Accounterability and the problematics of accountability

Abstract

This paper seeks to contribute to the emerging stream of literature on the problematics of accountability (Messner, 2009;Roberts, 2009;McKernan, 2011) and the possibilities of accounterability (Kamuf, 2007) by questioning whether and how accounterability can appear as a response to the problematics of accountability"s operationalisation. To answer this question, this research considers the problematics of accountability found in the limits inherent to the giving of an account (Messner, 2009), in the ambiguous relationship between accountability and transparency (Roberts, 2009), and in the as yet unresolved contradictions of accountability (McKernan, 2011). Accounterability is seen as a practice of resisting accountability demands whilst giving an account. Alternative practices arising out of such resistance are inductively identified through an ethnographic study of the day-to-day practices of the Salvation Army used as an extreme case. This case shows how an ideal form of accountability raises more questions than it answers in practice, thereby leading individuals to develop their own counter-abilities. Because accountability to a Higher-Stakeholder appears to be an unreachable ideal, identifying to whom one should give an account of oneself becomes problematic. A working response to the problematics of accountability, accounterability emerges as the mechanism whereby the limits and contradictions of account giving are transformed into the conditions of its realisation: unreachable accountability is transformed into tangible day-to-day practices that may differ slightly from expected ideal conduct. It transpires from this study that the main strength of accountability lies in its ability to absorb and to override its limits and contradictions, transforming them into conditions of its possibility. As such, accounterability emerges as the ultimate manifestation of this strength.

Stewardship theory: is board accountability necessary?

“…Furthermore, directors are moral beings and as a consequence they should be accountable (Joannides 2012), for the actions of everyone will have consequences for others (Cooper and Johnston 2012). If directors are accountable then they are affirmed as moral beings.…”

The complexity of the antecedents influencing accountability in organisations

“…Mansouri & Rowney (2014, p. 45) state that ensuring accountability is of "strategic importance" and Romzek (2015, p. 27) stresses that accountability is "fundamental to how people and organisations operate". What is evident is that there appears to be a need for greater accountability with increasing expectations being placed on it and further mechanisms required to support it (Patterson, 2013;Mero, Guidice & Werner, 2012;Hall & Ferris, 2011;Joannides, 2012;Mansouri & Rowney, 2014;Busuioc & Lodge, 2016;Brennan & Kirwan (2016). The idea of accountability has developed from a restrictive form of financial and management accounting, to a more inclusive concept that takes on multiple forms and is driven by a variety of factors (Mero et al, 2012;Messner, 2009;Sinclair, 1995;Roberts, 1991).…”

Transparency fallacy

“…Thereby, without advocating supply chain secrecy (Mol, 2015), we add to the few supply chain studies that cast doubts on whether transparency within supply chains is always achievable and whether the transparency discourse is always desirable or beneficial to the consumers and society at large (Egels-ZandŽn et al, 2015;Mol, 2015). Simultaneously, we extend the body of research that explores the limits of accountability and transparency (e.g., Roberts, 2009;Messner, 2009;Joannides, 2012;McKernan, 2012) into the specific context of international supply chains, and we provide an argument for the localisation of production and consumption practices.…”

“…Acknowledging the limits of accountability can indeed be liberating and beneficial for ethical business conduct since Ômaking people accountable may easily turn into a blame game that can effectively impede us from assuming our collective responsibility for problems that affect us allÕ (Messner, 2009, p. 936), such as various kinds of sustainability-related problems. In the context of international supply chains this would also mean releasing stakeholders from their watchdog function to some extent (Heikkurinen and Ketola, 2012), so that companies can once again internalise moral responsibility for their actions (Joannides, 2012) towards social and ecological systems. In this way, communication and interaction with stakeholders would no longer be any threat to companies, but would instead help develop the corporate capability for reflection, which stimulates organisational learning (Roberts, 2009).…”

“…Thus, the theoretical contribution of the paper is two-fold. Firstly, the paper adds to the accounting and accountability literature that emphasizes the limits of transparency and accountability (e.g., Roberts, 2009;Messner, 2009;Joannides, 2012;McKernan, 2012). Secondly, the paper connects to the sustainable supply chain management literature that far too simplistically sees transparency as the magic bullet, and often advocates external stakeholder pressure as an instrument for pushing supply chains towards greater accountability and sustainability of business practice (New, 2010).…”