VENDILLO, Narcy Lyn T.

MS Accountancy

Camouflaging has a negative ring to accountants. It is associated with concealment, deflection of attention from important
issues and selective disclosure to create a good image. It is like unleashing a different persona to public for acceptance and validation.
Who wants to be viewed negatively anyway?

It is World Bank (WB) Support Mission season again for the Philippine Rural Development Project (PRDP) and everyone is
troubled and stressed about all the preparations. Reports are due as soon as possible. Project sites need to be dressed up. Beneficiaries
must be trained to answer possible questions. Everything needs to look good for the World Bank missionaries. I hate to admit it but
this is the truth. Almost everything is rehearsed or better yet staged. One particular instance that I hated was about the report on
enterprises visited in previous Support Missions. One of the Ilocos Region’s enterprises was visited last 2017 and our team was tasked
to come up with a report about its operations. Of course as the staff closely-coordinating with project beneficiaries, we know what is
happening with the enterprise. It did not reach the targeted volumes in the business proposals because the association members pole-
vaulted their produce to other buyers despite signed and notarized agreements. This is in addition to the decrease in production due to
pest infestation. Another factor was mismanagement because planned business processes were not followed, and the business incurred
losses. We transpired these in our report coupled with the actions undertaken by the team. The bosses called our attention and we were
asked to change the report because it sounds too negative. As staff, we complied and tried to tone down the report even if it is against
our will. However, after toning it down we were again asked to make revisions to exclude from the narrative the problems within the
farmer association. We were told that if ever this will be noticed, it will surely backfire to the regional office.

What we were commanded was in its essence, camouflaging. The management limited what will be disclosed to the public. I
believe it can be construed as impression management, concealment to be specific. We were focused on how to positively present the
enterprise and the regional team to the rest of the project. By toning-down the report and selecting the information to be released, in a
way we have distorted the public perception about the enterprise as well as the region. This action or move by the management can be
explained by the underlying theories of camouflaging mentioned in the journal namely political economy theory, legitimacy theory,
and resource dependence theory. Applying the political economy theory in this context, the management opted to tell its own story
through the report to mediate, suppress, mystify and transform conflict within the concerned enterprise because of their self-interest
which is to protect the image of the region. Meanwhile, according to the legitimacy theory, in order for the public to view the
enterprise as still viable and sustainable, the management deliberately deflected public attention from the relevant issue of
mismanagement to a minor one which is the pest infestation. Another theory that can explain this move is resource dependence theory
since additional funding for the succeeding years is dependent on how the implementers are performing. Therefore reports to be
presented will make or break the additional funding. Among theories, the resource dependence theory focuses on the environment as a
source of vital resources for a firm’s survival. In our context, the World Bank representatives are the environment which will decide if
the project will be extended through the additional funding.

This journal deepened my prior understanding of why and how organizations mold the public perception. Having
experienced the same conflict in my work made me realize the gravity of decisions managers have to make for the organization. Yes,
camouflaging is aimed at shaping public opinion and results but this is a choice that must be made my management to ensure survival
of the organization. It is therefore a challenge on the part of regulatory bodies to craft standards aimed at limiting the manipulation of
information. It is not enough to provide a corporate social reporting model and promulgate standards then have faith on organizations’
compliance. This calls for various changes that must be undertaken in addition to our conceptual framework. Priority must be given on
 VENDILLO, Narcy Lyn T.
MS Accountancy

defining rules and processes of not just on setting reporting boundaries but also on how to disclose them. Wouldn’t it be nice if
companies do not just look good on reports but also in real life?