Introduction

• “Managers favoured the development of holistic accountability mechanisms”

• Academic research into NGO accountability has lagged behind developing public, governmental and business interest in this area – ActionAid International 2006

• Some studies have recognized potential for inappropriate accountability mechanisms to damage, rather than enhance the social and environmental benefits that NGOs seek – Dixon et al., 2006

• There is emerging dominance of upward hierarchical accountability to donors

  • At the expense of holistic accountability to the broader range of stakeholders

  • NGO’s accountability priorities are being distorted – Blagescu et al., 2005, Ebrahim, 2005

• Dwyer and Unerman use a conceptual framework to draw on the concepts of hierarchical and holistic accountability

• Global International NGO (INGO) accountability charter (INGO, 2006)

  • Amnesty International along with 10 other INGOs

  • To demonstrate commitment to transparency and accountability

  • In response to increase public scrutiny (ICHRP, 2003)

NGO accountability

• Views on accountability vary

  • Some believe that organisations are responsible and thus accountable only to those stakeholders directly affected by its achievements (Unerman & Dwyer, 2006)

  • Others believe “organisations have responsibilities and accountabilities to all those whose life experiences may be affected by the organisation’s activities (Cooper and Owen 2007)

Hierarchical accountability in NGOs

• Narrowly focused accountability

• Functional and short-term in orientation

• Favours those stakeholders who control access to key resources for both resource use and immediate (campaign) impacts (Ebrahim, 2003)

• ‘functional accountability’

• Views accountability as external oversight and control

• Encourages ‘rationalizations of action’ – Roberts, 2001

  • But can ‘instil a sense of anxiety or vulnerability among organizational managers as they must continually strive to demonstrate ‘performance’’ (Roberts, 2001)

• Denial of the scope for learning and sharing

  • Can have damaging effects on the ability of NGOs to act as effective catalysts for social change (Dixon et al., 2006)

• There is a tendency of hierarchical accountability to prioritise accountability to powerful patrons (upward accountability)

Holistic accountability in NGOs

• Broader forms of accountability for the impacts that an NGO’s actions have, or can have, on a broad range of other organisations, individuals and the environment (Edwards & Hulme, 2002; Najam, 1996)

• Embraces quantitative and qualitative mechanisms

• Focus on long term achievement of organizational mission and the impact of this achievement in bringing about structural change

  • Looks at “second and third order effects of NGO actions” (Edward & Hulme, 2002)

• Hierarchical accountability can be seen as a subset within broader holistic accountability practices

• Advocates appreciate that:

  • ‘Every individual has a basic right to participate in decisions on matters which might impact upon them, irrespective of the power which that individual holds in relation to others (Unerman & Bennett, 2004)

• However, particular in human rights NGOs, impacts can not be easily determined

  • “NGOs are rarely able to control all (or even most) of the factors which influence the outcome of their work” (Edwards & Hulme, 2002)

ActionAid International

• ALPS (action, learning and planning system) for accountability

  • Prioritizes downward accountability to beneficiaries

• Uses

  • annual participatory reviews

  • Innovative engagement mechanisms to encourage full participation by marginalized groups that ActionAid are trying to help (ActionAid International, 2006)

    • Theatre, art and song

• Social accounting and auditing methods have been adopted by NGOs such as Oxfam (Dawson, 1998; Dey, 2007)

• Stakeholder focus groups and surveys

• Story telling at VSO and Oxfam (Cronin & O’Regan, 2002)

• The Humanitarian Accountability Project(HAP)

  • Partnership of member agencies committed to making humanitarian action accountable to its intended beneficiaries

Amnesty International

• Amnesty did not have “institutionalized mechanisms through which diverse external stakeholders could engage in decision making processes that affect them” (Blagescu et al., 2006)

• Clear recognition of the desirability of adopting holistic forms of external accountability

• “ You can come back from a financial crisis but if there is a collapse in trust or that relationship then it is very hard to rebuild that” (Senior Manager)

• Rapidly evolving donor market

  • Competitively driven

  • Seeks greater external accountability for impacts in addition to accountabilities for pronouncements

    • Senior managers viewed this move as essential to the protection and differentiation of the credibility and legitimacy of Amnesty’s “highly trusted brand”

• Increasing...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Accounting in Non-Governmental Organisations Notes.