Legal Dimension: Transparency as a Synonym for Compliance with the Law and Information Control

The legal dimension emerges ipso facto when discussing transparency with the interviewees, and two main characteristics of this dimension are observed: the homologation of transparency with regulatory compliance and with information control. The first characteristic can be seen in the repeated mention of objective aspects (standards and laws) that are applied based on certain information and are manifested through processes that often involve the establishment of management indicators. The organizations allude to matters that make up the transparency law, which regulates the public sector, but there is also a discursive emphasis in both sectors (public and private) that transparency is synonymous with compliance with the legal framework in force, also alluding to other regulations that contain matters of access to information and probity issues.

The second characteristic of information control pertains to the legal dimension, which determines the status of public information that can be made transparent, while also facilitating alignment in communications and controlling perceived vulnerabilities in the face of threats. The control of information is the result of a clear interest in making the phenomenon of transparency tangible and showing society a growing evolution in this area by the organization in objective and unobjectionable terms.

The following are two quotes that illustrate this: “... I believe that ... it is transparent to disclose public information, but it is also transparent to say that this information is private and I am not going to disclose it” (01-04-13).⁸ This quote reflects a reductionist approach to the concept of transparency, since it is understood that only the disclosure of regulated subject matter is necessary to achieve transparency. It is understood that public information is that which is regulated and, therefore, the interviewee relies on the law to define what is disclosed. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the non-disclosure of information that is not public (information which is not regulated) is equally transparent. This reinforces that transparency, when solely viewed through a legal lens, represents a one-dimensional approach to the phenomenon, as it does not allow for a discussion regarding whether there are other factors that may influence the need to disclose particular information.

The following is the other interesting quote that exemplifies the way in which organizations use the regulatory framework to protect themselves from the adversity of the environment by controlling information: “Traditionally, one of the internal breaking points in any business organization is the legal management, because the legal management says it’s better not to disclose any information because any information can be used against you” (02-01-14). This quote captures a defensive attitude on the part of the interviewee, afraid of the consequences of providing certain information. Once again, transparency is conceived here as a rigid construct where only what is mandated by law should be disclosed, and anything else implies an unnecessary risk. Therefore, there is no room for interactive, two-way communication that would facilitate agreements between the parties involved.

Moral-Ethical Dimension: Transparency as an Undefinable Value

All the interviewees agree that the concept of transparency is an unquestionable or intrinsic value for the organization that allows them to guide their actions in an impeccable manner. However, this conceptualization is somewhat confusing when trying to explain how this value dimension is constructed for the organization. Transparency is related to “what is right, what ought to be”; however, its definition does not translate into practice beyond associating it with codes of ethics or good behavior. The following is an example of this:

By transparency, what I understand is that … I relate it to ethics … to comply not only with what is regulated by law, but it is a step beyond. It means being comfortable with the steps we take and how they align with the values the organization aims to convey. I believe that a fundamental part of every organization is its culture. I think that’s what makes them what they are, that they achieve their purpose … From my point of view, transparency comes with integrity. I believe that transparency transforms you into a trustworthy person and company (02-04-01).

In this quote, the interviewee associates transparency with a value that guides his actions beyond what is regulated. However, there is a lack of clarity and some difficulty in attempting to define transparency. It is first associated with compliance and then he digresses into concepts such as values, purpose, and integrity, finally concluding that transparency has a transformative effect. In other words, the organization regards it as a crucial value, without having much clarity as to how to define it or articulate it.

Relational Dimension: From Relational Conceptualization to Unidirectional Communication

All organizations frequently emphasize the importance of building networks with the various stakeholders that surround them. This is understood as the need to identify the key stakeholders with whom each organization is linked and its duty to interact with them. Such interaction should be proactive, collaborative and feedback should be integrated into their management, and some interviewees mentioned that it should be mediated by active listening. It should be noted that the discourse on this dimension is quite similar in all the organizations interviewed and shows conviction. Therefore, the conceptualization of the construct is based on the communicational logic of a relational and collaborative order.

