The Translucency Corollary: Why Full Transparency is Not Always the Most Ethical Approach

Rawlins (2008) advocated ―transparency through every aspect of corporate communications‖ (p. 2) that embraces open, authentic communication of organizational successes and failures; facilitates ongoing discussion; and relinquishes a seemingly incessant institutional drive to maintain the image of perfection. Transparency is a critical addition to the literature and practice of ethical public relations, as some entities have suffered major damages or have even been forced to close after deceptive withholding of information that was vital to stakeholders. The purpose of this paper, however, is to show that the term transparency has been so broadly interpreted, invoked, and abused that it risks losing its intent of open communication that enhances dialogue and benefits both organizations and society. The paper argues that the term transparency has two flaws that need to be clarified to strengthen its usage in public relations: (1) Transparency increasingly is interpreted as being completely open at all times, but the authors argue there are times when it is in the best legal and logistical interest of the entity to not disclose, and in such times this is the most ethical stance for both the organization and its stakeholders; and (2) Entities increasingly are spouting self-proclaimed ―transparent‖ communication, when investigation reveals that those claims are smokescreens to deflect an actual disdain for transparency. Balkin (1999) identified categories of informational, participatory, and accountability transparency. Others have linked transparency with trust (Jahansoozi, 2006; Gower, 2006). While useful, these linkages and categories do not go far enough in guiding entities toward ethical functioning in today’s society. This paper therefore muses over the questions: Under what specific circumstances is transparent communication necessary and beneficial? When is it better to not disclose information, even given today’s expectations of instant, complete messaging? In which situations does absolute transparency actually harm stakeholders and societies? The paper argues that in these circumstances, a stance of translucency may be more appropriate than actual transparency. Translucency occurs when light passes through a medium, such as frosted glass, in sufficient quantity that the viewer can discern the outline of objects and see in which direction they are moving but they are not completely visible to the eye. With this paper providing parameters under which translucent communication must take place—and why—organizations can offer an outline and shape that will ethically inform, guide, and engage key publics, even when full disclosure is not the best option.