Governance - Accountability Practices and Isalam ---1(1)

Governance - Accountability Practices and Islam

Authored by Farooq Omar

April 15, 2016

INTRODUCTION

The issue of accountability has ever been focus of attention in the organizational context

since mid-nineteenth century. As corporations develop across continents, accountability has

become the buzzword of the time (Day and Klein, 1987). There are different theories that

captured the significance of this element. CG started while focusing on the accountability of

agents regarding principal and all other stakeholders. According to Sinclair (1995), no one

can deny the need of accountability. In spite of this fact it quite difficult to define and

implement accountability. Accountability is under the influence of environment in which it is

practiced. So it becomes very difficult to understand its complex nature and to define it

(Mulgan, 2000).

The focus of this study is exploring the theoretical foundations for in-depth understanding of

perceptions of stakeholders towards CG in KSA. The structure of the whole draft is as

follows:

Section 1 links accountability and responsibility

Section 2 focus upon the definitions of the accountability

Section 3 discuss and explain different forms of accountability

Section 4 explores different fields of accountability

Section 5 gives comparison of accountability in public and private sector

Section 6 shows the accountability context instrument

Section 7 discusses accountability in Islamic perspective

Section 8 gives the accountability view in SA

Summary

ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY



April 15, 2016

Accountability and responsibility are correlated. Different scholars regard accountability as

one face of responsibility (Jones, 1977; Thynne & Goldring, 1987; Harmon & Mayor, 1986;

Sinclair, 1995). Responsibility can be viewed as a motivational force for accountability.

According to Gray et al (1987), the responsibility for actions of accounting organization

comes at the first phase, followed by accountability.

Sinclair (1995) highlights the idea of accountability by saying that there are different

meanings of accountability for different groups and it depends upon the different ideologies,

different languages, and different motifs. The nut of the nutshell is that accountability can

unfold in the form of sense of responsibility for performing actions by responsible people.

DEFINITIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY

The meanings of accountability have been changed over the period of time and can be seen in

three different phases, namely:

The basic meaning or the broad use

The narrowest meaning or the specific characteristics of the word to meet a particular

need

The most developed meaning or that which fulfills current needs and requirements

The broadest meanings of accountability cover the history of the world and its linguistic

connotation. According to some reports, the word “accountability” appeared in the Code of

Hammurabi, King of Babylonia, around 2000 BC; which hint at some undesirable actions and

their outcomes (Bird, 1973; Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2010). According to Webster’s

Online Dictionary (2010), the term “accountability” came from the terminology originated

from money lending systems, which first spread out in ancient Greece and later on in Rome.

One can easily infer that the different aspects of accountability can be seen in accounting and

especially in book keeping (Bovens, 2005). Now-a-days, this concept of accountability is an

integral part of almost every area including politics and social science (Mulgan, 2002). There

are different meanings of accountability, according to the different levels of scholarship. For



April 15, 2016

instance auditors treat accountability in financial and numerical terms while others take it as a

subset of ethics (Sinclair, 1995). Seeing from the eyes of Sinclair (1995), accountability

connotations have changed over the period of time, point to the significance of language as an

ideology agent in shaping meaning and understanding.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English denotes the word “accountability”

as “responsible for your decisions and actions and expected to explain them when you are

asked” (Hornby et al, 2000). Whereas, the Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced

Learners denotes it as “in a position where people have the right to criticize you or ask you

why something happened” (Rundell and Fox, 2002). Webster’s Online Dictionary (2010)

gives “answerability” and “responsibility” as synonyms of “accountability”.

Different belief systems describe “accountability” as “honesty, openness, adequate disclosure

and careful, effective application of resources” (Greiner, 1990). There is an inbuilt potential

of fairness in the concept of accountability. This concept is correlated with public interest and

is the foundation of ethical basis for accounting (Williams, 1987; Pallot, 1991).

There are some definitions which focus on the information role and the way of information

transferring. For instance, Rosenfield (1974) demonstrates accountability as a process of

reporting responsibility of personal actions under an authority relationship between

concerned parties. In this scheme of things the role of law, contract, and custom binds

accountability thread between two parties. Accountability is a kind of obligation in

performing action that one has or has not performed (Jones, 1977). Kaler (2002) regards

accountability as the provision of answers while reporting or giving an account. In corporate

or business context, this is a mean of understanding accountability that links it to financial

auditing as well as to accountancy in general. Resultantly theoretical framework of

accountability should be such that which ensure to answer the questions such as Who is

accountable? To whom? For what? (Perks, 1993).

