Estilos de rendición de cuentas en empresas públicas: el bueno, el malo, el feo ... y la guapa
Accountability Styles in State-Owned enterprises: The good, the bad, the ugly ... and the pretty
Agencias de apoyo
- This study has been carried out with the financial support of the Spanish National Research and Development Plan (project ECO2015-66240-P MINECO/FEDER) and the Regional Government of Aragón/FEDER (project S56-17R).
Resumen
Garantizar el acceso del público a la información que generan las Empresas Públicas (EP) es necesario y las páginas web corporativas deberían utilizarse para lograr este objetivo. Sin embargo, no existen estudios académicos que analicen la rendición de cuentas por parte de las EP. Este trabajo pretende identificar diferentes estilos de rendición de cuentas en las EP, llevando a cabo una evaluación de los niveles de divulgación a través de Internet de las EP españolas. Para lograr este objetivo, se ha llevado a cabo un análisis de 91 EP de titularidad estatal. En cada página web se ha analizado la presencia de 60 atributos clasificados en 4 dimensiones: 1) información financiera, 2) información sobre objetivos y estrategias, 3) gobierno corporativo y 4) facilidad de uso. Para identificar los diferentes estilos de rendición de cuentas se han utilizado análisis cluster, escalas multidimensionales y Pro-Fit. Los resultados muestran que las prácticas de divulgación de información a través de Internet de las EP españolas todavía se encuentran muy poco desarrolladas. La rendición de cuentas de tipo financiero ocupa el principal foco de atención de las EP y en su mayoría no divulgan información sobre sus políticas, objetivos y estructuras de gobierno corporativo. La mayor parte están ancladas en un estilo limitado de rendición de cuentas que solo considera a los accionistas como principales agentes interesados y lejos de cumplir la recomendación de la OCDE de ser tan transparentes como las empresas cotizadas. Además, los resultados muestran que el cumplimiento de la legislación en materia de transparencia es escaso. Sobre la base de estos resultados, se sugieren algunas recomendaciones para mejorar las prácticas de divulgación de información a través de Internet en las EP.
Descargas
Citas
Alexius, S., & Cisneros, J. (2015). Mission(s) impossible? Configuring values in the governance of state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(4/5), 286-306.
Allini, A., Manes Rossi, F., & Hussainey, K. (2016). The board's role in risk disclosure: an exploratory study of Italian listed state-owned enterprises. Public Money & Management, 36(2), 113-120.
Araujo, J. F. F. E., & Tejedo-Romero, F. (2018). Does Gender Equality Affect Municipal Transparency: The Case of Spain. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(1), 69-99.
Bachiller, P. (2009). Effect of ownership on efficiency in Spanish companies. Management Decision, 47(2), 289-307.
Ball, R., Kothari, S. P., & Robin, A. (2000). The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29(1), 1-51.
Bastida, F., & Benito, B. (2007). Central government budget practices and transparency: An international comparison. Public Administration, 85(3), 667-716.
Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Bonsón, E., & Bednárová, M. (2015). CSR reporting practices of Eurozone companies. Revista de Contabilidad, 18(2), 182-193.
Bonsón, E., & Flores-Muñoz, F. (2014). A microsimulation approach to corporate disclosure policies. Online Information Review, 38(7), 861-880.
Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Hart, P. T. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225-242.
Brennan, N. M., & Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate governance, accountability and mechanisms of accountability: an overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 885-906.
Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. C. (2003). Control and legitimation in government accountability processes: the private finance initiative in the UK. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 14(1/2), 1-22.
Bruton, G. D., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Stan, C., & Xu, K. (2015). State-owned Enterprises Around the World as Hybrid Organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(1), 92-114.
Caba, C., Rodriguez, M. P., & López, Antonio M. (2008). e-Government process and incentives for online public financial information. Online Information Review, 32(3), 379-400.
Cabeza, L., & Gómez, S. (2007). The Spanish privatisation process: Implications on the performance of divested firms. International Review of Financial Analysis, 16(4), 390-409.
Cameron, W. (2004). Public accountability: Effectiveness, equity, ethics. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63, 59-67.
Célérier, L., & Cuenca-Botey, L. E. (2015). Participatory budgeting at a community level in Porto Alegre: a Bourdieusian interpretation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 739-772.
