Over the past decades, a convergence between civil and political human rights non governmental organisations (NGOs) and development NGOs have occurred. The fusion of the two disciplines have led to the construction of so called ‘Rights-Based approaches’ (RBA). One principal concept for RBA’s is the question of accountability. Functional accountability is no longer seen as sufficient and more focus on social accountability have advanced. In previous research NGOs are repeatedly questioned for their level of accountability. This comparative qualitative case study therefore aim to examine how three Swedish based NGOs perceive accountability, with the purpose to contribute to the academic discussion of NGO accountability.

By using grounded theory and selective coding, this study will contribute with new empirical data to the ongoing development of RBA theory. Empirical data is collected through interviews, NGOs official strategies documents and analysed in relation to the empirically grounded theory. The main findings in this comparative case study is that organisations different backgrounds and values influence how they perceive RBA and accountability, and which methods are used to reconcile with accountability claims. The collected empirical data concludes perceptions of accountability mostly focuses on four interconnected key principles; power relations, democracy, transparency and empowerment.