In the accountability relationship there are two parties, first is an accountor and second is an

accountee for their deeds and their outcomes (Ijiri, 1975). With reference to timeframe on



April 15, 2016

action, accountability is a way of explaining or justifying what has been done, what is being

done currently, and what is planned for the future. Providing information about past action,

present and future is utmost necessary (Jackson, 1982). In other words, it can be explained as

duty, as a requirement, or being responsible of providing an account of action for which he

was responsible. It is a kind of reckoning about the responsibility (Gray et al, 1987). Burchell

(1982) sees the accountability as a requirement of resourceful people which explains and

justify how they use the power. Hatch (1980) views accountability as the best utilization of

resources for those purposes for which they were given. System of rules enforce

accountability for the provision of rights to accountee, and this system is thoroughly

recognized in civil law, internal rules, company acts, conventions, customs, ethical codes and

professional standards. There are two types of law that guard the mutual relationship of

interested parties to companies:

Public law maintains the minimum standards and gives maximum flexibility to

relationship between company and its constituents

Private law maintains agreements between companies and other stakeholders like

suppliers, customers, investors, employees, and society.

There are two cores of accountability, namely: external and internal. The external core is

meant for general categories of relationship, while internal core deals with specific

relationship. Moreover, external codes are implicit, and internal codes are explicit.

Crane and Matten (2004) define corporate accountability in terms of answerability in some

way for the outcomes of actions. The AA1000 Series gives definition of accountability as

composition of transparency, responsiveness, and compliance.

Stewart (1984) is of the view that aims of accountability include

i) To ensure that improper usage of responsibility does not happen.

ii) To ensure that improper gains from firm’s resources does not happen.



April 15, 2016

iii) Preventing mismanagement

Colley (2003) suggests that firms can increase their investor confidence with the help of

strong accountability. On the other hand, with a weak system of corporate accountability can

cause very severe losses for the firms as well for their stakeholders (Keasey et al, 1997).

In the mid-nineteenth century, there was very narrowest meaning of accountability in the

business world with a split of roles of management and owners. This idea is being fully

explained by agency theory in which agents are accountable to the principals.

Cadbury gives a detailed account of accountability relationship as:

There is a formal relationship between the shareholders and board of directors. In this formal

relationship shareholders elect their directors who report on their stewardship to the

shareholders. These shareholders appoint the auditors whose role is to provide an external

check on financial statements of directors. Being owners of the company shareholders elect

their directors who take the responsibility of running the business and held accountable for

the business success. The main issue confronting corporate governance is strengthening the

accountability of boards of directors for shareholders (Cadbury).

In the managerial model which is a kind of specialist environment, accountability is an act of

holding authorized managers answerable for high growth or outcomes of specific type

(Sinclair 1995). Accountability seen by Knell (2006) is the authority requirement, a way of

exercising responsibility for justifying and explaining their actions to those who nominate

them to act on their behalf. (2006, P.32) one can easily infer from this discussion that

accountability is blended with the meanings of cost effectiveness, efficient use of resources

and the autonomy of managers (Sinclair, 1995).

In the face of developing sophistication of business worked, it is more important to make

wider meaning so that all parties who are directly or indirectly involved can be take into

account. Accountability now takes the comprehension view of the basic meaning. Ijiri (1983),

Tricker (1983), Gray et al. (1986), 1987, 1988, 1991, 1996 and 1997), Williams (1987) and



April 15, 2016

Pallat (1991) all view accountability in more broader terms as a social concept beyond the

limits of economic issues. This view considers the societal needs and interests at large.

Accountability has its roots in the right to know (Ijiri, 1983, Gray et al., 1991, Gray, 1992)

and established on the grounds of ‘show me’ principle rather than the belief of ‘trust me’

(Zairi & Peters, 2002). Accountability is related to the need to give information to those who

are in dire need of it. In other words, easy access to information should be given to those who

have a right to information. (Gray et al., 1988, 1991).

