Summary
Materials

Date: February 12, 2009
Time: 5:00 - 7:00 PM
Venue: AIM-WB Global Distance Learning Center, Asian Institute of Management

Many TNC’s IGO’s and INGO’s show low accountability amidst crises

Launch of the 2008 Global Accountability Report

Many of the world’s most powerful corporate (TNC), intergovernmental (IGO) and non-governmental (INGO) organizations are not answerable to the people they affect according to ‘The Global Accountability Report’, released today by one of the world’s leading global governance think tanks, the One World Trust (OWT). This comes at a time when crises are present all over the world and those in power are called to act and be accountable for the needed solutions. The Report was launched in the Philippines together with the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Center and the Konrad Adenaer Foundation on the 12th of February, 2009, Thursday, at the AIM –World Bank Global Distance Learning Center.

The International Olympics Committee (IOC) received the lowest overall score in the report with 32%, closely followed by The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (33%), which promotes the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and NATO (36%), which accounts for over 70% of the world's defense spending. All 30 organizations assessed in the report, which includes investment banking giant Goldman Sachs, failed to score over 80% when assessed against the OWT’s accountability indicators.

The top performers per sector are the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) for IGOs, the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) for INGOs and BHP Billiton among the corporations. Now in its third year, the report confirms that each sector stands out in one dimension – whilst IGOs show strong transparency and evaluation systems, INGOs show the best capabilities for encouraging participation and TNCs tend to show superior complaint and response mechanisms.

Michael Hammer, Executive Director of One World Trust, believes “a step change is required if we are to avoid more global crises that can affect millions of people in the not so distant future. Today it is finance; tomorrow the accountability problem may hit people failing to respond to climate change or health care issues”. For Michael Hammer the report indicates that while the “majority of top performing organizations have implemented the easier accountability-related reforms, they struggle to implement the more challenging reforms relating to transparency and dealing with complaints from external stakeholders”.

He adds that “the current lack of accountability is a serious global issue, with serious global consequences. The credit crunch has demonstrated the devastating impact this can have on the world and it is imperative that improvements are made now before more issues arise.”

Francis Estrada, President of the Asian Institute of Management, adds: “The unprecedented destruction of global asset values bears eloquent testimony to the destructive brew that greed, misaligned interests and financial opacity have created. The transition to a world where maximizing stakeholder value is the objective, and inclusive and sustainable growth the new mantra, is as challenging as it is exciting. Development and competitiveness have assumed new meaning. The "winners" are those who succeed in bridging differences among and between stakeholders - guided by that most uncommon of considerations, the “common good”.

Highlights of the open forum:

1. Comment: The current financial crisis reflects a lack of accountability of several actors. The global accountability framework is relevant to understanding the financial crisis and in searching for solutions.
2. Comment: While the actual measurements used in the global accountability report are designed to apply to larger IGOs, INGOs, TNCs; the global accountability framework applies to large and small organizations alike
3. Suggestion: Types of imminent crises can determine selection process for GAR participants. (ex. financial crisis should urge OWT to involve more financial institutions in the study)
4. Comment: GAR indicators, as observed by Dr. Macaranas, are both process-oriented (transparency, participation) and evaluation-focused (evaluation, feedback and complaints)
• Response: One World Trust would eventually want to put in implementation-oriented indicators
5. Suggestion: The challenge for One World Trust is to involve more Asian organizations.

Back to Top