Opaque transparency: How material affordances shape intermediary work

Abstract

How do the material aspects of intermediary work affect regulators, targets, and beneficiaries? To shed light on this question, we studied an information intermediary in the form of a website and the organizations who founded it. Specifically, we analyzed FracFocus, a self‐regulatory initiative with strong industry ties, charged with disclosing data pertaining to the chemicals used in oil and gas wells completed using hydraulic fracturing technology (fracking) in the United States and Canada. We found that between 2010 and mid‐2017, the vast majority of legislation in states and provinces where fracking actively occurred was updated to mandate or encourage disclosure via FracFocus, meaning that it had a considerable effect on the trajectory of official regulation on fracking disclosure. We also found that FracFocus disclosed important data but did so in a manner that limited accessibility and reduced the comprehensibility of environmental and public health risks to beneficiaries. Our analysis suggests that the public's experience of such a device is one of opaque transparency, in which the line between official and non‐official regulation is blurred. We traced these outcomes to the material affordances created by FracFocus.

Comparison of the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle in China and North America: A Critical Review

“…Within the U.S. and Canada, several overlapping approaches provide data on water withdrawal and chemical use records for ongoing and future HF operations . As one response, the industry introduced FracFocus, which began as a platform for voluntary disclosure but has become mandatory in many North American states and provinces. , Other regulators, such as the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection additionally require such information to be directly reported . In turn, these data are compiled and made available via a number of data providers .…”

Robust Action: Advancing a Distinctive Approach to Grand Challenges

“…Reinecke, 2016), national and transnational regulation and policy (Abbott, Levi-faur, & Snidal, 2017;Avidan, Etzion, & Gehman, 2019;Brès, Mena, & Salles-Djelic, 2019), cross-sectoral partnerships and multistakeholder engagement (Gray & Purdy, 2018), shareholder engagement (Ferraro & Beunza, 2018;Goodman & Arenas, 2015), and social movements (Briscoe & Safford, 2008;DeJordy, Scully, Ventresca, & Creed, 2020;McDonnell, King, & Soule, 2015), to name just a few.…”

Organizing for Societal Grand Challenges

“…Reinecke, 2016), national and transnational regulation and policy (Abbott, Levi-faur, & Snidal, 2017;Avidan, Etzion, & Gehman, 2019;Brès, Mena, & Salles-Djelic, 2019), cross-sectoral partnerships and multistakeholder engagement (Gray & Purdy, 2018), shareholder engagement Goodman & Arenas, 2015), and social movements (Briscoe & Safford, 2008;DeJordy, Scully, Ventresca, & Creed, 2020;McDonnell, King, & Soule, 2015), to name just a few. Along the way, scholars studying governance and stakeholder engagement have overcome a longstanding tension between consensus and dissensus via architectures that are robust to deeply contradictory value systems.…”