L'art de (se) diriger ( le blog de Laurent Pellegrin)

"The term “corporate transparency” has become rather fashionable. It is repeated by politicians, managers, consultants and even radical-chic activists. The belief that “transparency results in responsibility and ethics” seems to be a new axiom for our time. Trendy descriptions—extreme transparency, dynamic transparency, crystalline transparency—are bandied whenever discussion turns to anything corporate. But are naked organisations the new frontier of corporate governance? Will transparency prove to be the cure for our corrupt society? 

Transparency, it seems, is simply the latest attempt to make an old concept—truthfulness—trendy. Our mothers told us that lying is a bad thing; what we now call transparency is merely the embodiment of that advice. But just sharing ever more information will not save society from business malpractice and corporate psychopaths. Crystalline organisations are a mirage, not a model to be followed. 

Indeed, full transparency is often associated with breaches to established rights such as privacy, confidentiality, security and safety. Internet-based tools can transform our corporations into fully-naked organisations almost instantly: just configure your servers. With the click of a mouse, there will be no secrets between your company and any manifestation of society, terrorists and competitors included.

Companies around the world are learning that customers and governments are not interested in more information, more numbers, more reports or more sophisticated press briefings. What civil society is seeking is trustworthy, relevant and understandable information about how a company runs its business and the features of the products and services it offers to the market. We should not forget that, in the era of nano-processors, genetically modified seeds, auto-adaptive software and ultra complex OTC-SWAP contracts, understanding the features of products and services has become a serious problem for stakeholders—even for those with a PhD. 

Companies, then, struggle between two extremes. On the one hand, full disclosure about the features of products and services; on the other a minimum compliance with national legislation. Unfortunately, each represents a serious threat to both corporations and stakeholders. Full transparency is always associated with “data asphyxia”. Have you ever read the seven-point, 50-page text in your bank contract? On the other hand, strict compliance with national legislation minimises access to information that is relevant and which some stakeholders would be interested in: ask vegans how they felt when they discovered that McDonalds “forgot” to report that its French fries contained milk.

It seems evident that a balance is required. But achieving that requires managers to construct a well thought out information strategy that takes account of quite a long list of economic, social and, yes, even ethical issues. Successfully addressing this ethical expectation is more than a source of competitive advantage; it is key to gaining the trust of employees, current and potential customers, partners, and even competitors. By the same token, attempts to hide potentially relevant information or, even worse, disclosing false or confusing information, could be catastrophic and companies in many sectors (from banking to biomedical) have experienced the heavy costs of being caught out in these dirty games. 

So, today’s call for transparency is as simple as our mothers’ advice: lying is both bad and risky. In our complex corporate environment, failure to heed the spirit of this basic lesson—and taking comfort instead in sharing mountains of information as a means to ensure supposedly ethical behaviour—leaves corporations and society exposed to lapses in responsibility and good citizenship. " 

Joan Fontrodona: Professor of business ethics at IESE Business School, University of Navarra
Antonino Vaccaro: Executive director of the Center for Ethics at the Catholic University of Portugal and visiting professor at IESE Business School

Source : The economist Online, 7th of september