Search results

Contemporary organisational landscapes offer opportunities for hybrids to thrive. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) are one thriving hybrid form incorporating the use of resources and/or structures from both public and private sectors. The study examines the impact of such a hybrid structure on governance and accountability mechanisms in a context of institutional complexity.

This study uses an approach that draws on institutional logics and hybridity to examine governance arrangements in the PPP policy created for the delivery of UK schools. Unusually, it employs a comparative case study of how four local governments implemented the policy. It draws on a framework developed by Polzer et al. (2017) to examine the level of engagement between multiple logics and hybrid structures and applies this to the delivery of governance and accountability for public money.

The Polzer et al. framework enables a study of how the nature of hybrids can vary in terms of their governance, ownership and control relations. The findings show how the relationships between levels of engagement of multiple logics and hybrid structures can impact on governance and accountability for public money. Layering and blending combinations led to increased adoption of private sector accountability structures, whilst a hybrid with parallel co-existence of community and market logics delivered a long-term governance structure.

The paper examines the operation of hybrids in a complex education PPP environment in only four local governments and therefore cannot provide representative answers across the population as a whole. However, given the considerable variation found across the four examples, the paper shows there can be significant differentiation in how multiple logics engage at different levels and in varying combinations even in the same hybrid setting. The paper focuses on capital investment implementation and its evaluation, so it is a limitation that the operational stage of PPP projects is not studied.

The findings have political relevance because the two local government bodies with more robust combinations of multiple logics were more successful in getting funds and delivering schools in their geographical areas.

The study extends Polzer et al.'s (2017) research on hybridity by showing that there can be significant differentiation in how multiple logics engage at different levels and in varying combinations even in what was planned to be the same hybrid setting. It shows how in situations of institutional complexity certain combinations of logics lead to differentiation in governance and accountability, creating fragmented focus on the related public accountability structures. This matters because it becomes harder to hold government to account for public spending.

The purpose of this paper is to explore issues relating to imposing a ban on the importation of asbestos-contaminated building materials (ACBMs) in the Australian context to better understand the multiple accountabilities and consequences.

This study undertakes a qualitative content analysis of the multiple accountabilities and stakeholder expectations using the lens of actor–network theory. This study further explores the weaknesses and complexities associated with implementing a complete ban on asbestos, ensuring that only asbestos-free building materials are imported to Australia. This study uses data collected from 15 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, responses from the Australian Border Force to a questionnaire and 215 counter accounts from the media, the Australian Government, industry organizations, non-governmental organizations and social group websites during the period from 2003 to 2021.

This study reveals that stakeholders' expectations of zero tolerance for asbestos have not been met. This assertion has been backed by evidence of asbestos contamination in imported building materials throughout recent years. Stakeholders say that the complete prevention of the importation of ACBMs has been delayed because of issues in policy implementations, opaque supply chain activities, lack of transparency and non-adherence to mandatory and self-regulated guidelines.

Stakeholders expect public and private sector organizations to meet their accountabilities through mandatory adoption of the given policy framework.

This research provides a road map to identify the multiple accountabilities, their related weaknesses and the lack of implementation of the necessary protocol, which prevents a critical aspect of legislation from being effectively implemented.

Accountability is ubiquitous in social systems, and its necessity is magnified in formal organizations, whose purpose has been argued to predict and control behavior. The very notion of organizing necessitates answering to others, and this feature implies an interface of work and social enterprises, the individuals comprising them, and subunits from dyads to divisions. Because the nature of workplace accountability is multi-level as well as interactive, single-level conceptualizations of the phenomenon are incomplete and inherently misleading. In response, this chapter sets forth a meso-level conceptualization of accountability, which develops a more comprehensive understanding of this pervasive and imperative phenomenon. The meso model presented integrates contemporary theory and research, and extends our perspectives beyond individual, group, unit, or organizational perspectives toward a unitary whole. Following this is a description of challenges and opportunities facing scholars conducting accountability research (e.g., data collection and analysis and non-traditional conceptualizations of workplace phenomenon). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are directions for future research.

