NGOs, civil society and accountability: making the people accountable to capital

Abstract

Although companies remain subject to calls for more transparency with respect to their various social and environmental impacts, their embracing of corporate social accountability to stakeholders has been lukewarm at best. More recently there have been calls (from companies and other entities) for non-governmental organisations (hereafter NGOs) to be accountable for their actions/impacts. Such calls suggest, by implication at least, that NGOs are not currently accountable. This paper explores these issues and, in particular, examines the implications arising from these calls for NGO accountability. The paper is deliberately exploratory and undertakes a degree of ground-clearing in this relatively underdeveloped area of the accounting literature. The core of the paper has three principal elements. First, the paper examines the nature of the NGO, paying particular attention to the notion of civil society (of which NGOs are a component). Second, the paper explores some of the realpolitik behind calls for NGO accountability, suggesting as a motive, the maintenance of corporate hegemony through the implicit accountability of the demos to capital. Third, the paper examines the contention that whilst it may be self evident that NGOs should be subject to accountability and/or aspire to be accountable organisations simple calls for NGO accountability are misguided. The paper concludes with an exploration of the elements that may comprise an ideal type of NGO accountability and the implications this may have for the accountability of all organisations.

Globalisation, accounting and developing countries

“…NGOs offer Northern funders the means to engage with a wider spectrum of civil interest groups (Mercer, 2002) and they have succeeded in gaining access to policy makers and getting their ideas implemented through activism, campaigning and policy dialogue (Clarke, 1998). (Devine, 2006;Gray et al, 2006;Lehman, 2007). Nevertheless, NGOs are not universally acclaimed.…”

“…Independent information on NGOs' practices and whether beliefs underpinning their rapid growth are justified is lacking (Jordan & Van Tuijl, 2000). Some commentators remain suspicious of claims that NGOs represent civil society and promote democratic development, arguing that their legitimacy owes more to ideology and unproven assumptions of dominant institutions rather than to wider political development debates (Gray et al, 2006;Lehman, 2007;Rahmani, 2012).…”

“…If their accountability fails to reproduce their mission aims they appear hypocritical. The concern is that adopting conventional accounting may deflect their (NGOs') accountability from their fundamental values, missions and obligations to grassroots clients (Gray et al, 2006). Unerman and O'Dwyer (2012) trace four forms of NGO accountability: identity, upward and downward, and holistic.…”

“…For the left, NGOs promise a 'new politics' of social transformation with an alternative radical strategy for capturing state power and overcoming centralisation. Subsequently, NGOs can mean all things to all people (Clarke, 1998;Gray et al, 2006;Mitlin et al, 2007).…”

“…NGOs appeal across the political spectrum (Clarke, 1998). Some have transcended financial, operational and ideological barriers to become viewed by governments and corporations as potent political forces (Gray et al, 2006;Unerman & O'Dwyer, 2006a). For liberals, NGOs help to balance state and business interests and prevent them from abusing their power (Lewis, 2001).…”