Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society more

1 Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society Mark Aakhus, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Presented at the 16th Biennial Conference on Argumentation co-sponsored by the National Communication Association and American Forensics Association and held at Alta, UT July 30August 2, 2009. Appears as: Aakhus, M. (2010). Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society. In D. Gouran (Ed.), The functions of argument and social context: Selected papers from the 16th Biennial Conference on Argumentation (pp. 11-17). Washington, DC: National Communication Association. 2 Transparency work and argumentation design in deliberation about business in society There is considerable contemporary interest in the prospect that corporate responsibility can be fostered through practices that make business conduct transparent. The belief is that transparency leads to accountability and that accountability will bring about socially and environmentally desirable business-conduct. Underlying this belief is the assumption about the power of publicity as articulated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the early 20th century: Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman. In terms of the emerging field of work in corporate social responsibility (CSR), much attention is given to developing practices for transparency that enable businesses to demonstate their corporate responsibility to their constituencies (e.g., sustainability reports, codes of conduct). Such transparency practice shifts who shines the light and what the light shines on, thus changing the ground and shaping the materials for deliberating about the role and conduct of business in society. Rather than focusing directly on the transparency practices of business organizations, attention is given here to transparency practices of third-party actors whose work shapes the landscape of accountability. Traditionally this function has been carried out by the business press, investigative journalism, government regulatory agencies, and courts. Over the past several decades, however, shifts in the conduct of business, changes in transnational governance, innovations in communication and information technology, and social trends appear to have changed the ways and means for raising doubts, pursuing opposition, and otherwise making sense of business conduct in society. 3 New actors have emerged with the ostensible purpose of promoting transparency and generating accountability in business practice. These actors are readily apparent in the services created through internet technology that provide information and facilitate communication about the conduct of business in society. The aim of this paper is to provide a preliminary account of the role these communication-information services perform at the intersection of business and society and their contribution to the way the role and conduct of business is deliberated. Accountability, Information, and Global Production Networks The classic notion about the relationship between business and society starts with the assumption that the behavior of firms is regulated by the invisible hand of market transactions. From this classic point of view, there is no deliberation about the role of business in society since exchanges in the market are assumed to clear outstanding supply and demand as parties pursue their self-interests. This pursuit is assumed to efficiently allocate resources, which in turn enhances the public good. It turns out, however, that the classic point of view makes many assumptions about information that are not plausible and that in turn generate serious complications for the classic view. There are many things people want to know when entering into a transaction that can be difficult to discover and understand. The nature of information complicates transactions. Stiglitz (2000) summarizes these to include: the imperfection of information, the cost of obtaining information, the asymmetric diffusion of information, and the influences on information asymmetries by the actions of organizations and individuals. The limitations information poses, points to the importance of history, institutions, and reputation and thus the role for rhetoric and argumentation in shaping business transactions. The problems of information are amplified in the contemporary context of global production networks that deliver goods and services. Goods and services are created and 4 distributed through long chains of production involving many entities each specializing in some aspect of the product or service. Moreover, many aspects of these networks do not technically take place in the market as the exchanges take place internally among units within transnational businesses. The web of business activity as constituted in its transactions among consumers, suppliers, investors, management, and employees has evolved in ways that exacerbate the problems of information and make it difficult for any participant to make sense of the content, direction, and outcomes of the web of business transactions. It is in this context that new demands for transparency have emerged. Corporate responsibility and accountability are challenged by the features of information processes and global production. The center or locus of accountability for business can be hidden by a lack of information and diffused in a chain of production. Fostering accountability of business conduct through transparency presents a twofold problem: There is first the problem of making transparent the complex web of transactions that compose business practice that often spans the globe and second there is the problem of making sense of what is revealed about the conduct and consequence of business activity (Keohane, 2006; see also Aakhus & Ziek, 2008). While there has been considerable effort by business firms to develop transparency practices that reveal information about their business conduct, these efforts, even when done with good intentions often fall short. There are numerous “accountability gaps,” which “arise when the instruments of communication [for CSR] provide little means for generating productive counterarguments and engagement that enhances the capacity of parties to a relationship to hold each other accountable for behavior and actions” (Aakhus & Ziek, 2008). For instance, Friedman and Stagliano (2008) found an interesting mismatch between the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which is an annual report on hazardous chemical emissions of American industrial facilities, 5 published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the sustainability reports of the 200 highest toxics emitters on the TRI. They found no correlation between the level of releases reported on TRI and the extensiveness in the sustainability reporting by the companies. Accountability gaps can arise from explicit attempts to manipulate but also from the sheer difficulties that lie in rendering complex processes understable through disclosure (e.g., Graham, 2002). A lack of transparency is a problem for achieving accountability. Yet, even if business firms engaged in