Article2017

Transparency fallacy

100 citations0/0 files storedAccounting Auditing & Accountability Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Sustainable Supply Chain Management Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting Global trade, sustainability, and social impact

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to focus on the research question of how stakeholder claims for transparency work as a means to support responsibility in the international supply chain. Design/methodology/approach This theoretical study analyses the relationship between stakeholder claims for corporate transparency and responsible business in the global context, and develops a conceptual model for further theoretical and empirical work. Findings The study finds that the call for corporate transparency is insufficient as a means to increase responsibility within international supply chains. The erroneous belief that stakeholder claims for transparency will lead to responsible behaviour is identified as the “transparency fallacy”. The fallacy emerges from the denial of opacity in organisations and the blindness to the conditions of international supply chains (including complexity, distance, and resistance) that work against attempts to increase transparency. Research limitations/implications Acknowledging the limits of the transparency mechanism in both management theory and practice is necessary in order to advance responsible business in the international arena. Being conceptual in nature, the generic limitations of the type of research apply. Practical implications While acknowledging opacity, corporate managers and stakeholders should focus on changing the supply chain conditions to support responsible behaviour. This includes reducing complexity, distance, and resistance in the supply network. Originality/value This study contests the commonly assumed link between corporate transparency and responsibility, and sheds light on the limits and unintended consequences of stakeholder attempts to impose transparency on business organisations.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 100 citations exist upstream.

References

2010Strategic management a stakeholder approach 2014Capital in the Twenty-First Century 1997Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts 2001Corporate Social Responsibility: A Theory of the Firm Perspective 2008From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management 2006How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 definitions 1998Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances 2010Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art

Cited by

2019The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection 2021Traceability and transparency for sustainable fashion-apparel supply chains 2022Making transparency transparent: a systematic literature review to define and frame supply chain transparency in the context of sustainability 2020A Bait-and-Switch Model of Corporate Social Responsibility 2022Transparency in Supply Chains (TISC): Assessing and Improving the Quality of Modern Slavery Statements

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.