinson, S. (2008). Stakeholders and the supply chain.In Walker, D.H.T. and Rowlinson, S. (eds).Procurement systems: A cross industry project management perspective. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 70-100.

Weaver, P. (2007). A Simple View of Complexity in Project Management. Proceedings of the 4th World Project Management Week. Singapore. Web.

Wojewnik-Filipkowska, A., & Węgrzyn, J. (2019). Understanding of public–private partnership stakeholders as a condition of sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(4), 1194-1210.

World Health Organization. (2020). Climate change and COVID-19. Web.

WWF (2020). About us. Web.

Young, S. T., & Dhanda, K. K. (2013). Role of governments and nongovernmental organizations. In Sustainability: Essentials for Business, 214-242. Web.

Zhang, D., Morse, S., & Kambhampati, U. (2017). Sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Zoeteman, K. (2012). Sustainable development drivers: The role of leadership in government, business and NGO performance. Edward Elgar Pub.

Amnesty International. (2021). Amnesty International’s statute. Web.

Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis. Pocket Guides to Social Work R.

Frechette, J., Bitzas, V., Aubry, M., Kilpatrick, K., & Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2020). Capturing lived experience: Methodological considerations for interpretive phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-12.

Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. (2019). How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2), 90-97.

Perrin, K. M. (2015). Principles of evaluation and research for health care programs. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Need help with assignments?

Our qualified writers can create original, plagiarism-free papers in any format you choose (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, etc.)

Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.

Click Here To Order Now