more and better transparency practices supported by better systems for disclosure there would still be a problem for achieving accountability. As Keohane (2006) points out, there is more to accountability, as transparency itself can become problematic unless there is capacity for intelligent interpretation of information. There is a need for sense-making and for a system of communication that would enable that sense-making. Keohane suggests that a “pluralistic accountability system” will emerge that “will depend on many kinds of accountability: supervisory, fiscal, legal, market, peer and reputational. In world politics, such forms of accountability will not come from a centralized hierarchy, but from a pluralistic, often discordant system of NGOs and networks among them” (Keohane, p. 84). The problem of accountability lies, in part, in recognizing that transparency is not just a matter of producing hard to get information about business transactions but a problem of communication and, more specifically, of argumentation for making sense of that information. The crux of accountability is the expression of doubt and disagreement and the management of the differences that ensue – as Keohane (2006) makes clear there is no accountability without capacity for pointed questions to be asked of those in powerful positions and for them to answer. This is the essence of institutionalized forms of argument but in the CSR realm these are under 6 development. There is great potential for entrepreneurial activity through transparency work in accountability gaps to generate new institutions for argumentation. So, what kinds of communication and information services are emerging to provide tranparency and accountablity in contemporary business conduct? What is the argumentative role of these services in deliberation about the conduct of business in society? How could investigating these services lead to better understanding of argumentation? Transparency Work as Argumentative Practice It is proposed here that transparency work is a form of argument practice that shapes understanding and the pursuit of disagreement about business conduct in the global domain. Ultimately, transparency work contributes to the formation of institutions for argument about the conduct of business in society. While some transparency work is performed by the principals in business transactions such as consumers, vendors, managers, investors, and employees, the transparency work of interest here is performed by third parties who take an interest in the production of information about business transactions or in facilitating sense-making about the consequences of business transactions. These roles are part of a broader class of “communication work in society given to constructing means that regulate how argumentation proceeds” that can be found in professional practice, organizational routines, and technologies (Aakhus, 2003). Their work contributes to the formation of the content and process for deliberating about business conduct in society in a manner comparable to the work performed through other roles and technologies like mediators, facilitators, and group support systems. Argumentation can be viewed as a kind of communication work in society around which actors and practices develop. The nature of that work corresponds to the natural aspects of argumentation found in everyday human interaction where argumentation functions as a form of 7 repair for the direction, content, and outcomes of activity. This has been demonstrated in the research program of Jackson and Jacobs. Third-parties to argumentation play a role in designing argumentation by the way their actions shape the content and direction of the disagreement space. Mediators and facilitators, for instance, ask questions and summarize what is said, create meeting agendas, provide information, and define topics. The work performed by these practitioners in face to face argumentation provides some insight into what to look for in large scale deliberation about business in society. Drawing on some prior work by Aakhus & Ziek (2008) and additional observation and analyis, the following preliminary categories distinguishing argumentative roles in deliberation about business in society is put forward here: Argument Builders, Argument Articulators, Argument SenseMakers, Argument Generators, and Argument Framers. Argument Builders Argument builder services aggregate and interpret evidence that is otherwise hard to collect or organize. The intermediaries provide arguments or the grounds for building arguments or for raising doubts and disagreements about business conduct. Examples include: scorecard.org is a pollution information site providing detailed database based on government reports about who produces what toxins with what effect in a geographic area the U.S.; www.opensecrets.org is the Center for Responsive Politics site that enables users to track the influence of money on elections and public policy in the U.S.; www.capitalresearch.org enables users to track basic information about non-profit organizations in a database built from U.S. tax information; www.panda.org is the site of the World Wildlife foundation that enables users to track the circumstances of different species; and croctail.corpwatch.org is a database built from U.S. tax 8 information that enables users to identify the subsidiaries of corporations. Argument Articulators Argument articulator services provide tools that enable people to represent complex evidence to bring to light patterns otherwise hard to detect or communicate. Examples include: most peer based social data analysis tools such as www.data360.org, www.swivel.com/, and www.many-eyes.com/ all of which provide people ways to make data sets available and ways to visualize the data. Another compelling example is www.gapminder.com which is a visualization tool for displaying trends in statistical data through animated charts. Like argument builders, argument articulators generate materials for making arguments but do so by enabling usergenerated content. Argumentation SenseMakers Argument sense-maker services enable collective, participative exploration of issues and disagreements by providing tools that visualize the positions, reasons, and evidence relative to an unfolding issue. This is in contrast to argument articulator services which enable visualization of data. Examples include: Compendium, by the www.compendiuminstitute.org, is a software application that enables users to visualize relationships among entities. It is commonly used with a methodology for visualizing the issue structure of complex deliberations. Two other related services, www.truthmapping.com/ and www.debategraph.org/ support large-scale argumentation through tools that enable participants to make contributions that explore an issue while also visually representing the structure of the issues in an evolving distributed discussion. These tools have been set up to support any kind of deliberative dialogue. Others, such as www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com and www.roadtocophenhagen.org, provide a mediated space, through wikis, for those interested to engage in an issue based discussion. The 