Moreover, access should also be given to those passive users who are having right to

information but are not using it at the moment. (Burchell et al., 1982, Gray, 1983, Gray et al.,

1991).

Democratic component becomes the focal point of the broader view of accountability. The

Australian House of Representatives standing committee (1990) defines it as follows:

In Australian democratic system, accountability is central features. It is a sign of ensurance

from those authorities of public resources that they have used to resources with compliance

and in an effective and efficient manner (cited in Sinclair, 1995,) P. 221). Gray et al (1991) is

of the view that the accountability foundations can be seen a reflection and necessity for

operating the forms of democracy.

The broad view also includes the concept of stewardship.

Accountability is in fact an obligation to present and answer the details of their

responsibilities about how they executed those responsibilities. In this relationship of

stewardship two parties are involved.

First party is steward or accouter who is obliged to ensure and give an account of his

responsibility execution while principal or accountee is that party to whom account is

presented. Establishing stewardship will be only possible when a steward whole heartedly



April 15, 2016

accepts resources and responsibilities which are entrusted upon him by principal (Gray &

Jankins, 1993, P. 55).

Hupkes et al (2005) emphasizes upon the four functions which should be fulfilled by

accountability.

1. By providing public oversight

2. By maintaining and enhancing legitimacy

3. By enhancing agency governance

4. By improving agency performance

In addition, a party’s role may be of an accountee and an accounter simultaneously, and it

depends upon the nature of relationship; for instance management accountability can be seen

how successfully they provide employees a good & safe working environment. On the other

hand employee’s accountability can be viewed in terms of their performance of manager’s

missions (Gray et al 1996).



April 15, 2016

In nutshell, in the present time there is need to develop the meaning of accountability to

express the actual needs of time. In the CG terms, accountability is a basic concept that acts

as

the foundations in improving the governance system and ensuring a reasonable fairness level.

In the preset time not only corporations are growing rapidly but society’s norms are also

changing at a rapid pace. Therefore, in the face of those high delta changes that conceptualize

the accountability has been transfigured (See figure).

FORMS OF ACCOUNTABILITY

There are two accountability systems namely formal & informal. These two accountability

systems are complementary to each other (Roberts & Scapens, 1985). Roberts (1991) very

gracefully explains the mutual relationships between these accountability systems and labels

them as hierarchical (formed) and socializing forms (informed) of accountability.

Hierarchical accountability form centers on accounting in its calculative power & calculative

function. Role of accounting information becomes the reflector of producer’s activities (1991,

P. 363). On the other hand, socializing form of accountability is an act of narrative sense



April 15, 2016

making and not the calculative form of accounting. Seeing from the example of institutional

point of view, accountability appears in different classification such as

1. Political with reference to ministers & parliament

2. Legal to court system

3. Administrative to non-parliamentary bodies.

4. Public / consumer with reference to public

The study of Sinclair (1995) with 15 semi-structured interviews with chief executives in

Australian public sector finds out accountability classification as follows.

Political, professional, personal, public and managerial specific.

POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The origin of political accountability in Athenian democratic and Westminster traditions, in

which responsibility is vested upon the public servant (Sinclair, 1995. P. 225). According to

Sinclair accountability is a chain of accountability that connects public servant with CEO and

makes him accountable not only to minister but also to Cabinet, parliament as well as to

electors (1995, P.225). Political accountability is in fact a relationship between a

representative (public administrator) and their potential constituents (to whom they are

accountable). The list of potential constituent consists of general public agency heads, elected

officials, special interest groups and generation of time to come. (Romzer & Dubnick, 1987).

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

According to thynne & Goldring (1987) public accountability is more informal & directly

accountable to not only public but also to community groups and other individuals.

Stewart (1984) analyzed the very complicated nature of public accountability and coined two

terms bonds and ‘Links’ of accountability. According to him, existence of bond of

accountability lies in a hierarchical relationship and a demand for accountability. While, a



April 15, 2016

link to accountability will exist where there is no bond but only an obligation or custom to

account.

