People often misinterpret accountability as an effort to find someone to blame when results fall short of expectations. In reality, accountability focuses on how individuals carry out their responsibilities, not on assigning blame.
This was conveyed by Christopher J. Napier, Emeritus Professor of Accounting at Royal Holloway, University of London, on Friday, June 27, 2025, at the 4th Biennial Emerging Scholars Colloquium and Conference on Accounting and Accountability in Emerging Economies (AAEE) International Conference. At the Sanur Prama Sanur Beach Hotel, Bali conference, Napier invited participants to explore the meaning and evolution of accountability from different perspectives in his presentation entitled “Perspectives on Accountability: Religious, Political and Economic.”
Napier explained that the concept of accountability continues to evolve. People initially understood accountability as the obligation or responsibility to provide a report or explanation for their actions.
This report is not always related to financial aspects. In the modern approach, accountability occurs when decision-makers are obliged or compelled to provide accountability. In this context, the party affected by the decision has the right or is factually able to demand accountability for the actions or omissions of the decision maker.
Napier further said that accountability is not just reporting but reporting that must carry consequences, both in the form of rewards and punishments for those responsible. In practice, accountability is often negatively perceived as a form of punishment, whereas it should also include opportunities for appreciation or reward. This view is essential in analyzing accountability relationships, including corporate ones.
He gave an example of the application of accountability in the public sphere, which often comes in the form of concrete actions of a person or institution being held accountable. For example, the much-discussed cases in the UK, such as MPs who escaped sanctions despite poor performance, TV presenter Gregg Wallace who resigned after harassment allegations, and the Fujitsu company involved in a troubled computer system scandal.
“Interestingly, these three cases highlight one thing in common: accountability is synonymous with punishment, not reward,” said Napier, Friday (27/06).
Napier emphasizes that this trend shapes the way people use language. He notes that the phrase ‘hold accountable’ appears more frequently because the public demands visible consequences such as dismissal, punishment, and compensation.
Starting from this case, Napier traces the religious roots of the concept of accountability by lifting references from sacred texts. He mentions that the word “accountable” was first recorded in English through the poem The Vision of Piers Plowman in 1380, which reads, “Every rich man will be accountable to Christ,” which means “Every rich man will be held accountable by Christ.”
Not only that, Napier also reviews the paradoxes in Catholic and Christian teachings about heaven and hell. The Roman Catholic Church developed the doctrine of purgatory to answer the paradox of sin forgiveness, teaching that although Christ’s death forgives sins, believers must still undergo cleansing before entering heaven. In contrast, some Protestant sects reject this doctrine and encourage adherents to keep “spiritual records” as a form of accountability consciousness before God.
Napier also explains accountability in Islam with the concept of ‘hisab,’ which means calculation or accountability described in quantitative terms. He describes the Day of Reckoning (Yawm al-Hisab) as when God fairly weighs all human deeds and intentions and provides a final record of each person’s actions.
He also highlighted the “accountability sinks” phenomenon, a situation where no one can be held genuinely accountable. The party being held accountable often views accountability negatively as it risks criticism or sanctions. In modern organizations, individual responsibility is usually obscured through rigid procedures or decisions taken by algorithms, making it difficult to determine who is responsible.
Report by: Shofi Hawa Anjani
Editor: Kurnia Ekaptiningrum
Sustainable Development Goals
