Examining Accountability Dimensions in State‐owned Enterprises

Abstract

This paper examines accountability in the context of New Zealand's state‐owned enterprises (SOEs), and considers an accountability framework which extends beyond traditional (upward and outward) dimensions. While traditional accountability dimensions are clearly detailed in the legislation, less clear are the dilemmas and contradictions faced by SOEs, balancing multiple interests, and at times, conflicting objectives. These issues are explored through interviews conducted in two phases over a two year period with senior executives from 12 of the then 17 SOEs operating in New Zealand. Findings reveal a number of dimensions of accountability that extend beyond current conceptualisations of accountability in the public sector, often including multiple directions of accountability. Implications suggest the need for a more explicit framework of accountability relevant to the SOE context, which may serve useful in identifying potential pathways to conflict mitigation.

The Imperfect Match of Public Accountability of State-Owned Enterprises and Private-Sector-Type Financial Reporting: The Case of Italy

“…It preferred measurement models and synthetic indicators (income first and foremost) that did not enable explicit representation of the degree to which public entities had achieved goals for which they have specific mandates (Parker and Gould 1999). There were also remarks in terms of reduction in disclosure of non-accounting and non-financial information (Parker and Gould 1999), subordination of the concept of accountability to that of accounting (Luke 2010), and excessive priority to efficiency and "value for money" than to efficacy and probity (Hopwood 1994). An enterprise reporting a generous financial income is not necessarily achieving its goals and meeting the needs of its stakeholders if it was not created for that purpose, as this is the case for most SOEs.…”

Relationships between capabilities-strategy alignment and accountability-emphasis in government business enterprises

“…The executives who were interviewed mentioned that ministers expect a "no surprises policy" (Luke, 2008, p. 17). Third, public accountability is found by Luke, 2008) to be a significant factor for SOEs according to the interviewed executives. It is found to involve a customer-focus and an extending SOEs' responsibilities beyond their mandated areas to social and environmental responsibilities.…”

“…Dimensions concerned with the political chain of accountability and fiduciary compliance requirements are excluded from the ACCTY measure because they will different considerably between GBEs of different operating forms and in different jurisdictions. The scale items chosen for this ACCTY variable are drawn from prior empirical studies on dimensions of accountability (Stewart, 1984;Taylor and Rosair, 2000;Sinclair, 1995;Luke, 2008) authoritative guidelines and normative discussion on accountability of GBEs (Bottomley, 2001; Department of Treasury and Finance, 1998;Funnell and Cooper, 1998;Thynne, 1998), and a textual analysis of sample of GBEs' annual reports. In addition, the ACCTY scales are developed base on two interviews with senior executives of GBEs.…”

“…One exception is Luke (2008) who studied accountability in New Zealand state owned enterprises (SOE) through a combination of in-depth interviews with executives and secondary data. Her findings are somewhat consistent to Sinclair (1995) as she found that accountability of GBEs can be seen as "similar to a web, encompassing numerous and complex dimensions" (Luke, 2008, p. 24).…”

“…It is found to involve a customer-focus and an extending SOEs' responsibilities beyond their mandated areas to social and environmental responsibilities. Lastly, managerial accountability is seen by the SOE executives in Luke's (2008) study to be a central performance responsibility because of its emphasis on commercial or financial success of the SOE. As cited in Luke (2008), one executive stated that:…”