Whenever you look at trust, you should look at or control for cultural dimensions.  Hofstede's Uncertainty Avoidance concept seems appropriate to issues relating to risk, but Power Distance might be more applicable since you're looking at responses to leadership styles.  In Low Power Distance cultures people tend to want their leaders to be transparent and explain their decisions.  In High Power Distance cultures, transparancy may not be as important, or might even be a bad thing.  

This is a very valid question and one that probably is stemming from a real project. Governance is all about transparency. There is a definite correlation between transparency and governance and its subsequent impact on risk mitigation. However, all transparency may seem a threat to other stakeholders. Timing of the information, strategy, language and profile of the audience can either aid with the communication or completely distort the intent. In such cases, the organization hierarchy and management cadres come in handy. Content restrictions based on audience and a phased release of information can balance transparency and impact of the communication. Often times, speculation or what-if scenarios are misinterpreted for real possible events, increasing risk factors. Hence, communication backed by data and facts will ensure consistency between transparency and governance. My response here is based on my experience inn the area of IT governance. Maybe searching for information based on some keyword from my response may help in retrieving papers related to this topic. BTW, I am currently working on an emissions reporting project to the EPA (Env. Protection Agency, USA) for a leading oil and gas company. 

Culture eats strategy for breakfast, and risk communications are directly affected by culture of an organization.   Culture is established by the organizational leaders.  There are numerous stories in the current lexicon where the culture of the organization directly impacted the safety and well being of large numbers of people.  This translates directly into reputational issues and money.   As a former member of the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, and as a consultant in Safety Culture to the Columbia Shuttle Accident Investigation Board, you can look to the NASA reports for published info on risk and culture.   In the 2012 ASAP report, you will find that NASA originally believed the risk of losing a shuttle was 1in 100 launches.   A retrospective review, cited in that report, stated that the number was closer to 1 in 10 launches, or a full order of magnitude difference.  Executives tend to remember the first risk number they are told, and generally, NO ONE EVER tells the executives the level of error associated with that number.  Risk is an educated guess in every instance, and generally, the technical people communicate incompletely around the subject.

The "relationship landscape" affects how transparency works. In a low-trust environment, it may not work at all. The meanings people give to things and other people are formed by their interactions with their fellow men and women (symbolic interactionism). The meanings people give to published information is strongly affected by their interactions with the providers of that information - taking this into account is important