In public accountability, the role of answering is very much central. Different mechanisms

such as newspapers, reports to hearings are extensively used about public difficulties with

reference to administrative activities. (Sinclair, 1995, P.226). In this scheme of things,

corporations need a beforehand approval to operate effectively in community. Even public

accountability also depends upon the prior approval. Society gives its consent to business

corporations to operate in society. We can see that in fact corporations held accountable to

the society for all their actions as well as for all their action – mechanism. (Anshen, 1980.

Trocler. 1983).

MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

O’ Loughlin (1990) illustrates the idea of managerial accountability which is also called

administrative, bureaucratic or system of accountability. It is insurance of the stability of

hierarchical relationship between superiors and subordinates, which is we weberian

legitimate authority model. This managerial accountability happens when a person is located

within the web of hierarchy and his superior calls him to account for the results / outcomes of

his assigned duties (Sinclair 1995, P.227). Superior gives order to subordinates and assess

them in terms of their quality work and speedy output. (Romzek and Dubnick, 1987, O

Longhlins 1990). There are different variety of assessment tools of superiors by which theory

judge and assess their subordinates. For example close observation, strict monitoring and

rules & regulation (Romzik and Dubnick, 1987).

Stewart (1984) coined the term of commercial accountability which is infact the

accountability of agents to their principals.

Shareholders have complete trust on directors for managing their investment and directors

held accountable for discharging their responsibility accordingly. If the situation is not up to

the mark or in case of any mismanagement or corruption or dishonesty or inadequate account,



April 15, 2016

shareholder can withdraw their whole investment or sack the directors. Directors can play

very important role in monitoring all financial matters. According to Keasey et al a lot of

informed commentators are of the view that inspite of the fact that there is an increasing

financial reporting regulation day by day along with independent auditors of financial

statements, our system is not operating up to the mark and is showing many signs of

corruption & dishonesty.

PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The idea of professional accountability highlights the deep sense of duty as a professional

expert by which one occupies a respectable position and status in society (Sinclair, 1995,

P.229). Now-a-days professional accountability gives value & respect to professionals and

provide them power within & outside organizations. People trust them and grant them

complete autonomy in taking strategic decision on their own (Romzek & Dubnick, 1987).

PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The idea of personal accountability is being loyal to one’s conscience in basic human values.

In this loyalty and self-consciousness, one finds pleasure in self-respect, individual dignity

and with deep sense of responsibility affects the lives of others positively (Harmon and

Mayer, 1986). According to Sinclair (1995), sense of accountability is one’s driving force

which is supported by the internal ethical and moral values. Why personal accountability is

forceful and obligatory, because it is enforced by psychological control and not by any

external pressures. Moreover, it can be enhanced & reinforced by organizational culture.

One can find two sources of control while viewing the managerial, political and professional

types of accountability namely: inside control & outside control. Regarding personal

accountability, source of control generates from inside the person. Later one it can be

managed or influenced by the forces of culture and religion.



April 15, 2016

INTERNAL SOURCES

Internal sources of control is directly dependent upon formal hierarchical structures &

informal social relationships. External sources of control is due to the formal structures which

are the results of legal contracts and power-play of interested parties outside the organization

(Romzek & Dubnick, 1987).

ACCOUNTABILITY IN ORGANIZATIONS

It is claim of Mulgan (2002) that Sinclair’s personal & professional forms of accountability

were introduced by the researcher instead of being volunteered by respondents.

According to him it is very hard to separate personal & professional values. It can be

observed that codes of professional ethics typically encompass values of honesty, Justice &

fairness. (2002, P.560) Sinclair types of accountability are not mutually exclusive but are

complementary to each other.

According to Gray et al (1996) five types of accountability are the foundations of accountable

& transparent organizations which results in:

Many organizational aspects become visible. According to Parksh & Rapport (1977, cited in

Grey et al., 1996), large amount of information revealed will cause information inductance.

One party can influence the behavior of society as well as the company with the relevant

information.

Transparency which is the outcomes of accountability can be introduced with its

results of actions in closer conjunction. It is the closeness between organizational

actors and the results of their actions which can decrease the clash of interest and

increase the exercise of responsibility (Rauls, 1971).

