Purpose - This paper examines the link between the failure of public accountability and stakeholder disengagement brought about by a New Public Management (NPM) style "smart solution" introduced to reduce public urination in Dhaka city. It shows how New Public Governance (NPG), Islamic and dialogic approaches can improve decision-making and solutions.

Design/methodology/approach - Drawing on the concepts of public accountability, NPM, NPG and dialogic accountability, this study highlights how narrow conceptions of accountability and poor stakeholder engagement impacted the effectiveness of the "smart solution" based on data collected through observation and unstructured in-depth interviews.

Findings - Evidence suggests that narrow conceptions of accountability driven by monologic NPM perspectives led to poor stakeholder engagement, which impacted the effectiveness of the "smart solution". The solution that consists of changing anti-urination signage from Bengali to Arabic script has not solved Dhaka's public urination problem. In many instances, the solution has disenchanted certain stakeholders who view it as an offence against Islam and a confusing de-privileging of the Bengali language which has significant national and cultural value in Bangladesh.

Originality/value - The findings of the study contribute to policymaking discussions on how to effectively engage with stakeholders and extend the literature on accountability within the context of conflicting public versus private demands related to a public nuisance. The study outlines important issues related to stakeholder engagement and introduces a framework that conceptualises how to increase the effectiveness of public policy decisions using NPG, Islamic and dialogic accountability approaches, especially on matters that require significant public/external stakeholder support. It also provides a conceptual integration of these various approaches, including nuanced insights into accountability challenges within "non-Western" contexts.

Purpose - This paper aims to examine the role of social auditing in legitimising the relationship between the buyer and supplier firms rather than strengthening corporate accountability in the global supply chain.
Design/methodology/approach - Applying case study methodology and drawing on Suchman's theory on societal legitimacy, it is argued that social audits are artefacts of legitimacy, and global firms dominate the buyer-supplier relationship across the supply chain. The analysis is based on data collected from different secondary sources, including Walmart's corporate sustainability reports.
Findings - Using Walmart's relationship with Tazreen Fashions Limited around the Tazreen factory fire incident as a case study, it explains that the practices which attempt to symbolically demonstrate accountability from social audits need to shift to a more continuous and sincere demonstration of accountability through the social audit process. For this to occur, the cognitive and pragmatic approaches that international buyers have previously used in auditing their supply firms' social responsibility are no longer sufficient to achieve societal legitimacy. Instead, a moral turn needs to underpin the intentions and actions of these buyers to maintain legitimacy and demonstrate accountability across the supply industry in developing economies.
Originality/value - The findings of the study answer the questions raised in the extant literature about the expectation from social auditing and whether social auditing serves to ensure corporate accountability. The paper contributes to the policymaking discussion of how social auditing can be configured to include a legal provision to ensure that social auditing is not a parroting tool for corporations.