Search results

The aim of this paper is to contribute to a greater understanding of non-profit organization (NPO) management control systems (MCS) and accountability in organizations providing support service for capacity constrained service users. Specifically, the paper examines the role of MCS and accountability in supporting mission realization in NPOs providing services to people with intellectual disabilities and reflects on this in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The research comprised a case study of four NPOs providing services to people with intellectual disabilities in Ireland conducted prior to the global COVID-19 pandemic. The study probed management's perceptions of stakeholders and examined the manner in which the design and use of MCS and accountability processes supported mission realization.

Service users were regarded as the least powerful stakeholder and consequently the least attended to in terms of MCS and accountability processes. The absence of relational and dialogical accountability with service users is not only central to maintaining this power asymmetry but also poses a threat to mission realization. These deficits can be addressed through the integration and monitoring of internal advocacy activities into MCS and accountability processes, which, on reflection, may also mitigate some of the negative consequences for service users of isolation from external support networks in times of crisis.

This research has opened up an area for enquiry – internal advocacy – heretofore not addressed in the management accounting literature, opening up a novel vein for future research. Such research could further examine the role of internal advocacy, drawing from and adding to the research in other support service domains. A number of objectives and questions might be considered: (1) probing the level of management recognition of the role of direct engagement in advocacy activities in supporting service user agency; (2) identifying with service users and management the nature and attributes of effective advocacy activities and practices; (3) questioning how such advocacy activities and practices might be reflected in MCS; (4) identifying what service user stakeholders regard as effective accountability to them in relation to their needs and objectives; and (5) assessing the impact on service user experience and on NPO mission realization of internal advocacy activities and the monitoring and review thereof through MCS. These suggestions for future research draw attention to aspects of support service delivery that have the potential to be profoundly influential on service outcomes.

A performance management model reflecting the identified need to incorporate internal advocacy mechanisms into organizational management control systems is proposed in an effort to increase accountability of NPOs to their core mission stakeholder – service users. This model may be of value to NPO management as they move from a medical-model of care to a rights-based model for service delivery in care settings.

The paper reflects the importance of listening to the voice of vulnerable service users in NPO care settings and proposes a mechanism for embedding internal advocacy in formal management control systems and accountability processes.

In proposing an “agency” supportive relational and dialogical accountability logic for such organizations, underpinned by “internal advocacy”, this research provides theoretical and practical insights for accountability processes and the design of MCS. The findings contribute empirically, not just to the NPO management and MCS literature but also to understanding the relational interaction of service users with service organizations, and what this means in supporting service user objectives and realization of organizational mission.

This paper aims to explore social enterprise accountability with respect to their dual social and financial objectives. Drawing on theories of accountability, stakeholders and institutional logics, this paper examines to whom and how social enterprises are accountable, focusing on the potential differences in accountability where social enterprises have a dominant versus a diversified commercial customer base.

Case studies on four work integrated social enterprises are analysed. Primary data include interviews with general managers of each social enterprise. Secondary data include social media, websites and internal and external reports.

Findings reveal accountability is largely influenced by dominant stakeholders (dominant commercial customers and parent organisations). Further, a connection between to whom and how social enterprises are accountable was noted, with formal accountability directed to the main stakeholders of the social enterprises, while less formal types of accountability were directed to less powerful stakeholders.

The integrated nature of the social enterprises facilitated complementarity rather than conflict among their commercial and social logics. While formal accountability was directed to those with power, expectations of these stakeholders ensured social and commercial logics were balanced, highlighting the importance of powerful stakeholders supporting both logics for social enterprises to effectively manage their hybridity. Conclusions consider the importance of social enterprises’ reporting practices.

The purpose of this study is to present an in-depth examination of stakeholder engagement processes in non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from the perspective of NGO managers to enhance accountability and the effectiveness with which aid services are delivered. Specifically, demand-side (downward) accountability and the implications of an accountability system that is predominantly supply-side (upward) focused are explored.

This study draws on evidence gathered from 25 in-depth interviews with representatives of leading NGOs in Nigeria to explore and uncover the nature of stakeholder engagement and accountability processes in their respective organisations. This study shows prospects for entrenching organisational reform that balances power and influence that benefits the less economically powerful demand side of the stakeholders. A relevant aspect of stakeholder theory was used to frame the analysis.

The study reveals an overlay of a blanket engagement system and a seeming reluctance of NGOs to disclose critical information to the demand-side stakeholders (DSS), and suggests ways to meet sustainability demands and address the militating concerns. A perceived lack of understanding and prospects or outcomes of demand-side accountability are central to this; however, engagement outcomes that account for impact rather than output are explored and reported. The findings suggest that proper accountability involves adequate stakeholder engagement which is a prerequisite and paramount for sustainability.

This study primarily delineates NGO managers’ views on NGO engagement and accountability dynamics. Future research may explore the perspectives of downward stakeholders themselves. The study highlights the concern for NGOs to maintain a defined stakeholder engagement process that resists external forces that may impact on their operations and derail their mission, resulting in duplication of services.

