The One World Trust’s Global Accountability Framework was published in 2005 after five years of multi-stakeholder dialogue on what accountability means at the global level and identifying common accountability principles for global actors. It provides the theoretical framework underpinning the Global Accountability Report methodology. 

This analysis and dialogue resulted in the following definition:    

Accountability is the processes through which an organisation makes a commitment to respond to and balance the needs of        stakeholders in its decision making processes and activities, and delivers against this commitment.

This definition emphasises the need for organisations to balance and prioritise their responses to different stakeholder groups according to organisational missions and criteria such as influence, responsibility and representation.

The Framework identifies four dimensions of accountability that enable organisations to manage and balance the needs and interests of internal and external stakeholders: transparency, participation, evaluation and complaints and response.

Data collection and engagement
Research was conducted between May and September 2008 and indicators were scored based on review of publicly available data, internal documents and interviews with assessed organisations, experts and stakeholders.  After internal review, preliminary findings were sent to the assessed organisations and external experts for feedback.  In some cases the comments received at this stage resulted in changes to the scores.  The research process is highlighted in the figure above. Assessed organisations were contacted early in the process, invited to engage in the assessment and asked to participate in interviews and provide internal documents.  Of the 30 thirty assessed organisations, 24 or 80agreed to participate, although the level of engagement varied between organisations. This represents an increase from the 67 percent of assessed organisations that participated in the research in 2006.

The organisations that chose not to engage in the research have been scored using publicly available information, interviews with independent experts and stakeholders of the organisations.  In these instances, some scores may not necessarily reflect the complete state of their accountability capabilities. These organisations may have structures and policies in place to support accountability but have not publicly disclosed this information.  This is in itself problematic, given the fundamental importance of transparency in enabling affected communities and the wider public to know how to hold an organisation to account.  In some cases, the lack of transparency of organisations, including because of non-engagement, can lead to lower scores in indicators. The resulting score variations may affect average sector scores. We therefore recommend caution in the interpretation of average figures. 

Organisations that did not formally or in practical terms engage with the process are identified in all the graphs and tables with an asterisk next to their name.  As with engaging organisations, these organisations were provided with an opportunity to provide comments and feedback on the preliminary findings.

Scoring
Each of the four dimensions contributes 25 percent to the total score.  Within each dimension, policies and systems contribute equally, at 50 percent each, to the dimension score.

The participation and complaints and response dimensions are divided into two sub-areas: external stakeholder engagement and equitable member control for participation, and internal and external mechanisms for complaints and response. The evaluation dimension is sub-divided into environmental and social impact assessments for corporations only. In all three cases, the scoring is evenly divided between the two sub-divisions.

Indicator scoring is either scaled for quality indicators or binary (present or absent) for indicators.  Indicators that measure the existence of policies or other organisational documents guiding performance are scaled on the basis of the type of document(s) and the level of enforcement implied. Binary scoring was employed for assessing the presence of good practice principles that underline commitments and systems.  Some indicators are double weighted for their strong contribution to organisational accountability.   While any set rules for scoring may appear limiting in some cases, we are flexible in how scores are assigned to accommodate the different sectors and the individuality of organisations.

Changes to the indicators in 2008
Due to stakeholder feedback, we have made several minor adjustments to our indicators for 2008. First, indicator 1.2e in the transparency dimension, which addresses the importance of having an appeals mechanism for information request that have been denied, has been modified to include a requirement that these appeals mechanisms be independent of the normal line management of an organisation. Secondly, in the complaints and response section, we have re-examined how we score indicators 4.2a and 4.2d for both internal and external complaints. In indicator 4.2a, which addresses commitments to maintain confidentiality of complaints, we have required organisations to commit to obtaining the permission of the complainant before breaking confidentiality. In indicator 4.2d, which addresses the commitments to independence of those assessing, investigating and responding to complaints, we have required organisations to commit to the inclusion of staff outside of normal line management in at least one stage of the process. Normally, for indicators 1.2e and 4.2d we have specifically sought channels that, when needed, allow complaints to go directly to the Board of Directors. Because of these changes, scores from 2008 are not strictly comparable to those from previous years.

Click here for a complete list of indicators used in the 2008 Global Accountability Report.