As stated above the purpose of this section is to highlight the nuances that characterize the issues of accountability. Hence, it seemed appropriate to give a brief overview of the multiple meanings that the term accountability has taken over times, both in general terms and with specific regard to the business sphere. The purpose and meaning of this expression have been differently declined and variously applied to many different areas, rendering this expression extremely general and suitable to approximately indicate any mechanisms that the institutions can employ to provide adequate responses to the public opinion of reference (Dubnick, 1998; Day and Klein, 1987; Sinclair, 1995).
Essentially, the term accountability has become one of those evocative words to be used in various ways, either to strengthen weak argument, and to call up images of reliability, loyalty and justice, or to dealing with any potential criticism.
Furthermore, it well acknowledged that it is really difficult to find in most of the other European languages a notion equivalent to the Anglo-Saxon one recalled here. Consequently, there is a danger that the concept, now a sort of icon, will become less useful for analytical purposes and that, conversely, it will appear as a cauldron made of good intentions, loosely defined concepts and images of good governance (Dubnick, 2002; Bovens, 2007).
Firstly, referring to a conception that found, at least in the past, a wide acclaim both by doctrine and in practice, accountability may be understood as the process by which a subject is called to “be accountable” for his actions and choices to a designated authority (Finer, 1941; Thynne and Goldring, 1987; Caiden, 1988). From this perspective the accountability is external, as it compels reporting processes directed to individuals or organizations external to the individuals or institutions that must be held accountable for their activities. Moreover, it implies a social interaction and the existence of a right of authority by a first subject towards a second, because who requires reporting is looking for answers, and who is responsible provides these information accepting feedbacks and possible sanctions.
An useful exemplification of what described above is the relationship between citizens and elected politicians, in particular with regard to the mechanisms by which voters can ideally empower their representatives with respect to the stated policies, decisions actually taken and actions really undertaken. It is worth highlighting that this conception involves the identification of the concept of accountability with that of responsibility, for which, however, is similarly possible to find many different definitions. In fact, with reference to the U.S. context, the debate around external accountability was originally characterized by the full assimilation of this expression with that of responsibility. The meaning of the first then totally coincides with the responsibility related to the needs of external control and, only in a second instance, the responsibility of the individuals in terms of conscience and moral values (Finer, 1941; Friedrich, 1940; Harmon and Mayer 1986; Romzek and Dubnick, 1987; Dubnick 1998; March and Olsen 1995).
With regard to the nearest UK context, however, the coincidence between accountability and responsibility is only partial. Here, the traditional starting point for discussing the implications of accountability is specifically attributable to the role of Ministers in answering to Parliament for their actions. This essentially meant that the concept in question were declined in terms of “ministerial responsibility”, in order to explore the problems deriving from the identification of such persons as the solely responsible for the whole conduct undertaken by their departments (Mulgan, 2000). In this respect, accountability once again assumes the formulation of responsibility due to the size of the external control, already mentioned with reference to the U.S. context. However, it is recognized that such a notion permits to ascribe only some aspects of the responsibility to the accountability. Consequently the latter cannot completely cover the entire range of activities and processes, which require a certain degree of responsibility.
Indeed, despite recognizing the validity of the previous vision, there is now a tendency towards different approaches that have led to an expansion of the boundaries of the accountability and a corresponding contraction of those of responsibility (Marshall and Moodie, 1959). In this regard, it is crucial to emphasize that the term accountability has often been extended to situations and contexts that have prompted a revision of the concept itself (Mulgan, 2000).
A first extension of accountability led to understand it as the sense of individual responsibility and concern for the public interest, that one can expect from civil servants. In this way it adds an internal sense that goes beyond the external focus discussed so far, thus recognizing the complementarities between this vision and the spheres of professional and personal ethics. This sense of internal accountability, although taking different shapes with different degrees of emphasis on the professional, personal, or subjective dimensions, is based on the idea that a substantially greater confidence in independent judgment and personal morality of public officials, may help to reduce the extent of demand for external accountability steadily increasing.
Secondly, accountability has sometimes been fully assimilated to the control systems, through which democracies seek to verify the actions of governments. In this sense accountability rather than be understood as a qualifying element of the control systems is identified with the control itself. In this case, to ensure accountability there is the need of an institutional architecture capable of guaranteeing that those involved in the public sphere are adequately controlled.
Moreover, accountability can be understood as responsiveness, focusing on the extent to which governments are able to pursue their desires or the needs of their citizens, regardless of whether they are induced to do so through exchange processes or authoritative supervision. The difference with the previous meaning is that in the first case the control assumes a coercive nature which is, however, absent in the concept in question here.
Finally, the word accountability has been applied to describe the public debate between citizens and governments of participatory democracies, even where it is not possible to identify any authority or employer-employee relationship between the parties involved in the relationship of responsibility. In this respect it is useful to specify that, although the dimensions of control and sanction do not fall within the remit of accountability, their utility is recognized, as these are regarded as elements helpful to ensure the conservation of the participatory dialogue between the parties.
The meanings briefly described so far are largely shared by both doctrine and practice. However, with reference to the latter there are also partially different positions that might be interesting to recall. In particular, we refer to the two recent definitional contributions elaborated by the European Commission and the Accountability Principles Standard.
The European Union, focusing primarily on the socio-political implications of the relationship between institutions and citizens, has favored a conception halfway between responsibility and responsiveness. At Community level, the European Commission adopted the accountability as one of its five fundamental principles, noting that there is the need for more extensive transparency with regard to the roles of the legislative and executive processes. The Commission has also explicitly stated the centrality of the principle of accountability, pointing out, that each EU institution should take responsibility for what it does in Europe and supply any adequate explanations and justifications, claiming that there is also a need for greater clarity and responsibility on the part of each one of the Member States and all those involved in the development and implementation of EU policy at whatever level (European Governance: A White Paper, COM (2001) 428, 25 luglio 2001).
Still, an even wider concept was proposed in the Accountability Principles Standard AA1000 (2008), which caters to the corporate world and that is essentially linked to the issues of sustainability, in which accountability involves the acquisition of knowledge, the assumption of responsibility, and transparency about the impact of its policies, decisions, actions, products and related performance. The principle invoked states that the organization willing to be accountable should involve its of stakeholders in identifying, understanding and responding to questions and expectations that relate to sustainability, and have to provide answers, explanations and appropriate financial reports to the stakeholders themselves, of its decisions, actions and performance.
Therefore, referring to the principle AA1000 principle, accountability includes all the activities related to the way through which an organization governs its processes, plans its strategy and manages its performance. From this perspective, the organization that aspires to be accountable will primarily act to define a strategy that takes into account the expectations of stakeholders and that can offer answers, will have to establish objectives and standards for evaluating their performance, and communicate credible information for the interested subjects.
Starting from the general framework considered so far, it is now worth considering the stream of researches that has addressed the accountability issues with a special focus on the business sphere. In this regard, it is useful to highlight that the principle can be briefly expressed as the adoption of a clear, transparent, and linear behavior for the use of resources, so that one can easily check how these have been employed and if the conducts adopted were appropriate (Roberts and Scapens, 1985; Parker and Gould, 1999). This definition allows distinguishing between two key players: one who has to be accountable, and one who exerts the right to know about the facts, their effects, and to understand how the activity has been carried out. Thus, a definition of accountability more purely related to the business sphere encompasses the functions of accounting and reporting, designed to give explanations or justifications of the managerial actions (Patton, 1992; Hood, 1991).
In this context, the clarification of objectives, measures and responsibilities takes on a crucial role in the achievement of the purposes of accountability. Further essential elements to consider in view of the fulfillment of the accountability needs can be ascribed to the effects related to the strategic dimensions, the moral and ethical questions, and the transparency, as well as to the corporate culture. This highlights the importance of building a strong the connection between the accountability needs and either the mission or the corporate governance, since a stable coordination of al these elements represents a fundamental factor.
The multiple meanings and different practical implications just listed above, while configuring a complex and articulated picture, can be helpful in identifying a possible common factor that allows to define the relationship of accountability, at least in a very general manner, as the obligation to rendering the account towards some form of authority which has delegated the performance of its duties and powers, and therefore, as a form of control leading those who have been delegated powers to be accountable for their conduct. In this regard, it is interesting to note that, despite the various definitions are distinguished by different shades, there is still the possibility, as mentioned earlier, to identify some common traits. In fact, it is generally accepted that accountability involves, in any case, the following key elements:
It is worth remembering that the above-discussed complexity confirms that despite the advancements to date in defining what accountability means and how this is practically achieved, several questions are still partially unsolved.
The above-discussed complexity confirms that despite the advancements to date in defining what accountability means and how this is practically achieved, several questions are still partially unsolved.
Key questions are
To whom are managers accountable?
For what are they accountable?
How do you assess accountability?