Strategies for Organizational Sustainability among Civil Society Organizations: Evidence from Selected Registered CSOs in Douala IV Municipality, Cameroon

Abstract

This research examined the relationships between selected sustainability strategies and the organisational sustainability of civil society organisations (CSOs) in Douala IV Municipality, Cameroon. More specifically, the study examined the relationships between funding diversification, strategic partnerships, community engagement, capacity building, impact measurement, adaptive capacity, and organisational sustainability. A quantitative research methodology and a cross-sectional research design were used. Data were collected using structured questionnaires from 100 respondents working in CSOs in the study area. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and Pearson product-moment correlation analysis at the 0.05 level of significance. Statistically significant positive associations were found between funding diversification and organisational sustainability (r = .597, p < .001), capacity building and organisational sustainability (r = .573, p < .001), and impact measurement and organisational sustainability (r = .440, p < .001). No statistically significant associations were found between strategic partnerships (r = .187, p = .062), community engagement (r = −.102, p = .312), or adaptation to changing contexts (r = .187, p = .062) and organisational sustainability. The null hypotheses concerning funding diversification, capacity building, and impact measurement were therefore rejected, whereas those concerning strategic partnerships, community engagement, and adaptation to changing contexts were retained. The results indicate that CSO sustainability in the study context is associated mainly with the ability of organisations to diversify financial resources, develop internal organisational capacities, and use impact measurement systematically. The study was limited to CSOs in Douala IV Municipality and employed a cross-sectional correlational design; therefore, the findings are context-specific and should be interpreted as evidence of association rather than causality.