Cargando
Preparando la información solicitada…
Cargando
Preparando la información solicitada…
Application of the Organizational Transparency Index (OTI) across 60 organizations in 6 countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru) — 30 public and 30 private — yielded a regional average score of 38 out of 100 in verifiable transparency. The index measures 5 dimensions with auditable evidence (not self-perception): effective information access (average 42/100), managerial decision traceability (29/100), actual accountability mechanisms (35/100), verifiable integrity of reported data (44/100), and documented institutional openness (39/100). ISO-certified private organizations score 12 points higher than public ones on average (44 vs. 32). Highest-scoring sectors are technology (51/100) and financial services (47/100); lowest are municipal government (24/100) and public health (28/100). The gap between declared transparency (what organizations state in public reports) and verifiable transparency (what can be confirmed with evidence) averaged 34 points: organizations declare an average of 72/100 but can only verify 38/100. The 10 indicators with the largest declared-verifiable gap and the 5 with the best correlation were documented.
Central questions answered with verifiable data from the study.
Average of 38/100. Lowest dimension is decision traceability (29/100). Highest is data integrity (44/100).
34-point average gap. They declare 72/100 but can only verify 38/100.
Best: technology (51/100), financial services (47/100). Worst: municipal government (24/100), public health (28/100). Certified private orgs outscore public ones by 12 points.
Steps completed, sources consulted, and evidence collected during the study.
Normative and theoretical framework: ISO 37001:2016 (integrity); ISO 37301:2021 (compliance); OECD Corporate Governance Principles (2023); Transparency International (CPI, NIS); OGP (Open Government Partnership).
Documents with the full results of this research, adaptable to each organization’s context.
Request the complete methodological package for research [INV-11]. Institutional use only.
Research that extends or contrasts the findings of this study.
Help circulate evidence-based governance.
If the question is institutional and has context, we can guide you on the next steps.