However, when asked how much these organizations know about the management issues that matter to their stakeholders, the answers are vague and nonspecific. Organizations limit the process of getting to know their stakeholders to specific interactions established and related to certain areas of the organization and as reactive, segmented, and informative processes, where they are given information defined unilaterally by the organization. This dynamic is far from the dialogic nature and connection with the environment expressed by the interviewees. This is illustrated in the following quote:

How do I identify what my audiences are interested in? … Each area of the company has a target audience … and you have to know their interests and needs. When you know that, you know what you have to inform them. It is also what is managed, it’s not like everything for everyone and that’s it, I mean, there are some who are not interested in certain things … So, there is communication management in which each area has to manage its information to its audience. And there is a large audience, which is society, opinion leaders, and that’s more mediatic (01-03-05).

This quote reflects how the organization works to keep its stakeholder network unilaterally informed. The objective is to determine which predefined information is to be delivered to each stakeholder based on their specific needs, deviating from the collaborative approach originally proposed by the organization. There is no intention to offer responses on undefined topics but rather to engage in instrumental communication.

Societal Dimension: Transparency as a Link to Sustainability

The organizations report that there is a close relationship between them and their environment, in the sense that there are conditions beyond their control that affect their actions and may even threaten their sustainability. The organizations argue that today’s world requires institutions to move towards a social role, which is demanded by the context in which they are inserted. Thus, they conceive transparency in an organizationenvironment relationship, in the duty of organizations to be accountable to society (accountability), and thus achieve sustainability. However, it is observed that this conceptualization is mostly implemented at a basic level in terms of accountability, as it almost exclusively adheres to the guidelines stipulated by law or translates into very practical aspects. This is illustrated in the following quotes:

Transparency is transversal to the organization. We always say: “You have to be transparent” ... if you look at our mission, we have it mapped out and transparency is a fundamental part of our sustainability program that crosses the entire organization. For example, ... to make everyone feel more involved, you go to an aisle manager in one of our stores, and if he doesn’t tell you how much a certain department sells, it’s because he obviously can’t tell you, but he knows, and that’s information that other industries don’t share. You know what I mean? And it’s because we really believe that, in order to do management, you have to manage information. And transparency is a central axis in being able to summon these wills. Transparency is essential because without it the will of the stakeholders, in the broadest sense, is not summoned, and the organization ceases to exist (02-03-09).

In this context, the interviewee states his conviction regarding the value of transparency in fostering long-term relationships with stakeholders. He also underlines its undeniable value in the organization-environment relationship, as without it, the organization loses legitimacy, a key element for its sustainability.

This is another quote that illustrates what was stated above:

Our sustainability report adheres to the Global Reporting Initiative methodology, the gri, which is based in Holland. There they grade you on your level of transparency, to what extent are you providing certain information, and we have always from day one gone from less to more. Before, … we only reported the income statement and the annual report with financial data and little by little we started to add to this sustainability report, increasing this information following the guidelines that they are giving us (02-03-02).

This text shows how the organization defines the information that is subject to transparency in accordance with international guidelines, adjusting its accountability accordingly. The intention of a definition based on an interaction with the stakeholders is not observed.

Transparency and Communication from a Relational Perspective

The relational perspective of communications, as proposed in the literature, argues that the organization, in its ongoing interaction with the environment, must establish points of equilibrium to achieve understanding and mutual benefit for the parties involved in this interaction (^{Grunig, 1984}; ^{Sadi & Méndez, 2015}). However, the interrelationship between communication and transparency at the organizational level in Chile could not be defined as relational. Two quotes illustrate this:

Transparency also means communicating the company’s strategy; conveying what we strive for as a company, communicating with passion and conviction … in other words, explaining why we want to do it, how we intend to do it, so there’s a sense of belonging and a greater involvement from our people … for them to understand why they are doing things and not just following instructions without understanding the purpose, and ultimately, so they feel a part of it. So … for me, transparency encompasses many areas. It includes the legal aspect, anticipating what they may scrutinize, being proactively transparent. But at the same time, it requires a special form of close, dedicated, demanding, yet also collaborative communication, so that everyone understands each other in this transatlantic ship, in the vessel we’re on, navigating through the sometimes very turbulent, sometimes very placid ocean (02-03-01).

The thing is, communication makes you more transparent, right? Now, how transparent do you want to be? Well, there is a strategic issue behind it because there are confidential issues... (03-03-11).

The first quote conveys a close relationship between transparency and communication since one is defined as a function of the other. Transparency is understood in its interrelation with a communication of very precise characteristics, but does not necessarily imply an integration of the receiver’s opinion in the decisions. It serves more as a strategic form of communication aimed at integrating internal stakeholders. The same happens with the second quote, where the allusion to the strategic role of communication is more evident.