According to Gray et al (1996), accountability that is the outcome of responsibility will cause

an increase in the responsibility. There are difficulties which become obstacles in



April 15, 2016

implementing accountability (Tricker, 1983, Roberts and Scapens, 1985). Tricker (1983) is of

the view that if accountee is able enough to enforce accountability, there can be no

accountability. According to him if an account voluntarily decides to disclose information

that an assumed accountability may demand, and the accountee cannot enforce that

disclosure, then such a disclosure should be thought of as an ex-gratia disclosure. In contrast,

Gray (1992) is of the view that accountability can occur even it cannot be enforced.

According to Robets and scapens (1985) accountability relationship is the reflection of a

social process. In this social process accountee is more powerful and imposes his values on

the accouter. Here one can see that accountability relationship is a way of exploitation. Gray

(1992) in his criticism says that as accountability approach is concerned with accountee or

stakeholders who are unable to enforce their accountability upon accountor, there is no

chance of exploitation.

Gray et al (1991) by using accountability frame work within developing & developed

countries all issues relating to the flow of information can be solved. According to them

introducing accountability frame work in developing countries is more valid.

In addition, Samuels (1990) claims that it is being argued that whether decisions are in the

market place or administrative there is a need, particularly in developing countries for greater

information. The government of developing countries requires reevaluation of the

measurement process and the disclosure techniques currently used… it is appreciated that to

take such actions is a political move. It means asking for a greater level of accountability

(9.70).

Deans (1989) is of the view that in many countries, role of accounting as a medium for

discharging accountability has been neglected.

Different field

DIFFERENT FIELD OF ACCOUNTABILITY



April 15, 2016

The nature of accountability topic is very complex and it can be interpreted in many different

ways (Sinclair, 1995). The scholars of accounting connect accountability to financial

information disclosure. Scholars of HRM and psychology are interested in accountability

relationships, the effect on decision based frameworks and organizational behavior (See

Ammeter et al, 2004). Auditors consider accountability in financial and numerical terms,

while political scientists in political obligation, legal scholars as a constitutional arrangement

& philosophers see accountability as a subset of ethics.

In business, accountability focuses upon those dangers which causes from the lack of

effectives accountability for CEO’s (Cadbury, 1992). In this accountability type accounting

system is used for delivering information to stakeholders. In fact, accountability thoughts are

shapers of accounting system. One can infer that corporate accountability or organizational

accountability is a significant field of interest for researcher’s investigation.

ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE PUBLIC & THE PRIVATE SECTORS

According to Mulgan (2002) in private sector there is more accountability than other sector

due to its aim of maximization profit for its stakeholders. There are number of objectives that

private sector has to achieve, including.

1. To ensure that the interests of all shareholders are being served according to the

functions of free market system and it depends on internal & external monitoring

systems (Benston, 1982).

2. To perform as a control mechanism by monitoring, evaluating & controlling

organization’s mangers and measuring their performance, through outcomes (Munro,

1996).

3. To manage the risk which a company tends to face (Cadbury, 1992).

In private organizations, annual report is employed for accountability as the main instrument

(Midgley, 1932). It is also used to see whether profit reporting is reliable and accurate.



April 15, 2016

ACCOUNTABILITY CONTEXT INSTRUMENT

The above discussion shows that accountor’s role is to satisfy the needs of accountees.

Accountor is responsible to report both shareholders & stakeholders, because each needs

different types of information. To meet the requirements of stakeholders and shareholders

there are different accountability vehicles such as corporate social reports, environmental

reports, sustainability report, and financial statements. (Carnaghan et al, 1996, Solomon,

2010). These report are very significant according to different users and their different needs.

For example BOD’s want to see the improved company performance, owner want to see how

efficiently resources are used.

ACCOUNTABILITY IN ISLAM

In other cultures, there is no word which exactly reflects the concept of accountability, but in

Islamic culture accountability acts as a fundamental base in between the human beings and

others. In broader sense it is central to Islam. It is a dominant theme in Muslim’s faith (Lewis,

2006) because accountability to God and society both is the central for all individuals’

actions. Islam stresses upon accountability relationships between individuals & community

(ummah) as well as between people and Allah (God). According to Lewis Arabic word

‘sharia’ has the literal meaning the way to the source of life and in technical term it is a legal

system which sets the code of behavior called for by the Quran and hadiths (Authentic

Traditions).

