Transparency As A Tactic

In a world where P.R. professionals are often seen as “spin-doctors” whose principal activities are summarized by popular thinking as writing speeches for dodgy politicians and protecting evil corporations' interests, transparency has become a key concept in the field. Needless to say that this obsession has also gained in prominence in the hyper connected era of social media, where every statement can be interpreted, spread, decontextualized and/or held against organizations.

But as researchers say (and as Blogger Diederik rightfully reported), this concept is two-sided  and controversial. On the one hand, P.R. belief has it that transparency is the prerequisite for accountability and trust, hence it is an ethical value that is essential in order to ensure a thriving business. But, on the other hand, they argue that the very idea of transparency is closely related to the idea of strategy, in the sense that transparency is not as much an ethical value than it is a tool for persuasive communication purposes, or a strategy, they say.

Conversely to Daisy de Jong's previous blog post where she formulated her opinion about the pros and cons of transparency in the P.R. practise build around the H&M case. This post aims not to find out whether transparency is good or bad. It aims to move the debate on to ground which has not been previously outlined: the use of transparency as a tactic, as a mere mean to achieving credibility, which has become apparently  a common practise among companies.

Read Transparency...

Due to the above mentioned contextual circumstances, transparency appears to be in vogue in the corporate world: in an economy where trust is everything, many companies make of transparency their leitmotiv. And they appear to be right to do so, as this practise is legitimized by Bhaduriand Ha-Brookshire (2015)'s findings, who suggests that transparency in regards to CSR practises was proven to influence consumer's attitude positively, as Daisy de Jong fairly reported. However, it is actually rare to witness companies that are really transparent, in the sense of ethics, and therefore the concept of transparency as used by these kind of companies is biased, which grants us with a whole new concept.

...Understand: Pseudo-transparency

In other words, nowadays corporations' pattern of communication regarding transparency relates more to how companies communicate than what they communicate. And Vujnovic and Kruckeberg (2016) to define this practice as Pseudo-transparency, that "can be understood as a set of strategic actions, typically involving marketing and discursive strategies, through which organizations attempt to appear transparent by creating a sense of transparency, rather than by being truly transparent to their diverse publics." (p. 122).

H&M's Excess Of Transparency Might Be Harmful...Really?

In the case of H&M's activities in low-wage countries, the company is indeed the most "transparent" company (in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, ed.) on the topic of sweatshops and human slavery, however, their good faith was wiped out at the very time when The Guardian disclosed their malpractices in Myanmar. 

It might seem a romantic but I strongly believe that, for their transparency claim to be held true, majors changes in the manufacturing of their products are required. And not only the ones dictated by their communication strategy. No, I'm talking about the truly ethical ones... And in the end, what is life without romance?

A little jest to conclude: 

“Our customers should feel confident that everything they buy from H&M is designed, manufactured and handled with responsibility for people and the environment.”

Karl-Johan Persson, CEO of H&M

Colin Volvert, Master Student in Communication Science, Record Collector, Label Owner and Music Enthusiast.