Rated Ranking: Transparency in Corporate Reporting 2012

Transparency in Corporate Reporting 2012


Transparency International(TI) has assessed the 105 largest publicly listed global corporation according to the Forbes Global 2000 list. The ranking covers three fields: anti-corruption, organizational transparency and country-wise reporting. The ranking-results are only built on publicly available data published by the corporations assessed – as TI considers this part of the core objective of the ranking.

While one could argue that the dimensions covered are not sufficient to make an overall statement of the state of transparent reporting of a global corporation the ranking, its methodology and accessibility of the methodology have to be considered as best practice. By this TI fulfills requirements it demands from corporate actors – which is not necessarily a standard in global acting NGOs.

Given the global credibility of TI its Transparency in Corporate Reporting – Ranking has definitely high influence on the reputation of global corporations. Further it provides clear guidance to corporate actors where to advance in anti-corruption programs, other fields of transparency or at least the communication about it. It allows also to benchmark against other companies. A real value would be provided if TI would repeat the ranking in order to assess progress made in this field.

Relevance / Impact
– 13 points –
Added Value / Insights
– 11 points –

Trustworthiness / Intention
– 10 points –
– 15 points –

Aggregated points
– 49 (out of 60) –
Highly valuable ranking

Useful ranking with some flaws

Partially useful ranking with considerable flaws

< 30
Useless ranking

Reach of publication:

  • Global, e.g. North America, Europe and Asia (5 points)
  • Regional, e.g. Europe or North America (3 points)
  • Large national market: e.g. US, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Brazil (2 points)
  • Mid-sized or small market, e.g. Switzerland, Netherlands, Argentina, Singapore (1 point)

Ranking will be recognized by key stakeholders:

  • Opinion Leaders (Politicians, Professors; NGO’s) (2 points)
  • Business Advisory Board, C-Level Executives (CEO, CCO, CFO, CMO) (2 points)
  • High Potentials & Top Talents (employer market, students) (2 points)
  • Financial Market (2 points)
  • General Public (2 points)

Aggregated points: 13 (of max. 15)

Is the owner providing the ranking a credible and trustworthy organization?

  • Ranking owner has limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
  • Ranking owner has fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
  • Ranking owner has excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

What is the ranking owner’s intention to produce and disseminate the ranking?

  • Ranking is predominantly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (1 point)
  • Ranking is partly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (3 points)
  • Ranking is predominantly a tool to surface and share important insights on the subject surveyed. (5 points)

Is/Are the media outlet(s) where the ranking is published of high credibility and reputation?

  • Media outlet(s) has/have limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
  • Media outlet(s) has/have fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
  • Media outlet(s) has/have excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

Comment: No media outlet

Aggregated points: 10 (of max. 15)

Do the ranking results provide overall orientation where companies stand?

  • limited orientation only (1 point)
  • fair orientation provided (3 points)
  • very good orientation (5 points)

Comment: The ranking gives a clear orientation in a list highlighting all three main dimensions assessed.

Is the Ranking published in the same format on a regular basis, e.g. annually, which allows to track developments and comparisons over time?

  • ranking is published for the first time (1 point)
  • ranking is published for the second time in the same format (3 points)
  • ranking is published for more than 3 times on a regular basis in the same format (5 points)

Comment: Transparency International had a ranking in 2009 covering transparency in Anti-corruption only which ist one of three dimension covered in the current ranking.

Do the ranking results provide added value and further insights on how companies are evaluated in in their industry, e.g. detailed ratings in various sub-dimensions of the overall result?

  • limited added value only (1 point)
  • fair amount of added value (3 points)
  • high amount of added value (5 points)

Comment: Ranking allows e.g. comparison of industries, benchmarking against average results etc.

Aggregated points: 11 (of max. 15)

Is the ranking based on a representative survey among key stakeholders or on a jury only?

  • Ranking is based on a jury’s opinion only. (1 point)
  • Ranking is based on a small survey or only on a limited group of stakeholders. (3 points)
  • Ranking is based on a robust and representative survey. (5 points)

Is the ranking methodology easy to understand and reasonable – even for non-statisticians?

  • Methodology not easy to understand and not reasonable. (1 point)
  • Methodology fairly good to understand and reasonable. (3 points)
  • Methodology very easy to understand and reasonable. (5 points)

Is the ranking methodology easy to access and transparent?

  • Methodology not easy to find and not sufficiently transparent. (1 point)
  • Methodology fairly good to find and of medium transparency. (3 points)
  • Methodology very easy to find and of high transparency. (5 points)

Aggregated points: 15 (of max. 15)

Ranking category

  • Product / Service Brands
  • Company Brands
  • Corporate Reputation and Company Esteem
  • Social Responsibility, CSR & Sustainability, Ethical Business Practices
  • Innovation & Technology
  • Employer Attractiveness & Diversity
  • Leadership
  • Nations & Destinations
  • University & Other Institutions
  • Sports
  • Lifestyle
  • Social Media
  • Personal Branding & CEOs

Ranking statistics

  • Name of Ranking: Transparency in Corporate Reporting: Assessing the World‘s Largest Companies
  • Ranking managed/produced by institute/organization: Transparency International
  • Ranking published by media outlet: -
  • Date of recent publication: July 10, 2012
  • Date of previous publication: n.a.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *