GRI Conference - 27 May - Agyemang - NGO Accountability
-
Upload
global-reporting-initiative -
Category
Business
-
view
823 -
download
0
description
Transcript of GRI Conference - 27 May - Agyemang - NGO Accountability
Dr Gloria AgyemangRoyal Holloway School of Management
Presentation for Academic Conference Session – NGO Accountability
at The GRI Amsterdam Global Conference on Sustainability &Transparency
Thursday 27 May 2010
NGO Accountability and Knowledge Sharing for Sustainability in Less Developed Economies
• Research in 2007 /8 on effectiveness of NGO accountability mechanisms in range of NGOs in Ghana
• Engagement with NGOs fieldworkers
• Perceptions about the effectiveness of
– Upward accountability reports to donors and funders
– Participatory downward accountability methods used with beneficiaries
Reporting upwards and knowledge sharing
• What do the reports contain?
• Do upward accountability mechanisms offer opportunity for sharing knowledge?
• Sharing knowledge is important – For organisational learning– For sustainable development
What is knowledge sharing?
• Guiding someone through your thinking
• Using your insights to help another person to see the situation better
• Explicit knowledge and Tacit knowledge
• Internal and external factors impact on the sharing of knowledge
Upward accountability mechanisms
Table 3 - Existing NGO upward accounting and accountability mechanisms identified in this study
Accountability mechanism
Financial information
Narrative Quantitative performance indicators
Written or oral
Frequency Stakeholder focus
Disclosure statements and reports Annual reports Yes Yes Yes Written Once Range of
stakeholders
Interim reports Yes Yes Yes Written Monthly, quarterly, and half yearly
Donors
Performance assessment and evaluations
Assessment Reports
Yes Yes Yes Written Continuous Donors and internal stakeholders
Evaluation / Final Project Report
Yes Yes Yes Written At end of project
Donors
Do upward accountability mechanism enable knowledge to be shared?
• Reports focus on– Project objectives– Project funds– Project activities
• Fieldworkers synthesis of knowledge– “standardised common understanding”– Formality of reports enabled knowledge sharing– Reporting templates
• Operational knowledge was shared– Explicit knowledge
Sharing knowledge about performance
• Accountability mechanisms for performance evaluation not enabling– Context is important– Insufficient capture about context– Sense making and interpretation important to
understanding– Tacit knowledge
Examples of non-knowledge sharing
– Where is appropriate location of projects– Appropriateness of technology– Issues about education and training of beneficiaries – Timing of projects– Why projects fail
• Situational knowledge– Drivers of sustainable development– Intangible success factors
Why is situational knowledge not shared by NGO fieldworkers?
• Fear of loss of funding• Importance of fieldworker work being recognised
as valuable• Perceptions about lack of donor interest
– Qualitative information– Not sure what follow on actions ensued– Quantitative information preferred
• Lack of skills on part of fieldworkers– Might need training
The nature of the accountability mechanisms
• Standard templates lead to
– Compliance ?
• And not to
– Discursive critique?
Concluding remarks
• To facilitate knowledge sharing that enables sustainable development it is necessary to reconsider the “how” question with respect to accountability.– How will information be used?– How is information gathered?– How will feedback be provided to fieldworkers
to show that their work has had an impact?– How will fieldworkers be supported in their
work?