Electronic government (e-government) is perceived as an effective tool to enhance accountability in public organizations. However, e-government implementation to enhance accountability is still unclear and involves many complex processes because of the multiple accountabilities disorder. The e-government elements that contribute to mitigate the disorders and dysfunctions of accountability relationships are still underdeveloped in the current literature. This paper aims to provide understanding on how e-government enhances public organizations’ accountability by highlighting the key elements of e-government that mitigate the disorders and dysfunctions of accountability relationships.

This study adopts a qualitative case study approach by using the case of Jordan Customs. Data were collected using a triangulation approach that involved semi-structured interviews, document reviews and observation.

The findings revealed that the e-government elements that mitigate the disorders and dysfunctions of accountability relationships are classified into three contexts, namely, technological, environmental and organizational aspects. The technological elements include systems integration, single window and electronic connectivity. The environmental elements embrace public participation and partnership council. The organizational elements comprise having well-defined strategic plan and risk management approach.

This study contributes and gives further insight into how to address the confusion, fuzziness and dysfunctions in accountability relationships existing in the literature by providing several success elements that mitigate the problematic of disorder between accountability relationships in public organizations. The paper highlights the need to investigate further elements, particularly, in the organizational context, to assist public organizations in improving their performance to enhance accountability in their operations.

This study provides guidelines for future e-government implementation strategy in public organizations, particularly, in the context of developing countries, as most of the recent studies of e-government in developing countries indicated that they are suffering from difficulty of managing e-government implementation to promote accountability successfully and are struggling with a lack of resources and experiences to handle this new trend of technology.

This study is of a significant value, as it is one of the preliminary studies that empirically extend the accountability dimensions suggested by Koppell (2005) with the key success elements of e-government that enhance accountability proposed by Heeks (1998b) and other current literature. This paper enriches the body of literature by providing some new key success elements of e-government that enhance accountability in public organizations. It also contributes to the expansion of the boundaries of knowledge by adding further interpretation on how these elements reduce the existing confusions and dysfunctions in accountability relationships.

This study aims to focus on the accountability of organizations to multiple stakeholders with differing interests and power, where there is an absence of accountability towards shareholders.

Longitudinal field study via participant‐observation.

The study focuses on the relations between the subsidiary and the parent boards and how a governance improvement plan affected the internal dynamics of the organization and helped to clarify the demands of multiple stakeholders. A stakeholder‐agency model is developed which emphasises the role of governance, the importance of structure and process, and the culture or ethos of boards in which multiple stakeholders may have compatible rather than competing interests.

The paper focuses on the quasi‐public sector and develops stakeholder‐agency theory by identifying governance at the centre of differing relationships with stakeholders with unequal salience where there is both an economic concern with efficiency and a broader social concern.

Firms and their executives need to recognize the political complexity of accountability demands, so that they are prepared by training to recognize the signs of change, analyze the strength of the forces behind various and often competing demands, and devise a response that is not only responsive to valid and strongly supported demands, but consistent with their organization's mission and ethic of responsibility toward broader publics and the public‐spirited values that we should all share. This paper aims to investigate these issues

The paper identifies seven types of accountability mechanisms and considers their applicability to multinational corporations.

The paper finds that, to be able to respond quickly and effectively, firms need to be linked institutionally with advocacy groups as well as other firms, so that they get information about demands in a timely fashion and are able to communicate with the relevant actors to devise responses.

The paper gives an overview about different types of accountability in global governance and discusses how firms could face the challenges of complex accountability demands.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the degree of stakeholder salience and the degree of emphasis placed on accountability dimensions for infrastructure assets (IFAs) as perceived by mayors and chief executive officers (CEOs) of local government authorities (LGAs). Comparisons are drawn between the salience accorded to two broad stakeholder groups at the public level and at the government level.

Perceptions of mayors and CEOs are examined through a mail questionnaire survey administered among LGAs in Australia.

Overall accountability for IFAs by the LGAs is influenced by the salience accorded to the demands and needs of public stakeholders (PSs) but not the salience accorded to government stakeholders (GS). It is evident that public and managerial accountabilities are impacted by PS salience, whereas political accountability is impacted by the salience of GS. Thus, it emphasises that the establishment and implementation of policies, processes and systems that render transparency and responsiveness to the public, as well as service quality and the disclosure of performance measures, are positively affected by the salience accorded to PS groups.

The results of the study may be affected by the inherent weaknesses associated with mail surveys.

Accountability of LGAs for IFAs to GS needs enhancement, specifically stronger policy incentives.