9 www.crocodyl.org service enables users to collaborate in generating user generated content that builds public information and profiles of various business corporations. These three communication-information services provide ways for any stakeholder to further engage in generating materials to advance argumentation about business in society or to make sense of positions and issues. Sensemaker and articulator services are more generically process oriented but can be integrated into specific issues. These services aim to help people coordinate their engagement over particular issues. Other services are more content specific, like the argument builders. These services enable people to navigate, find, and organize materials that would otherwise be difficult to find. Two additional kinds of services have been identitfied that play a different role in shaping deliberation about business conduct. Argument Generators Argument generator services create arguments to be used by others in deliberating. These sites aim to provide content that offers interpretation and perspective on matters of corporate responsibility. Many of these services play an advocacy role rather than a more neutral role like the services described above. Some services are often the product of traditional think tanks and other kinds of policy organizations. Examples include the www.pewclimate.org and the www.marshall.org which are two traditional think tanks that are now focusing on climate change issues to influence public opinion and policy about climate change. Other services resemble traditional think tanks but have emerged in the internet era. These services investigate a particular topic of interest and write commentary about that topic intended to develop perspectives on that topic. Examples include www.corpwatch.org, which focuses on corporate behavior; www.cfact.org, which focuses on climate change; www.globalcompactcritics.blogspot.com, which focuses on the United Nations Global Compact; 10 and www.campaignexxonmobil.org which focuses on the behavior of one multinational energy company. These services function along the lines of what Jackson (2008) calls argument “black boxes.” The services are places people can turn to while engaged in deliberation to find ready made argument bundles that can be deployed in the deliberation. Argument Framers Argument framer services work to establish standards for the conduct of argumentation and deliberation. These services focus on the development of principles and standards over which business conduct will be judged. They attempt to frame the entire debate or important portions of the debate about business conduct. Some focus on the construction of explicit standards, such as www.unglobalcompact.org which presents principles for business conduct and recruits members who pledge to meet those standards. Other services construct standards in a manner that is a bit more indirect by building indices or awards that promote particular standards of behavior. Examples include www.sustainability-index.com and www.reputationinstitute.com. These actors create and promote the values around which arguments can be directed and formulated and around which data and evidence can be accumulated. Discussion and Conclusion Responsibility and accountability are understood here as communicative achievements of a network of two or more actors engaged in a dialectical exchange over issues that arise about the role of business in society. Within this exchange a variety of forms of transparency practices have emerged that shape the content, direction, and outcomes of that dialectic. The brief sketch provided here points to an arena for future work in understanding argument practice in the contemporary world and a site for the potential development of argumentation theory. 11 The emergence and evolution of transparency practices in the context of information problems and global production networks is a place where recent interests in instutional argument in argumentation theory ought to be explored. Institutions in argumentation theory are often conceived of as places where arguments take place that have particular rules. While studying conventionalized forms of argumentation and the performance of argument behavior in those settings is important, it is also important to examine the formation of institutions. The tranparency work highlighted here reveals an area where institutions for argumentation are being formed. The process and outcome of that formation will be consequential for deliberating about business conduct and for business conduct. The present study provides some basic starting points. First, it may be useful to treat the formation of institutions as a response to managing multiple goals and demands of communication. Transparency work practices arise as means for rendering the complexity of information and global production networks visible. Second, these practices advance what is recognized as arguable and how argument is pursued. The conduct of the transparency work, intentionally or unintentionally, shapes matters of argumentation such as what counts as evidence, warrants, disputable issues, acceptable lines of reasoning, and the legitmate roles that can be taken up in arguing about business conduct. Third, transparency work resembles other kinds of 3rd party actions that reconstruct argumentative discourse and give shape to particular kinds of disagreement space. The actions undertaken in transparency work operate on and perpetuate assumptions about how argumentative communication works and ought to work. Fourth, transparency work and its particular practices can become contestable and thus introduce a meta-discussion about how the domain of business conduct should be argued about. Fifth, the context of decentralized accountability in business conduct has given rise to entreprenuralism in 12 providiung argumentation services. The emerging division of labor is organized around realizing forms of argument activity. This drives the formation of institutions for argument. Each of these layers requires further analysis for understanding the domain of business argumentation and the practices of transparency work. In doing so, new insights about how argument becomes institutionalized can be further documented and understood. References Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17, 265-290. Aakhus, M. & Ziek, P. (2008). Sustainability communication: A role for IT and IS in relating business and society. Presented at the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on Information Systems. Paris, France. Freedman, M. & Stagliano, A. (2008). Accounting disclosures of Toxics Release Inventory for 2002. Accounting and the Public Interest, 8(1), 21-38. Graham, M. (2002). Democracy by disclosure: The rise of technopopulism. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute. Jackson, S. (2008). Black box arguments. Argumentation, 22(3), 437-446. Keohane, R. (2006). Accountabilty in world politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29(2), 7587. Stiglitz, J. (2000). The contributions of the economics of information to Twentieth century economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1441-1478.