When organizations engage in learning from each other through self‐governed networks, they may encounter challenges regarding confidentiality. This is particularly true if external accountability needs of the network participants conflict with internal accountability among participants and/or network‐level objectives. This study shows how important it is to have specific agreements about not using findings for accountability outside the network. Empirical evidence comes from a longitudinal case study of a benchmarking project involving six independent public sector companies. Based on reciprocal trust among the participants, the promise of confidentiality was made up front and enforced throughout the network collaboration by the participants themselves.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is threefold: to investigate why and how companies in voluntary networks engage in performance benchmarking; how requirements for a standardised chart of accounts are handled; and what the role of regulatory pressure is. Design/methodology/approach -The paper is based on a longitudinal case study of an established group of six district-heating companies. The data sources are semi-structured interviews, observations and documents. Findings -Both the forthcoming re-regulation of the district-heating sector and aims to improve efficiency were motivating the collaboration among the firms. An interpretation of common accounting rules can be negotiated in a collaborative network. The benchmarking model was embedded in routines internally in firms to facilitate learning and knowledge exchange, but it was also used to legitimise current operations.

No abstract