The reason why prosecution of fraud and corruption perpetrators is difficult is centred on the allocation of accountability and responsibility of procurement decisions in the organisation.
Report by Nyasha Chizu
Most procurement fraudsters are not accountable or responsible for those actions. Increasingly today, people are interested in knowing “where exactly the buck stops, or does it ever stop”.
The legal process is also interested in the same, identifying who is responsible for certain actions and who is accountable for the consequences of those actions.
The difference between responsibility and accountability has been confused by many. The definitional differences between the two terms and their implication have a bearing on combating fraud and corruption in procurement.
Responsibility when used in business affairs refers to a sphere of duty or obligation assigned to a person by the nature of that person’s position, function, or work.
Responsibility could thus be viewed as a bundle of obligations associated with a job or its function. Responsibilities arise from job descriptions that assign role which in turn encompasses, but is not limited to the function.
Procurement activity is responsible for sourcing decisions, including signing off specifications, approval of suppliers, making purchasing decisions and signing off purchase orders.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
In this case, responsibility refers to more than just the primary function of a role; it encompasses the multiple facets of that function, including both processes and outcomes and the resulting outcomes of the acts performed as part of that bundle of obligations.
For one to be responsible for his actions, there must be a predetermined set of obligations that must be met by that individual in order for the job to be accomplished.
In procurement, the primary functions of a buyer are to source goods efficiently and effectively for an organisation.
Discharging these obligations is not adequate unto itself in procurement.
There are other activities that are critical such as supplier selection, specification designing, evaluation of quotations, supplier relationship management that give rise to moral obligation.
Moral obligation assumes a capacity for making rational decisions, which in turn justifies holding moral agents accountable for their actions.
A moral agent is the decision-maker who is expected to have the ability to reason, given the known consequences of actions and the willingness to act free from external compulsion.
In light of this, moral agency entails responsibility in that autonomous rational agents are in principle, capable of responding to moral reasons. Accountability is, therefore, a necessary feature of morality in procurement decision-making.
The moral responsibility of a buyer is to create a fair competitive environment. These moral obligations are naturally joined to the parallel functional obligations associated with the role.
Responsibility, then, is composed of a duty to discharge not only the functional obligations of the role, but also moral obligations. Given the aforementioned, it is prudent for responsible authorities to take stock of who is responsible for the procurement decisions in their organisations.
Many buyers are stooges in their employment, responsible for only rubber stamping corrupt transactions brewed in the underground by powerful elements of an organisation. If a problem arises, the buck cannot stop anywhere due to the confusion created by undefined responsibilities in the decisions.
Nyasha Chizu is a Fellow of CIPS and the CIPS Zimbabwe branch chairman writing in his personal capacity. Feedback: [email protected]
