This note is an attempt to analyze the instrumental value of social audits in guiding programming from the perspective of human rights-based approaches (HRBAs). In the documentation of experiences and programmes that incorporated HRBAs in several Asia-Pacific countries between the years 2004-2005, it was found that various forms of social audits have been successfully employed to enlist duty bearer accountability and in claiming entitlements. In diverse situations relating to the State’s obligations in regard to policy planning/implementation, service providers’ responsibilities in relation to delivery of services, or in securing meso (middle)-level duty bearers’ accountability towards their stakeholders, it has been observed that social audits have been effectively deployed under various names and to varying effect.

Some of the Lessons Learned Project (LLP) case studies that explicitly recorded the use of social audits are: the right to food and the campaign under the right to information in India; the strategies adopted by Action Aid Nepal (AAN) to empower dalits to mobilize against discrimination and exploitation; the role of media organisations in the Philippines in developing capacities to empower rights holders to claim rights; and the strategies used by Javanese farmers in Indonesia to analyze and influence local budgetary allocations. In this note, the attempt to analyze the use of social audits from the HRBA perspective includes setting boundaries on the definitions of social audits; offering a framework for categorization of different kinds of social audits; and then applying them via some illustrations and examples. Illustrations have been used primarily from documented case studies under the LLP, but globally available examples, where relevant, have also been reviewed. Finally, challenges encountered while performing audits and suggestions by way of programming entry points for HRBA practitioners have been included. It is hoped that this note will contribute to the global repository of knowledge on how social audits are increasingly being recognized and used by multiple stakeholders to claim rights and to secure accountability and transparency at various levels.

A scan of available literature suggests that the definitions of social audits are diffuse and broad. Many interventions have been variously called social audits. It is more appropriate, therefore, to view social audits as a continuum that ranges over several techniques or methodologies.

At one end of the continuum we find that global practices such as the Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) in Tanzania, Citizens’ Report Cards in India and the Philippines, Community Score Cards in Kenya and the Gambia, social audits conducted under the Right to Information Campaign in India, participatory audits in the Philippines, and budgetary audits conducted by Javanese farmers in Indonesia are all loosely and interchangeably called social audits.

At the other end, a more limited set of characteristics is on view, wherein social auditing is posited as similar to financial auditing, except that “it is about [an audit of].. everything else that an organisation does apart from handling money.” In a way, “the social auditor is a “critical friend” (ideally an outsider) who periodically checks the books and asks probing questions to help the organisation reflect systematically on the effectiveness of its internal operations as well as its broad external impact.” Other definitions are available: The Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency (NICDA) terms social auditing as “a process which enables organisations and agencies to assess and demonstrate their social, community and environmental benefits and limitations. It is a way to measure the extent to which an organisation lives up to the shared values and objectives it has committed itself to promote.” Similarly, the New Economics Development Foundation (NEF) defines social auditing as “a process whereby an organisation can account for its social performance, report on and improve that performance. It assesses the social impact and ethical behavior of an organisation in relation to its aims and those of its stakeholders”. These definitions resonate with the form of audits undertaken by AAN, as documented under an LLP case study via the Regenerated Frerian Literacy through Empowerment Community Technique (REFLECT) to periodically review and evaluate its programmes and end results jointly by all stakeholders on a regular basis.

What can be reconciled from this large spectrum of definitions is that social auditing as a process is firmly rooted in a framework of values, ethics and focus on the community. In other words, there is a strong human rights-focused component to social auditing; it is not simply technical auditing of the nature conducted by public sector agencies or audit bodies. There is, rather, a more intrinsic link to HRBAs. Audits are not only assessments of performance (outputs), but also of the integrity of the process that leads to the performance and the impact of such performance (outcomes). In that sense, audits can be used through a lens of rights and applied to test the integrity of a given process through, particularly, the lens of the rights holders.

However, later in this note, we will also demonstrate that audits are not only relevant from the point of view of the demand for rights and services; the ‘supply side’ is equally deserving of the practitioner’s attention. It will also be evident in the course of this note that roles of ‘auditor’ and ‘auditee’ can change or overlap based on the nature of the audit being conducted (i.e. by whom and on whom/what).

It is worth re-stating how rights holders and duty bearers stack up in the context of social audits because of the relative nature of their positions. For example, while a municipal council is a duty bearer in relation to the community that it services, it is a rights holder (a citizen/client) in relation to the lawmakers/policymakers in that it looks to the latter for mandates, guidance and financial allocations. Below is a more detailed description of rights holders and duty bearers in the context of social audits:

• Rights holders (the demand side) – primarily citizens/clients (consisting of civil society members that include communities). However, the demand side can also extend to include meso-level duty bearers such as civil society organisations (CSOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international nongovernmental organisations (INGOs), donors and multilateral agencies. Also included are primary-level duty bearers such as service providers (the public sector and other frontline organisations consisting of, for instance, government departments, municipal/other local councils, quasi-governmental agencies such as Supreme Audit Institutions {SAIs} and human rights commissions), and also the State (policy makers/politicians) in soliciting accountability and transparency, and;
• Duty bearers (the supply side) – primarily the State and service providers, but this group can also include citizens/clients and meso-level duty bearers such as CSOs, NGOs, INGOs, donors and multilateral agencies – based on the nature of audits being conducted – in responding via resultant appropriate mechanisms.

It goes without saying that many globally-acclaimed instances of social audits have been undertaken mainly due to pressure from rights holders in influencing policy planning and resultant policy implementation, especially as this relates to the securing of effective and efficient delivery of services. Influencing policy planning and implementation via audits is related primarily to delivery of obligations in terms of adequate budgetary allocations and associated disbursements and use (since the manner in which a budget is planned and implemented has consequences on the poor in a society) and in claiming entitlements such as access to information that are an outcome of legislative frameworks.

One final comment is necessary on the use of social audits as building blocks in HRBAs. Social audits represent the application of standard accounting procedures (rooted firmly in the science of accounting) applied within a strong value and ethical premise, including application of the core HRBA principles of access and participation for increased transparency and accountability. In this regard, by applying a normative, value-based overlay on a technocratic process such as an audit that would ideally only be used by service providers and the State, social audits bring two distinct domains of accountability – hard numbers and ‘soft’ values – closer. Furthermore, the use of standard financial techniques gives credibility to the normative assessment. This makes them worthy of further enquiry.