It made me think of one of the publications I read with great interest in preparation for the Transparency in the Supply Chain project was “A view on sustainability? Transparency in supply chains investigated” (“Zicht op duurzaamheid? Transparantie in productieketens onderzocht”), by MVO platform and it combines transparency research on specific products (gravestones, gems, cobalt, T-shirts, MP3 players and several tropical agricultural products) by several Dutch organizations.
The writers make the distinction between openness, which is, roughly, opening your shop being cooperative and providing information and clarity and transparency, which means that there is enough information available with the company on the sustainability aspects of a product including where and how all the components have been sourced. Where openness is a matter of attitude, transparency is a matter of capacity and the latter would appear to be a development of the former.
In that light it makes sense that some of the participating investigators found that SMEs were as open as larger companies questioned but that they were not as transparent. They are externally motivated to share the information that they have, anything really, to help them sell their products and/or services.
But clearly capacity is ultimately a function of demand. As long as transparency is asked for by buyers, be they larger companies downstream from the SME or (end) consumers, an SME or any supplier will see the case in obliging its client by building the capacity and providing sustainability information.
Initial indications from the project are that this is certainly one of the early motivations for companies, but that they see the value of reporting for their company’s internal operations and stakeholder management after a while. In the project transparency builds a more intrinsically motivated, open, attitude. And yes, I would consider this intrinsic motivation is a more favorable basis for supply chain transparency.
