How useful is the ‘Transparency in Corporate Reporting’ ranking for development debates?


Transparency International just published ‘Transparency in Corporate Reporting: Assessing the World’s Largest Companies’. Some of us probably remember the discussion around the 'Top NGO' ranking that Dave Algoso started. In some ways, I have similar problems with Transparency’s ranking based on self-reported, publicly available information by multinational companies. Any ranking suggests a hierarchy of ‘good’ companies at the top and not-so-good companies at the bottom. I am not entirely convinced that the aggregated data provide an accurate picture of some of the top performers impact on 'development' and a discussion on their ‘governance’ or 'development impact' should complement quantitative desk research in the future. Transparency is transparent about the limitations of their study, though:
Transparency International has not undertaken to verify whether information disclosed on websites or in reports is complete or correct. In other words, if a company publishes what it refers to as ‘a full list of its fully consolidated material subsidiaries’, this has been accepted at face value and scored accordingly. In addition, it is beyond the scope of this research to judge levels of integrity in company practices. Rather, the report focuses on reporting on transparency and anti-corruption in corporate policies and procedures, which Transparency International believes are crucial elements to ensuring good corporate governance and mitigating the risk of corruption. (p.47)
I just want to highlight four points that I think deserve more attention for future projects and rankings: First, the ranking treats companies as homogenous entities, even though they operate in many different countries, have many subsidiaries and thousands of employees. Corporate statements or aggregated data then become very abstract: ‘We at [insert company] take corruption very seriously’. But this can also be a rather convenient mask to hide behind and perpetuate a corporate discourse of potentially ‘a few bad apples’ that spoil the excellent work of the company, but this is not the time and space to question business models...Second, the report does not add any qualitative data to the debate. There are no case studies or concrete examples of how companies fight corruption or aim at more transparency. The reader relies entirely on public information. I did a quick check of Statoil’s website and quickly stumbled across a rather general statement:
We promote transparency and fight corruption through regular stakeholder dialogue and by respecting national and international laws. We maintain integrity through due diligence procedures, rigorous training in business ethics and anti-corruption measures. We publish our revenues, investments and taxes paid in the countries where we operate.
Third, Transparency also shies away from any ‘political’ statement regarding transparency or the underlining economic, political and jurisdictional factors that often enable perfectly legal practices/loopholes that are detrimental to host countries and/or countries of operation. The report does mention the tax exemptions for mining companies in Mozambique, but that as far as the report goes.
Which brings me to my last point: Transparency did not seem to have teamed up with other critical NGOs to give the ranking a critical review. Critical comments will probably emerge, but it would have been interesting to supplement official corporate discourses with critical comments from NGOs that often know particular industries, companies or problematic partnerships well.

From a ‘development perspective’ I have my doubts about some of the high-ranked companies and it would be interesting to have a broader debate of how rankings such as this can be enhanced by qualitative information and critical input that goes beyond official documents and statements. The report is an interesting starting point, but should be supplemented with field research and interviews in the next round – ideally with support of local and international watchdog NGOs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should I consider a PhD in International Development Studies?

After the Economist’s piece on the (non-)value of doing a PhD and some comments later (e.g. Prometheus doesn't read the Economist (I like the slightly cynical dichotomy between ‘civilians’ and the ‘academic insiders) or the ' 100 Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School ' (they are only halfway through so check it out regularly in the future...) I had an interesting conversation with a prospective PhD student a few days ago. This was not the first time that I had been approached about doing a PhD and I always try to be as frank as possible, even playing the ‘devil’s advocate’ when it comes to the complicated ‘should I or shouldn’t I?’ decision-making process. At the end of our conversation I sat down and tried to summarize a few important and generic points from the point of view of doing a PhD in Development Studies and in the UK . I understand that every case is different and involves a range of motives, options and rationales, but there a few important questions and t
Read more

John Marsh: Why Education Is Not an Economic Panacea-insights for development?

John Marsh just published an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on ' Why Education is not an Economic Panacea '. The article is long and a bit confusing to read. It is based on the author's experience in an education project for poor members of the community: The idea was simple. Faculty from the University of Illinois would offer night classes in their areas of expertise [...] for anyone in the community who was between the ages of 18 and 45 and lived at 150 percent of the poverty level of income or lower. [...] Students who completed the nine-month course would receive six hours of college credit, which they could then transfer to other institutions of higher learning. Everything would be free: tuition, books, even child care at a nearby community center. We named it after a similar program in Chicago, the Odyssey Project. In short, the programme was based on the well-known dicussion that  education pays, and pays more than ever. If so, it
Read more

Dear white middle class British women: Please don't send used bras (or anything, really) to Africa

Image
I am supposed to be on my summer blogging break , but the world of bad development does not seem to take a vacation... The first time I came across the #SWEDOW (Stuff We Don't Want) debate about what to do with unwanted stuff and whether to send it to 'Africa' was in 2010; in fact, I wrote about a shoe donation project on the blog in 2012. Fast forward to July 2019 and a local British Women's Institute Facebook page with about 500 page likes is posting a picture of two innocent-looking parcels that has been shared very widely. The vast majority of the 500+ comments under the post are positive and I am sure that both charities will receive quite a few parcels in the next few days. It seems almost futile and pointing out bad examples of charity and development is not always the best way to communicate, but I anonymize the post as much as possible to avoid simply shaming a particular Women's Institute chapter. 'Rapey men here are the same as rapey men t
Read more

What if MrBeast really is one of the futures of philanthropy-and what does that mean for communicating development?

Image
“ I feel good seeing myself dancing after receiving the money. It makes me appreciate the moment my life changed and reminds me of when I was able to send my son to school .” (Resident of Nakapiripirit, Uganda) “ It might seem strange to carp over a few good deeds filmed for YouTube clicks. After all, even if this Gen Z mode of philanthropy is brash and narcissistic, some lives are being changed for the better. Yet at the same time, Donaldson is exploiting less fortunate people’s problems to shape his image of decency, while reinforcing the aid illusion that has blown so much money and achieved so little over the past half century .” (Ian Birrell, UnHerd ) “ As people have noted, if you watch the video in total isolation, it's maybe not that bad? Mr Beast is good at this. And he's not obviously mocking or manipulating these people. Then again, the TV commentators in the Hunger Games fawned over Katniss. That wasn't the issue .” (Justin Sandefur, Center for Global Developmen
Read more

Handbook on Humanitarianism and Inequality - Chapter 04 - Humanitarianism and the new wars: humanitarianism, security, and securitisation

Image
Every two weeks I am going to feature one of the chapters of our Handbook on Humanitarianism and Inequality which was published in spring 2024. This week we are taking a closer look at Chapter 04 - Humanitarianism and the new wars: humanitarianism, security, and securitisation - contributed by Michael Magcamit and Anastassiya Mahon. From the introduction This chapter demonstrates and probes the idea of ‘humanitarian securitisation’ propelled by humanitarianism amidst the emergence of new wars linked to inequality. Humanitarian securitisation is defined here as the process of securitising the humanitarian crises brought about by the new wars – specifically, internal conflicts and terrorism – to justify the use and implementation of humanitarian intervention in the target states. As the foremost authority on ‘new wars’, Mary Kaldor ( 2016: 147 ), describes these phenomena as the ‘combination of political violence, organised crime and massive violations of human rights’ happening in di
Read more