Comments
Blogger Elisabeth Rosenthal raises a simple but vital point in this week's NYT "Sunday Review": As governments, watchdogs, the media and regular citizens embrace transparency as an increasingly important value, how do we ensure that information prompts action, and does not become an end in itself?
Using examples including restaurant grading in New York, risk assessment for loans and carbon emission reports, Rosenthal warns that:
... disclosure requirements merely get information onto the table, but themselves demand no further action. According to political theory, disclosure is both a citizen’s right and a tool to ensure good government and consumer protection, because it provides information that leads to informed decisions. Instead, disclosure has often become an endpoint in the chain of responsibility, an act of compliance with the letter of the law rather than the spirit of transparency. ...
Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously wrote in 1913 that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." But in the cynical world, companies and political groups often deflect that light or diffuse it into 1,000 incomprehensible components.
Like the raw materials that become energy, disclosed information often needs refinement and a functioning infrastructure of expertise, analysis and advocacy before it becomes "combustible" fuel for change. Otherwise, as scientist Kevin P. Weinfurt, says in the article, "No one knows exactly what to do with the information once they get it." Archon Fung, head of Harvard's Transparency Policy Project and an RWI colleague, agrees that sometimes disclosure “is ineffective because there’s no way to act on it."
Professor Fung and his team work with RWI in the Transparency and Accountability Initiative, which is named in explicit recognition of the dilemma in Rosenthal's article. Without action, transparency may not create accountability, and without accountability, through new laws, new economic policies and sometimes a new government, information is just an endpoint, not a turning point.
Jed Miller is Internet Director at the Revenue Watch Institute.
Information has to be actionable, and the more I study corruption, the more I wish I understood trust, which also seems to play a role in how people use information to hold governments and firms to account. In this regard I recommend the work of bo Rotstein at the Quality of Governance Institute in Sweden.
Transparency is necessary if accountability is a must ....then sustainability can be attained. Developing Country just like ours need Local Initiatives like Ordinances on Extractive Industry be made to inable the stakeholders understand their role, responsibilty and accountability to Governance, Company and Society in general...these means governance advocacy on responsible mining is in place, taxes and tariff are clear too...the civil society groups monitors the industry on issues raised base on protection of the environment and the implementation of its mitigating policies which governance advocated,,,the companies conduct their business with clear understanding of Laws, Ordinances and its Accountabilities...Thus making it Sustainable
I broadly share the views expressed in the other comments -- and would add that i think there is evidence that of corruption becoming more subtle in response to the global drive towards governance. EITI for example seems like a full-on deterrent to suitcases of cash handed over by an IOC to the president's son. But that's rarely how it's played these days. It's morely likely to be in 5% stakes on bidding consortia, cost recovery statements on billion dollar investments, service and procurement contracts. As in many areas, the regulatory environment moves slower than the criminals. I personally also feel that not enough attention has been paid to attempting to interest another key group of stakeholders in transparency - shareholders in the private sectors of producing countries.
having said those ideas ealier, we have made a Local Ordinance of Mining Only as a sole guide for the stakeholders ... thus making it so transparent that everyone knows what the other is doing ...did it help governance stop corruption i say it did by creating a one stop shop to process papers with clear time line when it should be finished, we made our fees expensive so only those responsible companies can affords it because we believed that ONLY THOSE RESPONSIBLE COMPANIES IMPLEMENT RESPONSIBLE MINING PROCESS AND THE PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS TO MONITOR THESE CONCERNS INSURES THE PROTECTION OF ITS ENVIRONMENT AND ONLY THOSE GOVERNMENT WHO ADVOCATE TRANSPARENCY IN ITS GOVERNANCE SUSTAINS ITS INITIATIVES
what happens to the revenue generated from this exercise ? ... the whole cycle of transparency applies again and accountability begins ...if AOP is based on projected development agenda then AIP should be based on revenue generation agenda...thus the center of these is ensuring that, the people benefit from it directly or indirectly ... these are the cultural communities, the barangay, the municipalities and the provincial government shares its revenue ... on the demand side the companies, they provide jobs and economic activity at the same time take their profit after tax, of course if the local government units demands corporate social responsibilities be assume by these companies ...the cycle of transparency is most effective.
Hi all. The World Economic Forum has recently launched a report on its Responsible Mineral Development Initiative. Transparency appears as one of the key blocks of actions that countries and companies may undertake to make the mining business more responsible. The report mention a number of transparency initiatives, including some of the ones mentioned below (EITI, The Access Initiative) as well as cases study on a country –Liberia- and a company –Rio Tinto- publishing tax and royalty payments. I suggest that you check out chapter 4 of the report. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_MM_Report_2011.pdf
By the numbers—the fight for oil and mining company transparency
1504 Section in Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act requiring companies to disclose taxes, royalties, and other payments made to the US and foreign governments
1.5 billion People living on less than $2 a day in “resource-rich” countries
$30 million Value of Malibu mansion owned by Teodoro Nguema Obiang, son of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea’s dictator
1 Number of white crystal-covered ‘Bad Tour’ gloves in Teodoro’s Michael Jackson memorabilia collection valued at $3 million (See “U.S. vs. One Crystal-Covered ‘Bad Tour’ Glove” court filing.)
270 Days after enactment that Congress required the SEC to issue a final rule (regulation) to implement the law
559 Days since Dodd-Frank enacted into law by President Obama
289 Days that the SEC has been in violation of the law
13 Months after Dodd-Frank that the European Commission issued a legislative proposal that would place a similar requirement on oil and mining companies
0 Host country laws oil companies have been able to cite that would prohibit disclosure of payment information as required by Dodd-Frank
3 Commissioners eligible to vote on the final rule (Chairwoman Schapiro and Commissioner Paredes are recused because of conflicts of interest.)
$50 million Estimated amount Exxon says that it would cost to comply with law, even though it provides no backing data for the estimate and presumably already collects and tracks payment information
$41 billion Exxon’s 2011 profits—a 35% increase over 2010
$100,000 Cost Barrick Gold, world’s largest gold producer, says it would cost them to comply
$1.2 trillion Approximate combined assets under management of investors who have told SEC to issue a strong final rule
3 Companies and industry associations (Shell, Exxon and API) who say that payment disclosure “could allow terrorists” to target a project
2 Nigerian oil workers unions who say it would actually make them safer
5 Companies who met SEC Commissioner Gallagher on December 2, 2011, to lobby for a weak final rule—Shell, Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental
15 Oil and mining companies who “support” the voluntary Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) program who are also members of American Petroleum Institute (