Chan, Y. C. L. (2003). Government accounting: An assessment of theory, purposes and standards. Public Money & Management, 23(1), 13-20.
Chiwamit, P., Modell, S., & Scapens, R. W. (2017). Regulation and adaptation of management accounting innovations: The case of economic value added in Thai state-owned enterprises. Management Accounting Research, 37, 30-48.
Cohen, S., Mamakou, X. J., & Karatzimas, S. (2017). IT-enhanced popular reports: Analyzing citizen preferences. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 283-295.
Collier, P. M. (2008). Stakeholder accountability: A field study of the implementation of a governance improvement plan. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 933-954.
Cormier, D., Magnan, M., & Van Velthoven, B. (2005). Environmental disclosure quality in large German companies: Economic incentives, public pressures or institutional conditions? European Accounting Review, 14(1), 3-39.
Cucciniello, M., Bellè, N., Nasi, G., & Valotti, G. (2015). Assessing Public Preferences and the Level of Transparency in Government Using an Exploratory Approach. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 571-586.
Cucciniello, M., Porumbescu, G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). 25 Years of Transparency Research: Evidence and Future Directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32-44.
da Cruz, N. F., Tavares, A. F., Marques, R. C., Jorge, S., & de Sousa, L. (2016). Measuring Local Government Transparency. Public Management Review, 18(6), 866-893.
Daiser, P., Ysa, T., & Schmitt, D. (2017). Corporate governance of state-owned enterprises: a systematic analysis of empirical literature. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 30(5), 447-466.
Deegan, C. (2002). The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures - a theoretical foundation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 282-311.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81-100.
Ellwood, S. & Garcia-Lacalle, J. (2016). Examining Audit Committees in the Corporate Governance of Public Bodies. Public Management Review, 18(8), 1138-1162.
European Commission. (2016). State-Owned Enterprises in the EU: Lessons Learnt and Ways Forward in a Post-Crisis Context. https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/ (accessed 30 October 2017).
Florio, M., Ferraris, M., & Vandome, D. (2018). State-Owned Enterprises: Rationales for Mergers and Acquisitions. Centre International de Recherches et d’Information sur l’Economie Publique, Sociale et Coopérative (CIRIEC) Working Paper No. 2018/01. http://www.ciriec.uliege.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/WP2018-01.pdf (accessed 5 October 2018).
Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Gallego-Álvarez, I., & Quina-Custodio, I. A. (2016). Disclosure of corporate social responsibility information and explanatory factors. Online Information Review, 40(2), 218-238.
Gandia, J. L., & Archidona, M. C. (2008). Determinants of web site information by Spanish city councils. Online Information Review, 32(1), 35-57.
Government of Spain. (2013). Ley 19/2013, de 9 de diciembre, de transparencia, acceso a la información pública y buen gobierno. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2013-12887 (accessed 20 September 2018).
Greiling, D., Traxler, A. A., & Stötzer, S. (2015). Sustainability reporting in the Austrian, German and Swiss public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(4/5), 404-428.
Grossi, G., Papenfuß, U., & Tremblay, M.-S. (2015). Corporate governance and accountability of state-owned enterprises: Relevance for science and society and interdisciplinary research perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(4/5), 274-285.
Grossi, G., & Thomasson, A. (2015). Bridging the accountability gap in hybrid organizations: the case of Copenhagen Malmö Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(3), 604–620.
Heald, D. (2006). Varieties of Transparency. In C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? London: The Bristish Academy.
Hodges, R., Wright, M., & Keasey, K. (1996). Corporate governance in the public services: Concepts and issues. Public Money & Management, 16(2), 7-13.
Hood, C., & Heald, D. (2006). Transparency: The Key to Better Governance? London: The Bristish Academy.
ICAEW. (2014). Trust in public finances. A survey of citizens in 10 European countries. http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/european-union/eu-public-finance-survey.html: Accessed 15th March 2016.
IIRC. (2016). Integrated thinking and reporting. Focusing on value creation in the public sector. http://integratedreporting.org (accessed 3 October 2018). International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIFPA).
Kopits, G., & Kraig, D. (1998). Transparency in Government Operations. IMF Occasional Papers 158, Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1), 1-27.
Letza, S. R., Smallman, C., & Sun, X. (2004). Reframing privatisation: Deconstructing the myth of efficiency. Policy Sciences, 37(2), 159-183.