Sharia is of instructions that govern the everyday life activities of good Muslims (Serour et

al; 1995). There are two sides of human life under sharia: Worship & transactions.

Those relationships which are between Muslims and their creator is (a part of worship is

called ‘ibadat’. On the other hand those relationships between people and others is a part of

transactions is called ‘moa-amalat’ (Bahjat, 1994, Al-Qaradari, 2001).



April 15, 2016

According to Islamic culture religion is treatment and in Islam, religion & treatment are

insperable companions. This means that all types of treatments such as finally, society,

neighbourhood, environment, ethics, business, economics and politics. The status of these

transactions is very lofty within ‘Sharia’ and these are defined in terms of rights & duties of

the participants. In ‘sharia’, it is mandatory for all Muslims to strictly follow the regulations

of ‘ibadat’ and ‘moa-amalat’. All participant are answerable to Allah for these regulations.

Shearia’s role is to organize all the matters of one’s life and to set the framework for Islamic

rules (Al-Qaradani 1973). As Allah affirms in the Holy Quran.

“This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have

chosen for you Islam as your religion” (Quran: 5/3).

Sharia has two bases of sources

i. Primary sources

ii. Secondary sources

Primary sources include

Quran (word of God)

Sunna and Hadita (Authentic traditions & Sayings of Prophet)

Ijma (unanimous opinion of Islamic Scholars of Analogy

(Qiyas) intelligent reasoning

Secondary source is called istihsan. These are those causes which are not covered by primary

sources. Muslims are recommended to obey views of Propher’s companions (Serour et al.,

1995, Iqbal and Lewis, 2002). El Mallakh (1982).

El Mallakh (1982) illustrates the source of Saudi law based on sharia as:

The Quran, the holy book of Islamic religion…the sunna is the recorded statements

and actions of the prophet Mohammed…ijma is the consensus of the Ulama [religious



April 15, 2016

scholars] which serve as legal precedents. The last source of the law in the kingdom,

qiyas, is simply the use of analogies in reaching decisions when the other three sources

cannot be of any help (1982, p. 44).

It is important to note that Sharia is flexible. It permits to adapt to timely needs of

circumstances with reference to different times & different locations. Sharia accommodates

those honest views that do not contradict or spoil the spirit of primary sources (Serour, 1994).

Human actions are classified into 5 categories by Sharia.

1) Obligatory (fasting & praying)

2) Recommended (marriage)

3) Permitted (breaking fasting when sick)

4) Disapproved but not forbidden (divorce)

5) Absolutely forbidden (killing)

(serour et al., 1995, P. 560).

In the development of science of fiqh (jurisprudence), number of guiding principles has been

established to drive rulings. Role of fiqh can be seen in different examples such as harm

should be removed, the lesser of two harms should be chosen and priority of public interest

over individual interest.

In nutshell ‘sharia’ law is established for preserving & protection of the

following

1. Self

2. Mind

3. Honor

4. Religion

5. Ownership

Several verses of Holy Quran clearly indicate this.



April 15, 2016

Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited to you. [He commands] that you not

associate anything with Him, and to parents, good treatment, and do not kill your children

out of poverty; we will provide for you and them. And do not approach immoralities - what

is apparent of them and what is concealed. And do not kill the soul which Allah has

forbidden [to be killed] except by [legal] right. This has He instructed you that you may

use reason (Quran, 6:151).

And do not approach the orphan’s property except in a way that is best until he reaches

maturity. And give full measure and weight in justice. We do not charge any soul

except [with that within] its capacity. And when you testify, be just, even if [it concerns] a

near relative. And the covenant of Allah fulfill. This has He instructed you that you may

remember (Quran, 6:152).

Regarding insurance in our contemporary situation, we can clarify the working of sharia.

Neither the Quran nor the Sunna mentions insurance, but Muslim scholars suggest an Islamic

form or way of Insurance which is in fact based on the four primary sources of sharia

explained previously.

In ‘sharia’ the concept of

accountability is

a fundamental

pillar and one perspective

of Islamic culture.



April 15, 2016

Istakhlaf (trust) is one of them in which man is considered the vice gerent of Allah on earth

so Allah Almighty says:

“Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority” (Quran, 2:30).

