Introduction
Transparency has become a central concern in contemporary management, particularly within the domain of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting. The push for greater disclosure is often presented as a straightforward route to accountability and better decision-making. Yet, as Quattrone (2022) highlights in his article, the pursuit of transparency through ever more detailed metrics can paradoxically obscure rather than illuminate organisational realities. This essay examines the implications of that argument for ESG reporting. It focuses on shifts in perspectives and day-to-day practices rather than institutional structures. The discussion first outlines Quattrone’s core claim, then considers how similar dynamics appear in ESG contexts, and finally evaluates the consequences of these dynamics for managers and stakeholders. The central contention is that an intensified reliance on quantitative definitions risks narrowing what counts as relevant information while leaving underlying complexities unaddressed.
The Paradox of Transparency According to Quattrone
Quattrone (2022) contends that attempts to achieve transparency by producing more precise definitions and metrics tend to overlook the inherently partial nature of any representation. Rather than resolving ambiguity, additional data categories often multiply the points at which judgement must be exercised, thereby increasing opacity. This argument draws on the long-standing observation in accounting research that measurement systems both reveal and conceal. When organisations respond to demands for transparency by expanding the number of indicators they report, attention shifts towards those indicators and away from aspects of performance that resist quantification. Consequently, the very act of seeking clarity through definitions can blind observers to other dimensions of organisational activity.
Application to ESG Reporting Practices
ESG reporting has experienced rapid growth in recent years, driven by investor expectations and regulatory encouragement. Companies increasingly produce lengthy sustainability reports filled with dozens of key performance indicators covering carbon emissions, diversity ratios, board independence, and supply-chain audits. From one perspective, these developments represent a welcome broadening of corporate accountability. However, when viewed through Quattrone’s lens, the proliferation of metrics may generate its own form of blindness. Practitioners often prioritise indicators that are readily measurable and internationally comparable, such as Scope 1 and 2 emissions, while devoting less attention to more context-specific social impacts that are harder to standardise. Over time, reporting teams develop routines that channel effort into data collection for the chosen metrics, subtly reshaping internal priorities. What began as an effort to increase openness thus narrows organisational attention to a limited set of predefined categories.
Shifting Perspectives Among Report Preparers and Users
Perspectives on ESG information have changed as reporting practices have intensified. Initially, many managers viewed ESG disclosure as a supplementary activity that sat alongside financial reporting. More recently, the same managers frequently describe ESG metrics as integral to strategic decision-making. This shift is accompanied by a growing reliance on third-party frameworks that supply standardised definitions. While such frameworks reduce the scope for idiosyncratic interpretation, they also encourage a compliance-oriented mindset. Preparers become focused on ensuring that reported figures align with external templates rather than on exploring whether those figures capture the issues most material to their organisation. Users of the reports, including analysts and investors, similarly adapt their practices; they develop screening tools that filter companies according to numeric thresholds. These tools can efficiently process large datasets, yet they also risk screening out qualitative information that does not fit the chosen scales. The net effect is that both producers and consumers of ESG reports adjust their attention in ways that reinforce the metric-driven view of transparency.
Critical Evaluation and Remaining Tensions
The argument advanced by Quattrone (2022) usefully draws attention to the limitations of treating transparency as an essentially technical problem of definition. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that some degree of standardisation has practical value; without shared categories, comparison across firms would be even more difficult. The difficulty lies in maintaining awareness that any metric remains a partial representation. In ESG contexts, this awareness appears uneven. Some organisations supplement quantitative disclosures with narrative explanations of limitations and trade-offs, yet such narratives receive less scrutiny than the headline numbers. Furthermore, the time and resources devoted to refining ESG data can divert attention from operational changes that would address the underlying environmental or social issues. The paradox, therefore, is not merely theoretical; it manifests in everyday choices about what information is collected, analysed and presented. Recognising this dynamic does not imply abandoning measurement altogether, but it does suggest the need for more reflective judgement about the boundaries of what any given set of metrics can reasonably convey.
Conclusion
Quattrone’s (2022) observation that the search for transparency through definitions can amplify rather than reduce opacity carries direct relevance for the evolving field of ESG reporting. As perspectives and everyday reporting practices have adapted to demands for greater disclosure, organisations have placed increasing weight on standardised quantitative indicators. This focus usefully enables comparison, yet simultaneously risks narrowing the scope of what is noticed and acted upon. The implication for management practice is that greater transparency cannot be achieved solely through the addition of more metrics; it also requires sustained attention to the partial and constructed nature of those metrics. Without such reflexivity, the growing volume of ESG information may continue to obscure as much as it reveals.
References
- Quattrone, P. (2022) Seeking transparency makes one blind. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 97, p. 101-115.