The study shows the implications of donors’ influence on accountability practices which can be improved by re-structuring supply-side stakeholders to significantly include DSS accountability requirements in the key performance indicators of NGOs in developing countries. The authors present a nuanced perspective to aid delivery and access that ensures improved services and more effective, impactful and sustainable aid which is of practical relevance to NGOs and their accountability mechanism.

This study deepens the understanding of the dynamics of stakeholder engagement and accountability processes and shows that the most effective way to deploy aid funds to meet sustainability goals is to draw on the experiences and local knowledge of the DSS. This would require an effective and results-driven dialogue among all the stakeholders involved. The proposed engagement and management framework contribute to theory and practice by fostering multi-stakeholder cooperation, DSS accountability and the advancement of sustainable development

This paper aims to interrogate the accountabilities of the foreign companies which have directly invested in the Iraqi oil and gas industry.

Using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies, the authors first map the stakeholder accountabilities (qualitative) of foreign oil and gas companies and second, the authors seek to demonstrate quantitatively – through structural break tests and publicly available sustainability reports – whether these companies have accounted for their environmental and social impacts both to Iraqi people and to the global community.

The authors find that the Western democratic values embedded in stakeholder theory, in terms of sustainability, do not hold the same meaning in cultural contexts where conceptions and application of Western democratic values are deeply problematic. This paper identifies a crucial problem in the global oil supply chain and problematises the application of traditional theoretical approaches in the context of the Iraqi oil and gas industry.

Implications of this study include the refocus of attention onto the local and global environmental impacts of the Iraqi oil and gas industry by foreign direct investments. Such a refocus highlights the reasons and ways that decision makers should accommodate these less salient stakeholders.

The primary contribution is the critique of the lack of environmental accountability of foreign direct investment companies in the Iraqi oil and gas industry. The authors also make theoretical and methodological contributions via the problematisation of the cultural bias inherent in traditional stakeholder theories, and by introducing a quantitative method to evaluate the accountabilities of companies.

This paper examines the link between the failure of public accountability and stakeholder disengagement brought about by a New Public Management (NPM) style “smart solution” introduced to reduce public urination in Dhaka city. It shows how New Public Governance (NPG), Islamic and dialogic approaches can improve decision-making and solutions.

Drawing on the concepts of public accountability, NPM, NPG and dialogic accountability, this study highlights how narrow conceptions of accountability and poor stakeholder engagement impacted the effectiveness of the “smart solution” based on data collected through observation and unstructured in-depth interviews.

Evidence suggests that narrow conceptions of accountability driven by monologic NPM perspectives led to poor stakeholder engagement, which impacted the effectiveness of the “smart solution”. The solution that consists of changing anti-urination signage from Bengali to Arabic script has not solved Dhaka's public urination problem. In many instances, the solution has disenchanted certain stakeholders who view it as an offence against Islam and a confusing de-privileging of the Bengali language which has significant national and cultural value in Bangladesh.

The findings of the study contribute to policymaking discussions on how to effectively engage with stakeholders and extend the literature on accountability within the context of conflicting public versus private demands related to a public nuisance. The study outlines important issues related to stakeholder engagement and introduces a framework that conceptualises how to increase the effectiveness of public policy decisions using NPG, Islamic and dialogic accountability approaches, especially on matters that require significant public/external stakeholder support. It also provides a conceptual integration of these various approaches, including nuanced insights into accountability challenges within “non-Western” contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to bring the concept of “meeting the gaze of the other” into conversation with the organizational accountability literature. This is done by integrating “the gaze” phenomenon with Darwall’s (2006) distinction between de jure and de facto authority. In the context of accountability, only de jure accountability entails meeting the gaze of the stakeholder, in that it requires organizations to grant stakeholders the moral authority to hold them to account. Drawing on this work, this paper aims to critically examine the distinction between de jure and de facto in current organizational accountability theorizing and in practice.

A content analysis of the “letters to the stakeholders” from the Global 100 firms’ accountability/social responsibility reports. Specifically, this paper examines the frequency with which leading companies acknowledge de facto vs de jure accountability, the nature of these statements and toward which stakeholder group they are directed.

Most firms acknowledge de facto accountability, but few grant de jure standing, making it more likely that firms will ignore claimants they prefer not to morally engage. De jure relationships that are acknowledged tend to be restricted to certain stakeholders such as employees, customers and shareholders. In addition, there are differences in the granting of de jure accountability across industry sectors.

This work highlights the importance of acknowledging de jure accountability when engaging with stakeholders, and importantly, it highlights how to integrate consideration for de jure accountability into theorizing on organizational accountability. This analysis suggests that acknowledging de jure accountability vis-a-vis stakeholders can lead to more positive ethical decision-making and stronger relationships. Organizations are encouraged to strengthen their ethical decision-making by granting moral standing to their stakeholders.