Three factors form the concept of istekhlaf. First, the entrustor is Allah, who is the owner of

everything, as he says in the Quran: “To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and

whatever is in the earth” (Quran, 2:284).

renovation of earth as per the instructions of Allah (Al-jira 1996).

This is the teaching of Islamic culture that teaches us that we are not the owner of what is in

our hands but just a vice

gerent appointed by

Allah and so we must use all

the things according to



April 15, 2016

the will of Allah, without damaging the society & environment. An individual is accountable

for all that which is entrusted & delegated to him/her. As this is illustrated in the Quran.

“And stop them; indeed, they are to be questioned" (Quran, 37:24).

“So by your Lord, We will surely question them all, About what they used to do (Quran,

15:92; 93).

In Islamic culture & perspective Muslim managers must understand their duties and they are

required to make full disclosure in order to discharge their accountability.

Thus, Baydoun and Willett (2000, p. 81):

Private accountability and limited disclosure are insufficient criteria to reflect the ethical

precepts of Islamic law. Consistency of disclosure practices with Islamic law requires

application of the more all-embracing criteria of social accountability and full disclosure.

Individuals who take a role of accountability in Islam

should have an acceptable level of diverse characteristics and

these are emphasized by a number of Quranic verses. These are: first, honesty (amana): “O

my father, hire him. Indeed, the best one you can hire is the strong and the trustworthy”

(Quran, 28:26).

Second, integrity (nazaha): “O you who have believed, fulfill [all] contracts” (Quran, 5:1)



April 15, 2016

Third, justice (adil): “And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves.

Indeed, Allah loves not one who is a habitually sinful deceiver” (Quran, 4:107).

Fourth, ability (qudra): “And do not give the weak-minded your property, which Allah has

made a means of sustenance for you, but provide for them with it and clothe them and speak

to them words of appropriate kindness” (Quran, 4:5).

does something, for him to do it well” (Al-Albaani, 1995, p. 106).

Any individual who is accountable of any duty must have the following characteristics as

emphasized by following Quranic verses.

First, almuhasbah is derived from the root word ‘count’, and one of its meanings is to hold a

responsible person to account (Al-Ifriqi, 1970). Allah says “But those who fear Allah are

above them on the Day of Resurrection. And Allah gives provision to whom He wills

without account” (Quran, 2:212).



April 15, 2016

Second, almusa alah expresses the ability to question someone. A number of Quranic

verses emphasize this meaning: for example, Allah said “And indeed, it is a remembrance for

you and your people, and you [all] are going to be questioned” (Quran, 34:44).

from the principal who holds the party accountable to respond. In the Quran, the text which

clarifies this meaning is translated as “And when My servants ask you, [O Muhammad],

concerning Me - indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he

calls upon Me. So let them respond to Me [by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be

[rightly] guided” (Quran, 2:186).

However, alestejwab is mostly used within the context of political affairs.

In this study researcher uses following three words which fully convey the meanings of

accountability.

Almuhasbah, almusa alah and alestejwab.



April 15, 2016

ACCOUNTABILITY IN SAUDI ARABIA

KSA is just like a heart of Islamic world and contains two highest Muslim countries Makkah

& Medina.

Since its establishment KSA is following sharia and considered as the hub of Islamic beliefs

and values as the country constitution, which depends on Quranic teaching, Hadith, Ijma and

Qiyas. In extracting instructions from these authentic resources the accountability in true

Islamic sense is well established & practiced in KSA in its intent and spirit.

SUMMARY

The idea of accountability has ever been popular in human civilization from ages. There are

different explanations in different cultures & civilizations from different perspectives.

This chapter explains & explores the theoretical bases of accountability which helps to clarify

stakeholder’s perceptions towards Corporate Governance in KSA. This chapter explains the

meanings definitions of accountability & responsibility along with different forms, different

fields of accountability. Comparative study of public & private accountability is also the part

of this study along with the concept of accountability in Islam & Saudi Arabian practice of

accountability which open more research avenues to study the different parameters associated

with CG, in particular the leadership practices in its true spirit and what actually being

followed by different Islamic countries.

Governance - Accountability Practices and Isalam ---1(1)

Education

Transcript of Governance - Accountability Practices and Isalam ---1(1)