Corporate Accountability International Rates Low on Accountability Reporting

Corporate Accountability International (CAI) is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that “demand(s) direct corporate accountability to public interests.” Indeed, in their “Standards of Political Conduct for Corporations,” CAI says that corporations must “be more transparent about their activities” and calls for “independent oversight” of corporations. Some of the companies CAI has targeted in the past are Mc Donald’s, Burger King, KFC, and Nestlé.

Those mission statements certainly make sense given the name of this organization, don’t they? And this $3.7 million dollar per year operation goes to great lengths to support that mission. I’ve seen extensive documentation of their campaign efforts given in their annual reports and newsletters and you can see it there too. But what I haven’t seen in those reports and newsletters, nor will you, is information detailing the accountability or transparency of Corporate Accountability International itself. Ironic isnt’ it?

It’s ironic that an organization calling for the accountability of other organizations makes little to no effort to provide information about their own accountability to act in the public interest. I’m speaking of the public interest which they declare to protect as shown on page 32 (PDF version) of Corporate Accoutability International’s booklet “30 Years of Setting the New Standard.” On that page is the quote “we must continue to adjust and act – always representing the needs of people worldwide.”

Such a claim is, of course, not unusual for an NGO. It’s pretty much boilerplate. We expect NGOs to make those types of claims, but few, if any, actually back up their claims with information on their own accountability. I have written much on the subject of the accountability and transparency of NGOs. No NGOs that I have researched meet a high standard in this area and Corporate Accountability International is no exception. Let me explain my findings, or I should say lack of findings, for you, starting at the macro-level.

What I mean here by the macro-level is the employment of a larger organization through which NGOs can report their accountability and transparency. Sort of a “monitor of monitors,” if you will. Such an organization exists. I’ve written about it before on this blog. It’s called the Global Reporting Initiative. As I’ve written before:

“The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) ‘is a network-based organization that produces a comprehensive sustainability reporting framework that is widely used globally. . . . GRI’s core goals include the mainstreaming of disclosure on environmental, social and governance performance.’ Via the GRI, many corporations, labor, academic, and professional organizations report to the world their positions on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. To improve this process for NGO (non-governmental organization) reporting, during May 2010 the GRI created the NGO Sector Supplement, which was a framework modeled on other GRI report structures, affording NGOs a way to better report their accountability and sustainability positions to their stakeholders.”

The GRI’s NGO Sector Supplement is a good, not great but good, mechanism through which NGOs can become more transparent, affording the public information on the NGO’s accountability. Some NGOs take advantage of this opportunity. A few do, but not many. CAI is not among the few. You may see a list of NGOs reporting through the GRI by going to this link. You’ll notice that CAI is not listed. (Be sure to check the “More Member Organizations” link, as well.) Let’s leave the macro-level now and go to the micro-level where CAI continues to disappoint.

The micro-level refers to what CAI publishes on its own accountability, transparency, or governance. I’ve looked at their annual reports for 2009 and 2010 which they provide on their Web site. On that same page, I’ve also viewed the newsletters they sent in the years 2008, 2009, and 2010. (Why didn’t they provide some 2011 newsletters as well?)

As I’ve said before with some other NGOs, to CAI’s credit in the annual reports they provide the names of donors, broken out by donation level. This is commendable, but outside of that and the obligatory summary financial information and a listing of their board of directors members, there is nothing else in those annual reports, or the newsletters for that matter, that can be considered to be information that would enlighten the general public as to CAI’s accountability. Such information would answer the questions:

• How does CAI govern itself?
• What are its bylaws?
• How is the CAI Board of Directors elected?
• What is the influence level of various members of the board?
• What is the influence of donors upon the agenda of CAI?
• To whom is CAI ultimately accountable? Only the board? The members? How do they define “members”?
• Or is CAI accountable to the public? If so, how?

Why are answers to these questions important?

Answers to these questions are important because they will allow the public to determine just how much “in the public interest” CAI actually works.

If CAI claims that they work in the public interest, then they need to not only “talk the talk” but also “walk the walk” as well to support their claim, just as any company must. One way they can easily do this is by presenting their bylaws and other governance documentation showing how their corporation actually operates.