Luke, B. (2010). Examining Accountability Dimensions in State-Owned Enterprises. Financial Accountability & Management, 26(2), 134-162.
Mack, J., & Ryan, C. (2006). Reflections on the theoretical underpinnings of the general‐purpose financial reports of Australian government departments. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(4), 592-612.
Martí, C., Royo, S., & Acerete, B. (2012). The Effect of New Legislation on the Disclosure of Performance Indicators: The Case of Spanish Local Governments. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(13), 873-885.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: An Ever-Expanding Concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555-573.
Ntim, C. G., Soobaroyen, T., & Broad, M. J. (2017). Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability: The case of UK higher education institutions. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(1), 65-118.
OECD. (2005a). Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises. A Survey of OECD Countries. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2005b). OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2015a). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2015b). OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, 2015 Edition. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2016). State-Owned Enterprises as Global Competitors. A Challenge or an Opportunity? Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017). The Size and Sectoral Distribution of State-Owned Enterprises. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oliver, R. W. (2004). What is transparency? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pérez, A., López, C., & García-De los Salmones, M. d. M. (2017). An empirical exploration of the link between reporting to stakeholders and corporate social responsibility reputation in the Spanish context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(3), 668-698.
Peters, B. G. (2007). Performance-Based Accountability. In A. Shah (Ed.), Performance accountability and Combating Corruption (pp. 15-32). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2010). Is E-Government Promoting Convergence Towards More Accountable Local Governments? International Public Management Journal, 13(4), 350-380.
Pina, V., Torres, L., & Yetano, A. (2009). Accrual accounting in EU local governments: One method, several approaches. European Accounting Review, 18(4), 765–807.
Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2014). E-Participation and Environmental Protection: Are Local Governments Really Committed? Public Administration Review, 74(1), 87-98.
Rygh, A. (2018). Welfare effects of state-owned multinational enterprises: A view from agency and incomplete contracts theory. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31(2), 207-220.
Serrano, C., Mar, C., & Bossi, A. (2003). The measurement of intangible assets in public sector using scaling techniques. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 249-275.
Shaoul, J., Stafford, A., & Stapleton, P. (2012). Accountability and corporate governance of public private partnerships. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(3), 213-229.
Smith, M., Mathur, N., & Skelcher, C. (2006). Corporate Governance in a Collaborative Environment: what happens when government, business and civil society work together?. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(3), 159-171.
Spáč, P., Voda, P., & Zagrapan, J. (2018). Does the freedom of information law increase transparency at the local level? Evidence from a field experiment. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 408-417.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.
Swiatczak, M., Morner, M., & Finkbeiner, N. (2015). How can performance measurement systems empower managers? An exploratory study in state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(4/5), 371-403.
Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The Effects of E-Government on Trust and Confidence in Government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354-369.
Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government's Relationship with Citizens. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 19(2), 277-302.
Transparency International Spain. (2018). Índice de transparencia de las empresas públicas. https://transparencia.org.es/indice-de-transparencia-de-las-empresas-publicas-indep-2/ (accessed 5 September 2018).
van der Laan Smith, J., Adhikari, A., & Tondkar, R. H. (2005). Exploring differences in social disclosures internationally: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 24(2), 123-151.
Wilkinson, P. (2017). 10 Anti-Corruption Principles for State-Owned Enterprises. https://www.transparency.org (accessed 15 November 2017). Transparency International (Ed.).
Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability. Governance, 17(2), 275-297.
World Bank. (2014). Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises. A toolkit. http://documents.worldbank.org/ (accessed 30 October 2017).
Yekini, K. C., Adelopo, I., Andrikopoulos, P., & Yekini, S. (2015). Impact of board independence on the quality of community disclosures in annual reports. Accounting Forum, 39(4), 249-267.
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia (EDITUM) y ASEPUC conservan los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
2. Las obras se publican en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional. Permite copiar, distribuir e incluir el artículo en un trabajo colectivo (por ejemplo, una antología), siempre y cuando no exista una finalidad comercial, no se altere ni modifique el artículo y se cite apropiadamente el trabajo original. Esta revista no tiene tarifa por la publicación Open Access. ASEPUC y EDITUM financian los costes de producción y publicación de los manuscritos.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente la versión publicada de sus obras, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica.
