The fact that some Southern governments are concerned about the possible impact of Western-based initiatives on corporate citizenship poses challenges for advocates. It makes it increasingly important that Southern companies and NGOs participate in campaigns on corporate accountability and any initiatives on corporate responsibility that may have an international implication.

Other events in June made it increasingly important that those who are working towards social or environmental goals consider their accountability to the intended beneficiaries of their work, before those with counter agendas use the issue to undermine social change. On June 11th NGOWatch, an initiative of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, was launched to examine the growing political influence of the non-profit or non-governmental sector. The stated purpose of www.ngowatch.org is to "bring clarity and accountability to the burgeoning world of NGOs." Looking at the NGOs to be examined by this project, it is noteworthy that many with a lot of influence in the current order, such as the International Chamber of Commerce and think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation, do not appear. Perhaps because the AEI does not consider such groups, or themselves, as NGOs? We might agree, but as they do not theorize on the nature and definition of civil society and its constituent organizations as justification for their choice, this AEI's project appears more like, in the words of Naomi Klein, "a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against Bush administration policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House." The initiative warns of the "the extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies." One may wonder about the lack of reflexivity within AEI, given that it is also an NGO and backed by powerful corporations. 34

In the same month, the business consultancy SustainAbility also produced a report on this topic. In it they argued that "despite being key advocates of corporate accountability few NGOs have adopted the same rules as their business counterparts, maintaining it compromises their flexibility." 35 We should point out that many do have the same legal rules, being registered companies, and additional rules, if they have tax-free status (the Charity Commission oversees charities in the UK for example). Moreover, some NGOs like Friends of the Earth and World Development Movement are membership organizations, with elected boards. Then, of course, is the question of whether NGOs should adopt "the same rules as their business counterparts." As the report notes, the question of accountability becomes more pertinent the more powerful an institution becomes. One may wonder whether a comparison with business is therefore appropriate or merely rhetorical. We may also question whether the motivation of an organization (such as private gain or public purpose) affects the levels of accountability that we may wish to see from different actors in society. Companies seek to extract profit from their economic and social interactions, which is a different purpose to that of NGOs and suggests a different intensity of focus on accountability questions. If NGOs were to adopt the "same rules" would this imply those rules developed by industry, such as AA1000? Might this be an added bureaucratic process that could "professionalise" NGOs in ways that distance themselves from the constituents they are meant to represent?

The question of NGO accountability is one that has been with us for decades. Within development studies, various commentators have stressed the need for NGOs to be more accountable to those they aim to support, and various groups such as Action Aid have sought to empower their beneficiaries by putting representatives on their board. Many analysts have argued that the increasingly close relations with government and Western funders militates against this downwards accountability of NGOs to their beneficiaries. 36 In this light SustainAbility's conclusions about increasing NGO accountability, on the one hand, and increasing their collaboration with business and adoption of market strategies on the other, could be questioned. Commenting on the report Gavin Power, Public Affairs Director of the UN Global Compact said: "The trends illustrate that many NGOs are moving beyond a culture of criticism to one of engagement with business and other partners in a search for solutions. While at times it may be difficult for NGOs to collaborate, the scale of today's social and environmental problems requires it."

Others have argued that more partnerships with business will actually undermine accountability, in ways that can not be fixed by technical approaches. For example, Marina Ottaway, suggests that such partnerships are helping create a dangerously undemocratic "global corporatism". She argues that despite claims about the potential of intersectoral partnerships to "introduce greater democracy in the realm of global governance, it is doubtful that close cooperation between essentially unrepresentative organizations - international organizations, unaccountable NGOs and large transnational corporations - will do much to ensure better protection for, and better representation of, the interests of populations affected by global policies." 37 To avoid becoming agents of a corporatist world, the editor of Development in Practice has called on NGOs to move to more participatory and "people centred advocacy." Being "in the market for change" as SustainAbility suggests, might undermine this, as market priorities, and sponsor's concerns begin to predominate.

The issue of NGO accountability, therefore, remains an important one. Director of SustainAbility, John Elkington told us that their "report is designed as a provocation, on the basis that the sooner NGOs wake up and respond, the better able they will be to leverage change in new ways." Jules Peck of WWF-UK agreed: "in general terms I feel the NGO community can expect a shake up, and we cannot be complacent about changing social and political realities." However, it seems that given the concerns mentioned above, this shake-up and awakening might not be in line with SustainAbility's predictions. As Peck explained, "we have to refocus on talking to 'the people' instead of the cosy policy circles of CEOs and civil servants. Why? Because companies and governments plan for the short term, aim to serve certain constituencies, so its only when the wider public are made aware and empowered to change will they vote, produce and consume in a way that supports corporates and governments to act." [See 'Differing Accountabilities' for further discussion of NGO accountability.]

Given their questionable provenance, these two summer initiatives on NGO accountability created some heat within civil society. Commentating on them, author of The Post-Corporate World, 38 David Korten told us that "the effort by corporations to discredit the public whistle blowers who are exercising their rights as organized bodies of citizens to draw attention to corporate attacks on democracy, the public interest, and the integrity of the United Nations is an example of cynical corporate PR spin and unmitigated hypocrisy."

Given such concerns it was significant that United Nation's Global Compact and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) lent their names to SustainAbility's report. Jules Peck, of WWF-UK, who were consulted about SustainAbility's work, told us that "adding the UN's name to this work might anger those who think the Compact is about diffusing criticism of companies by NGOs." Others considered that the Compact was reacting to criticism from its NGO advisory board members, who wrote to demand the Compact begin to ensure companies delivered on their commitments. Judith Richter told us "I am very concerned that the Global Compact has endorsed and thus legitimised a corporate study on how public-interest NGOs should behave." Author of Holding Corporations Accountable, 39 Richter asserted that "this study, from a corporate-funded business consultancy, tells NGOs to make explicit not only their sources of funding but also their strategies. It suggests that NGOs should stop what it calls 'confrontational' and 'anti-business' campaigns and embark on 'partnership' engagements with big business aimed at finding 'market-based solutions' to current problems. If these recommendations were heeded, it would put corporations and their lobby associations in a better position to lobby for a cut in funding of corporate watchdog groups and networks. Over the years, several NGOs and citizen networks have successfully built up public awareness and pressure on socially irresponsible corporations. The UN's support, via the Global Compact, for the simplistic analyses presented in this study may damage efforts to hold corporations accountable to the world's citizens." Such concerns about the UN's support for the report fuelled further criticism of the types of engagement the UN is developing with the private sector. Korten said that "partnership with global corporations - that by their nature represent the exclusive interests of the wealthiest people on the planet - seriously undermines the UN's essential role and credibility as an intergovernmental body created to democratically serve and represent the interests of all the world's people." It seems an issue that is set to grow, as the UN finds itself as an inter-governmental organization in a world with two new non-governmental superpowers - global business and global civil society. [See 'Elsewhere in the UN' for more discussion on the UN's relations with business.]