This paper contributes to the literature, providing evidence on how mayors and CEOs of LGAs perceive the salience of different stakeholders of IFAs and its impact on the perceived accountability.

This study aims to investigate how non-government organisation (NGO) managers balance accountability to donors and beneficiaries and the role of felt responsibility in this process.

Using concepts of accountability theory, practices of microenterprise development NGOs are examined in two countries – Bangladesh and Indonesia – through interviews with managers of 20 NGOs and analysis of NGOs’ publicly available data.

Findings show a shift in emphasis from a vertical view (upward to donors and downward to beneficiaries) to a horizontal view of NGO accountability. Under this view, a selective approach to donors whose mission and approaches to poverty alleviation aligned with those of the NGOs played an essential role in supporting NGOs’ internal accountability. Further, felt a responsibility to beneficiaries is identified as an important mediator balancing both upward and downward accountability. While accountability to donors and beneficiaries was interrelated, accountability to donors was considered a short-term objective and accountability to beneficiaries was considered a long-term and overriding objective.

Findings contribute a further understanding of the role of felt responsibility to beneficiaries as a mediator for balancing upward and downward accountability based on the perspectives of NGO managers. Reframing accountability through a horizontal view helps to balance multiple directions of NGO accountability: to self, donors and beneficiaries.

The paper's purpose is to consider the challenges, a public sector organization faces combining both transparency and “intelligent” forms of accountability (cf. Roberts, 2009).

The authors conducted a case study of StatePol, a police service in an Australian state.

The data analysis revealed three themes. First, prior to 2013, transparency forms of accountability dominated, emphasizing crime statistics with the effect of reinforcing internal partitions and inhibiting collective action. Second, post-2013, a greater emphasis was placed on “intelligent” accountability with conversations around process and collective accountability at the operational level. Crime statistics were used less for operational-level accountability and more for attention-directing. Third, changing the emphasis from transparency to its combined use with “intelligent” accountability required strong leadership, clearly communicated strategy and middle-level managers with appropriate skills.

The authors identify a number of important factors in combining transparency and “intelligent” forms of accountability. The authors note the difficulties that fragmentation between forms of accountability and the somewhat amorphous nature of the accountability concept itself can cause. In doing so, the authors provide empirical evidence of the challenges changing from an emphasis on transparency, to combined use with an “intelligent” form of accountability.

This paper aims to understand the main challenges connected with accountability issues across multiple layers of the metaverse, to identify whether and how any techwashing is taking place and to discuss implications for accounting research.

To develop the research, the authors refer to a critical dialogic accountability framework, operationalized in the current paper by leveraging the perspectives of accountability as virtues and as mechanisms (Bovens, 2010). The authors discuss who is accountable to whom, for what and in what manner in a relatively unregulated and unaccountable world, through the layers of virtual reality introduced by MacKenzie et al. (2013) and Llewellyn (2007). Methodologically, the study concentrates on 32 start-ups working in the metaverse selected from the Crunchbase database and relies on interviews, direct observation in the field and white paper reports analyzed by means of NVivo coding.

The findings show how metaverse creators deal with accountability as a virtue and accountability as a mechanism. Companies who operate metaverses primarily consider accountability in the virtual-physical domain, which focuses on developing the necessary internal and external architecture to enable a particular metaverse to function. Metaverse companies also emphasize the virtual-agential dimension that concentrates on onboarding, engaging with and incentivizing individuals in virtual worlds. There is an emphasis on outlining the virtues or standards that metaverse companies aspire to, but there is very little detail provided. Similarly, there are uneven and limited discussions of the mechanisms that can support accountability in most layers of a virtual world.

The analysis raises significant questions about the purpose, scope and use of metaverses, which are still a relatively unregulated and unaccountable world. The paper advances the idea that the current creators of metaverses are “techwashing” their projects, providing a utopian ideal of what their universes will look like but obfuscating the realities of their ventures in tech jargon that few people are likely to understand. Therefore, meaning and truth at all levels of the real and virtual worlds remain unaddressed, with implications to be explored in terms of legitimacy and trust of metaverses and the interests that shape them.

This paper is one of the first to address the issue of accountability in metaverses. It advances an analytical framework to guide future accounting and accountability research into virtual worlds.