Transparency

The concept of organizational transparency receives considerable attention in management, corporate communications, and public relations literature and practice. New communication technologies, the Internet, social media, activist groups, media, legislation, investors, business analysts, anticorruption organizations like Transparency International, as well as numerous incidents of recent corporate misconduct have all led to increased interest in organizational transparency and put more pressure on the most effective and ethical means for disclosure of information. The concept of transparency is closely related to corporate social responsibility and promotion of ethical business practices in democratic societies and serves as a preventative means against corruption and abuse of power. In practice and theory, it calls for more than the platitude, “be open.”

Transparency is defined as deliberate revealing: making visible and accessible information that is clear, honest, complete, significant and meaningful to stakeholders who participate in defining and becoming informed about those issues that concern and affect them. By providing accurate and timely information, organizations show a willingness to be held accountable and responsible for their decisions and actions, allowing the stakeholders to evaluate them. The opposite of transparency is secrecy, hiding, purposefully concealing or distorting information that is of interest to the publics.

It is the job of public relations to support openness, but at the same time to protect privacy, autonomy, and confidentiality of their organizations. Moreover, the challenge of transparency implies that making so much information available can become daunting for stakeholders to process, analyze, and use. The concept of transparency is closely linked to the principle of the publics’ right to know about corporate matters, such as events, operations, plans, policies, decisions and activities relevant to the internal and external publics. But the right to know can encourage organizations to engage in data dumps—supplying an overwhelming and unproccessible amount of information.

Openness and disclosure of information are not the same as transparency nor are they sufficient to achieve it. First, stakeholders need to be provided with information that is relevant to satisfying their need and right to know. Second, they should be able to interpret the information to gain more knowledge and understanding, and not merely acquire more information. The goal of transparency is to benefit stakeholders’ decision making, not just manage a coporation's reputation.

Communication is central to transparency as opposed to dissemination of information. Two-way symmetrical communication and dialogue allow stakeholders to actively participate in knowledge creation and to openly request what they need to know.

The concept of organization-public relationships rests on the underlying significance of transparency in creating and maintaining relationships with stakeholders. Transparent communication leads to increased perceived reliability and organizational credibility, which are the foundations of trust. Trust is the basis of relationships, but also a prerequisite of commitment and cooperation on which depends the success of business operations.

Transparency is not exclusively a public relations concern, but rather a reflective approach to stakeholder engagement. Being open and candid about an organization's policies and practices reveals potentially vulnerable areas in its relationships with stakeholders. This can prompt insight and opportunity for change and improvement. Organizations that include transparency in their overall strategic management, may gain competitive advantage via this reputation. Including transparency in institutional values implies consistency between organizational behavior and practices as well as consistency in internal and external messages.

...