Organizational accountability is typically treated as a single construct, yet de jure accountability (vs simply de facto accountability) has been linked to particularly powerful moral effects. This paper examines the critical distinction between de facto and de jure accountability. It makes a compelling case for the importance of acknowledging the gaze of organizational stakeholders.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how disclosure of employee issues by a large UK bank may or may not promote transparency and accountability (as assessed by the completeness of the account) toward the employee stakeholder group, and to shed light on the implications of the organisation‐society relationship for employee accountability.

The intrinsic stakeholder framework forms the basis of the qualitative, longitudinal analysis. It is adopted as the moral ground for the provision of a “complete” account of employee issues. In seeking to shed light on the organisation‐society relationship and its implications for reporting on employee issues the authors build a broader theoretical framework incorporating various social and political theories dealing with legitimacy, political economy, and language and rhetoric. Interpretive and critical approaches are employed. The analysis draws on an extensive review of published materials relating to employment in the UK retail banking industry and NatWest in particular, impacts of workplace changes occurring in the banking sector, and to the economic, social and political environment over the period of the study.

The findings indicate that what and how NatWest reported on employee issues was influenced by considerations other than transparency and employee accountability. The analysis highlights the complexity of the role of disclosures in the organisation‐society relationship and consequently the limitations of the use of a single theoretical framework to interpret disclosures.

The longitudinal analysis indicates how reporting practices are issue and context dependent and points to the limitations of theorising in corporate social reporting based on a single time frame and a limited analysis of the reported issues.

In highlighting a lack of accountability to employees, the findings have implications for the development of reporting standards on issues relevant to employees. Over time, it is hoped that development of an employee inclusive reporting framework, along with exposure of the contradictory role that reports may play in promoting accountability, will contribute toward improved employee management practices.

This study contributes to the corporate social reporting literature by extending the analysis beyond the firm focused stakeholder management perspective to considering disclosures from a moral perspective and the extent to which the complex organisation‐society relationship might work against the promotion of transparency and accountability toward stakeholders (specifically employees). In this way, through an in‐depth longitudinal analysis of disclosures from multiple perspectives, the paper contributes to theorising of the role of social disclosure in the organisation‐society relationship.

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.

The International Integrated Reporting Council claims that integrated reporting (IR) can enhance corporate accountability, yet critical and interpretative studies have contested this outcome. Insufficient empirical research details how preparers experience accountability while constructing IR; to fill this gap, the purpose of this paper is to analyse how the preparers’ mode of cognition influences the patterns of accountability associated with IR.

A functionalist approach to narratives helps elucidate the role that the IR preparers’ narrative mode of cognition plays on accountability towards stakeholders. The empirical analysis particularly benefits from in-depth interviews with the IR preparers of a global insurer that has used IR since 2013.

The preparers’ narrative mode of cognition facilitates dialogue with IR users. It addresses accountability tensions by revealing the company’s value creation process. Preparers’ efforts to establish a meaningful dialogue with a growing variety of stakeholders through broader and plainer messages reveals the potential of IR as a narrative source of a socializing form of accountability. However, financial stakeholders remain the primary addressees of the reports.

This paper focusses on preparers’ views; further research should integrate users’ accountability expectations.

This paper offers new insights for dealing with corporate reporting and accountability in a novel IR setting.

Despite its envisaged benefits, integrated reporting (IR) has yet to achieve its “breakthrough”, especially among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This study aims to discern SME leaders’ attitudes toward IR, and thereby to reveal managerial perceptions of both the potential benefits and the challenges that actually prevent them from embarking on IR.

This explorative study is grounded on semi-structured interviews with 16 managers of large German SMEs, which yet do not apply IR but are potential candidates to implement it in the future. The engagement with non-preparers is expected to paint a more representative picture of actual reasons for IR (dis-)engagement compared to prior studies that address the few firms that have adopted IR and overcome its challenges. Applying Brown and Fraser’s (2006) conceptual landscape, results are presented analogous to a business case-, stakeholder accountability- and critical theory dimension.

Contrary to prior studies, which identified stakeholder accountability endeavors as kindling SME managers’ interest in voluntary reporting initiatives, managers regard IR primarily as a business case, serving to achieve legitimacy, improve corporate image, reach out to professional investors and assist in employee recruitment. However, they refrained from actually adopting the novel reporting medium, which suggests that decision-makers might not believe the business case to be as unproblematic as claimed by the proponents of IR. This was traced back to three major impediments that currently inhibit SMEs from reporting in an integrated way, namely, a perceived lack of interest by the relevant publics, infeasibility of the IR concept to meet user needs and preparation costs. These drawbacks resemble those of earlier voluntary reporting experiments, calling into question the “revolutionary” character of IR. The study critically concludes that the future development of IR depends on addressing these barriers.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first explorative study to deliberately engage with IR non-preparers to draw conclusions on impediments to IR. The identification of relevant incentives and disincentives for IR among SME managers at first hand not only adds to the small extant IR research body and provides valuable insights for research, practice and standard setting but also contributes to the contemporary debate about dominant legitimacy-based explanations in the broader domain of social and environmental accounting and reporting.