Discrepancy Between the Dimensions of Transparency Prevalent in Chilean Organizations and those Suggested by the Literature

It is observed that organizations in Chile conceptualize transparency differently from the literature. Figure 1 shows that both the literature and the organizations agree on the existence of three dimensions: a strong legal dimension, a moral-ethical dimension, and a societal dimension. However, there are two dimensions in the literature that play an important role in the conceptualization of transparency and that appear with less emphasis in the discourse of the interviewees. These are the political and technological dimensions. On the other hand, in the discourse of the interviewees, a fourth dimension -the relational dimension- is quite prominent. While the literature does not explicitly state it as such, even though it could fall under the societal dimension due to the concepts of collaboration and participation associated with it, we find it relevant to propose it as an independent dimension, given the importance attributed to it by the interviewees.

Source: The author.

Figure 1 The concept of transparency in organizations: from the theoretical to the discursive and the communicational 

The Relational Dimension of Transparency: A Contribution to its Conceptualization

The interviewees consistently assign a significant role to what is referred to in this study as the relational dimension. By this, we mean the need to identify key stakeholders with whom each organization is connected, and their duty to interact with them collaboratively, integrating their feedback into their management. This conceptualization highlights the important role of the information recipient in verifying if the transparent information meets their expectations, emphasizing the interdependence of transparency and communication from a relational point of view. Therefore, this dimension presents itself as an opportunity to broaden the view of the concept of transparency and thus approach it in a more comprehensive manner, incorporating the perspective of those who demand transparency.

Relational Dimension of Transparency in Response to Contextual Pressures

Based on ^{Baume and Papadoupoulus’ (2018)} statement about the construct of transparency reflecting various social expectations and evolving to adapt to societal changes, it is possible to argue that the relational dimension of transparency emerges in this process of adapting to citizens’ demands for greater transparency. This serves as a means to better respond to expectations in this matter, as the response given today is solely through the pathway determined by the legal dimension.

Instrumentalization of the Legal Dimension by Means of Unidirectional Communication

The legal dimension unquestionably takes precedence over the other dimensions. The focus is entirely on adhering to what is regulated, even if it may sometimes entail suppressing other issues that could be important to the public. This is evident in the tensions between the dimensions, especially when two values are in opposition, forcing the organization to decide which one to prioritize. Hence, the clash between the legal dimension and the moral-ethical or societal dimension of the construct is observed.

It should be noted that the fact that all organizations emphasize their unrestricted compliance to current regulations is not in question. However, it is relevant to note the tension that arises in the face of a regulatory framework that, in some way, provides room for the organization to take refuge in it and withhold other information (or to be less transparent) than what might be necessary. In these cases, confidentiality could be preferred based on this regulatory framework, as the legal dimension often prevails, to the detriment of what is required. In essence, utilizing the legal dimension in communication can serve as a means of shielding information from disclosure rather than revealing it.⁹

Challenges for Future Research

This study identifies the existence of four significant dimensions in the conceptualization of transparency for organizations in Chile. The legal dimension is argued to have more dominance over the other dimensions, demonstrating a reductionist approach to the construct and its utilization for organizational purposes. This perception of vulnerability experienced by organizations is partially due to increased demands for transparency from citizens. This understanding of a threatening environment may result in the suppression of issues that are indeed of public interest, prioritizing the disclosure of information solely bound by regulatory frameworks and strengthening one-way communication.

The conceptualization of the relational dimension of transparency is emphasized by organizations, which underscores the interaction between the organization and its network of stakeholders. It’s worth noting that this dimension is not explicitly stated in the literature, which is a valuable addition to the conceptualization of the construct, as it opens up the view towards incorporating other relevant dimensions for those who demand transparency.

The present paper raises some challenges to be covered by future research. This study is limited to analyzing three cases of organizations in Chile. Therefore, it would be interesting to expand this coverage and gain insight into how the construct is conceptualized in other countries at a regional level. It would be particularly valuable to understand the role that the relational dimension plays in them, as well as its impact on the communication of these organizations. Similarly, it would be useful to investigate potential differences on how the relational dimension of transparency operates in both the public and private sectors, a matter that was not addressed in this study.