Chisholm (1995: 411) argues that “fuller disclosure of information to the public” is the most effective avenue for improving accountability. For this reason, some authors (Edward and Hulme, 1996) viewed accountability as the avenue through which organizations and individuals report to a legitimate authority and are held accountable for their actions. Most research on corporate social responsibility and sustainability accounting use disclosure and reporting to represent whether or not organizations are accountable. Reporting can be financial and/or performance. In this regard, this study developed two statements to assess the NCDMB’s disclosure and reporting practices to the stakeholders.
10.5.8.1 Perceptions of whether the NCDMB reports its …show more content…
Any interpretation of performance has to be referenced to accountability (Harrison et al., 2012). This is possibly why Paul (1991) defines accountability as holding organizations or individuals responsible for their objectively measured performance. For the NCDMB, a dedicated department or unit was created to be responsible for the conduct of this function (see chapter four). The following statement was developed to represent this dimension of accountability.
10.5.9.1 Perceptions of whether the NCDMB periodically (monthly, quarterly, yearly) conducts performance monitoring and evaluation exercises to assess the extent of compliance with local content requirements by oil and gas companies
Average responses to this statement were neutral (median = 3.00) (table 7.5). This was not surprising as the activities involved in performance monitoring and evaluation were similar to that of auditing (see 10.5.7 above). This result may have serious repercussions to the board because of the literature suggestions that the monitoring and evaluation of local content performances of oil and gas firms were the major and most important task of local content agencies around the world (Appendix 2). Next to the performance evaluation is the responsiveness …show more content…
This showed that the majority of the stakeholders believed that the board served the interest of local oil firms. To reconcile the results with that of the statement in section 10.5.10.1 above, we may conclude that it may likely be that some of the stakeholders were legitimising the issue of fronting where foreign oil firms disguise as, or use local firms as a cover up to win contracts. This may in many cases favour some local companies who acquire benefits from those practices. This position was informed by the interview results which confirmed the existence of fronting in the Nigerian oil sector, and called for rigorous verification and ascertainment of actual beneficial ownerships of firms (e.g., respondents IPL03, IPC01). The next indicator tested whether the NCDMB responds to calls to render account as a fulfilment of
10.5.8.1 Perceptions of whether the NCDMB reports its …show more content…
Any interpretation of performance has to be referenced to accountability (Harrison et al., 2012). This is possibly why Paul (1991) defines accountability as holding organizations or individuals responsible for their objectively measured performance. For the NCDMB, a dedicated department or unit was created to be responsible for the conduct of this function (see chapter four). The following statement was developed to represent this dimension of accountability.
10.5.9.1 Perceptions of whether the NCDMB periodically (monthly, quarterly, yearly) conducts performance monitoring and evaluation exercises to assess the extent of compliance with local content requirements by oil and gas companies
Average responses to this statement were neutral (median = 3.00) (table 7.5). This was not surprising as the activities involved in performance monitoring and evaluation were similar to that of auditing (see 10.5.7 above). This result may have serious repercussions to the board because of the literature suggestions that the monitoring and evaluation of local content performances of oil and gas firms were the major and most important task of local content agencies around the world (Appendix 2). Next to the performance evaluation is the responsiveness …show more content…
This showed that the majority of the stakeholders believed that the board served the interest of local oil firms. To reconcile the results with that of the statement in section 10.5.10.1 above, we may conclude that it may likely be that some of the stakeholders were legitimising the issue of fronting where foreign oil firms disguise as, or use local firms as a cover up to win contracts. This may in many cases favour some local companies who acquire benefits from those practices. This position was informed by the interview results which confirmed the existence of fronting in the Nigerian oil sector, and called for rigorous verification and ascertainment of actual beneficial ownerships of firms (e.g., respondents IPL03, IPC01). The next indicator tested whether the NCDMB responds to calls to render account as a fulfilment of