Accountability for Responsibility: An assessment of the Transnational Capitalist Class' role in driving a Global CSR Agenda

Globalisation has led to the establishment of a new hierarchy of leadership. At the helm is the Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) , which oversees the direction of Multi National Corporations (MNCs) at a global level. Can the TCC, as leaders in the governance agenda, drive a global CSR agenda, or, perhaps, the question should be: do they want to drive a CSR agenda?
The hypothesis of this article is that, as the structure of global leadership and governance has changed, so too has the potential for aligning national CSR agendas to a globally accepted standard. This is unlikely due to systematic limitations inherent in a transitional structural realignment of global leadership. Whereas the design of global leadership has changed due to processes of globalization, the bodies that can regulate this leadership have not developed at the same pace. Regulation on issues such as CSR remains at national, federal and supra-­-national levels suggesting that TCCs have a free reign in dictating agenda. This new class (TCC) may bear a responsibility for CSR but there is a lack of accountability if it is not fulfilled.

Charity accountability in the UK: through the eyes of the donor

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore accountability from the perspective of charity donors.

Design/methodology/approach – The research utilises semi-structured interviews with a range of donors. In addition, it summarises the main findings from key related research (that uses document content analysis and questionnaire surveys) as a basis for better appreciating donor engagement.

Findings – This research offers evidence that while donors are viewed as the key stakeholder to whom a charity should be accountable, the relevance of the information commonly disclosed in formal charity communications is questionable. This is viewed as significant in terms of small dependent donors, although less critical in the case of non-dependent large donors who have power to demand individualised information. However, although all donors do not particularly engage with these formal communications, they are viewed by them as having significance and their production and publication serves as an important legitimising tool in the sector (enhancing trust and reputation).

Research limitations/implications – This research is based on semi-structured interviews with individual small donors and large institutional donors to large UK charities and therefore any generalising of the conclusions beyond large charities, and beyond the UK, should be undertaken with care. In addition, it focuses solely on the perceptions of donors, and other stakeholder groups are also important in this process.

Originality/value – Despite the widespread acceptance that charities have a duty to discharge accountability to their stakeholders, there is limited knowledge of their information needs and whether the performance information currently being disclosed fulfils them. This study provides a unique insight into the perspective of a key stakeholder group (donors) with respect to accountability.

Corporate Mechanisms and the Presumption of Accountability

This paper seeks to draw out this focus on form in British public administration reform by focusing on the role that the idea of the corporate form has played in reform. Drawing on the codification of Foundation Trusts in the English NHS, I argue that, while accountability ought to be considered as a 'social space' in which conduct conducive to particular interests emerges, reformers tend to regard accountability as a function of appropriate procedures and forms. The turn to the corporate form relies on a hope that it will deliver various 'accountability' benefits will emerge. This hope, I argue, is misplaced

Rethinking the Sacred and Secular Divide. Accounting and Accountability Practices in the Diocese of Ferrara (1431-1457)

Purpose – Informed by the work of Laughlin and Booth, the paper analyses the role of accounting and accountability practices within the 15th century Roman Catholic Church, more specifically within the Diocese of Ferrara (northern Italy), in order to determine the presence of a sacred-secular dichotomy. Pope Eugenius IV had embarked upon a comprehensive reform of the Church to counter the spreading moral corruption within the clergy and the subsequent disaffection with the Church by many believers. The reforms were notable not only for the Pope’s determination to restore the moral authority and power of the Church but for the essential contributions of ‘profane’ financial and accounting practices to the success of the reforms.
Design/methodology/approach – Original 15th century Latin documents and account books of the Diocese of Ferrara are used to highlight the link between the new sacred values imposed by Pope Eugenius IV’s reforms and accounting and accountability practices.
Findings – The documents reveal that secular accounting and accountability practices were not regarded as necessarily antithetical to religious values, as would be expected by Laughlin and Booth. Instead, they were seen to assume a role which was complementary to the Church’s religious mission. Indeed, they were essential to its sacred mission during a period in which the Pope sought to arrest the moral decay of the clergy and reinstate the Church’s authority. Research implications/limitations – The paper shows that the sacred-secular dichotomy cannot be considered as a priori valid in space and time. There is also scope for examining other Italian dioceses where there was little evidence of Pope Eugenius’ reforms.
Originality/value – The paper presents a critique of the sacred-secular divide paradigm by considering an under-researched period and a non Anglo-Saxon context.

Non-governmental Organizational Accountability: Talking the Talk and Walking the Walk?

Concern for NGO accountability has been intensified in recent years, following the growth in the size of NGOs and their power to influence global politics and curb the excesses of globalization. Questions have been raised about where the sector embraces the same standards of accountability that it demands from government and business. The objective of this paper is to examine one aspect of NGO accountability, its discharge through annual reporting. Using Habermas’ (1984; 1987) theory of communicative action, and specifically its validity claims, the research investigates whether NGOs use their annual reporting process to account to the host societies in which they operate or steer stakeholder actions toward their own self-interests. The results of the study indicate that efforts by organizations to account are characterized by communicative action through the provision of truthful disclosures, generally appropriate to the discharge of accountability and in a manner intended to improve their understandability. At the same time, however, some organizations exhibit strategically oriented behaviors in which the disclosure content is guided by the opportunity to present organizations in a particular light and there appears a lack of rhetor authenticity. The latter findings cast doubt on the ethical inspiration of NGOs and the values they demand from business communities, and questions arise as to why such practices exist and what lessons can be learnt from them.

Beneficiary accountability in NGOs: can it be better in donor funded projects as compared to non-donor funded projects?

Prior research on NGO accountability argued that in the process of upward accountability to donors NGOs’ accountability towards beneficiaries had been compromised. With a focus on beneficiary accountability this paper undertakes a comparative examination of a donor funded project and a non-donor funded project. The study has been carried out in the context of a large Bangladeshi NGO with international operations. While the above conclusion on NGO accountability generally holds our study shows a somewhat different picture. Drawing on a comprehensive set of empirical evidence from various sources such as documentary analysis, interviews, focus groups and observations we show that beneficiary accountability can be better in donor funded projects as compared to non-donor funded projects. We theorise the circumstances under which it can happen. This finding has significant implications for the policy makers and donors in the context of recent drive for the self-sustainability of NGOs and its impact on the crucial issue of beneficiary accountability.