Comparative analysis of online accountability practices in three sectors: private, public and nonprofit

Abstract

PurposeThis research paper comparatively reviews online accountability practices in public, private and nonprofit organizations, using the hospital industry as a case of analysis.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted a quantitative content analysis of 240 US hospital websites, sampled from the 2016 American Hospital Association (AHA) database. Online Accountability Practices (OAP) instrument was utilized, and it included five dimensions as follows: accessibility, engagement, performance, governance and mission.FindingsThere were statistically significant differences in online accountability practices among the three sectors. Nonprofit organizations were leading the way in their overall online accountability practices. They were more likely to score higher on engagement, performance and mission dimensions. We explain this finding through the prism of multiple accountabilities, guided by the stakeholder theory. Private organizations had the lowest scores on every online accountability dimension, except for accessibility. Consistent with previous literature, private organizations were more likely to make information accessible in the online sphere, but not necessarily meaningful or reliable for evaluating organizational performance. Public organizations had the strongest scores within the governance dimension, placing importance on disclosing organizational leadership and sharing information on their governance structures.Research limitations/implicationsThis project contributes to theory building on accountability in the online environment. It argues that the distinction between two forms of accountability (functional and holistic) is applicable in the online environment, while accessibility and performance dimensions of online accountability closely align with the functional (hierarchical) form of accountability, and a more holistic approach to accountability includes dimensions like engagement, governance and mission. In addition, this project is the first of its kind to apply the stakeholder theory to accountability practices in three sectors of the economy and how the stakeholder theory provides guidance as a basis of understanding the forms of accountability (functional and holistic) that are most likely aligned with organizations in three sectors of the economy.Practical implicationsThe results of this study point to a number of implications for hospital patients, families, hospital administration, healthcare professionals and policymakers. These implications can be broadly divided into two groups as follows: policy implications and management implications. Policy implications pertain to the national dialog and interorganizational deliberations of sector-wide policy to enrich accountability practices; while management implications are concerned with local, intraorganizational discussions among administrators and organizational leaders on formulating specific strategies and tactics.Originality/valueThis research paper contributes to empirical studies on organizational accountability in the online environment. It enriches our understanding of how organizations in different sectors present themselves to the public.

What Constitutes Failure? The Influence of Public Interests in Securing Accountability in Triple Helix Initiatives

“…Previous studies on accountability show that the creation of accountability involves different dimensions of an organisation, as well as different actors or stakeholders, at different levels within and outside an organisation (Munro and Mouritsen, 1996;Sinclair, 1995;Bovens, 2009). We thus note that in the literature, different forms of accountability are discussed (Cooley, 2020). One of these forms is based on existing hierarchical and top-down relationships within an organisation, where the principal holds the agent to account (Cooley, 2020;Romzek and Dubnik, 1987).…”

“…We thus note that in the literature, different forms of accountability are discussed (Cooley, 2020). One of these forms is based on existing hierarchical and top-down relationships within an organisation, where the principal holds the agent to account (Cooley, 2020;Romzek and Dubnik, 1987). In addition to the hierarchical form of accountability, a more holistic approach is also recognized in the literature (Cooley, 2020).…”

“…One of these forms is based on existing hierarchical and top-down relationships within an organisation, where the principal holds the agent to account (Cooley, 2020;Romzek and Dubnik, 1987). In addition to the hierarchical form of accountability, a more holistic approach is also recognized in the literature (Cooley, 2020). A holistic form of accountability not only includes the relationship between a superior and a subordinate, but includes other stakeholders as well (Cordery et al, 2010).…”

“…Expectations that are placed on an organisation differ, depending on the type of organisation and the context in which it operates. Note that accountability is context specific (Roberts and Scapens, 1985;Cooley, 2020). In cross-sector collaborations, there is, therefore, a risk that the question of "Who is accountable Public sector accountability rests on the democratic system (Watson, 2003).…”

“…In the private sector context, accountability is directed towards the market, towards other players on the market, and the legal system regulating the market (Watson, 2003). Traditionally, the measure of private sector accountability has been made in terms of financial performance, and the process of accountability has been closely associated with accounting, auditing, and the provision of information in financial reports (Roberts and Scapens, 1985;Cooley, 2020). More recently, however, we can see a shift towards including also other values in addition to financial values with the development of different types of environmental and sustainability interests (Cooley, 2020;Cooper and Owen, 2007;Morgera, 2020).…”