Evaluating Non-Governmental Organizations: The 2013 Methodology Paper

In June 2012, The Global Journal commissioned an independent review of its own NGO ranking methodology — a candid, self-critical examination of how the Top 100 NGOs list was built, what it could and couldn’t claim, and where its real limitations sat.

About the 2013 Methodology Paper

Published in February 2013 and authored by Cecilia Cannon, then completing her PhD in Political Science/International Relations at Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID), the paper situates the ranking within a broader shift: after decades of largely unquestioned goodwill, NGOs entered a period of genuine public scrutiny in the years following the 2010 Haiti earthquake, as their scale, credibility, and accountability came under closer examination.

What the ranking set out to do

The paper outlines four stated aims behind the ranking: to showcase the genuine diversity of organisations operating under the “NGO” label; to evaluate them comparatively, across geography and activity; to stimulate real debate around impact, innovation, and sustainability; and to track how the sector changes year over year.

by The [.] Newsroom

From thedotgood's Editorial Desk

September 18, 2026

An honest account of its own limits

What makes this paper genuinely valuable, more than a decade later, is its candor. It states plainly that the ranking does not claim to represent objectively the “best” NGOs worldwide, and it identifies specific criteria in its own scoring that require qualitative judgement rather than pure calculation. That transparency — treating the ranking as informed, accountable editorial judgment rather than a mechanical output — has remained a founding principle as the work evolved from The Global Journal through NGO Advisor to thedotgood today.

What’s changed since

Worth noting honestly: the 2013 methodology scored organizations on three criteria — impact, innovation, and sustainability. Today’s methodology has evolved to impact, innovation, and governance, and the definition of eligible organizations has broadened considerably — the 2013 paper explicitly excluded business-interest NGOs and public-private partnerships, categories that today’s “Social Good Organization” framework was specifically created to include.