RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
How to cite this article in bibliographies / References
D Cordón Benito, L Maestro Espínola (2017): “Museums’ corporate websites as tools for
transparency”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72, pp. 941 to 956.
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
DOI: 10.4185/RLCS-2017-1200-51en
Museums’ corporate websites
as tools for transparency
David Cordón Benito [CV] [
david.cordon@unir.net
Lidia Maestro Espínola [CV] [
lidia.maestro@unir.net
] Universidad Internacional de La Rioja –
][
][
] Universidad Internacional de La Rioja –
Abstract
Introduction. The environment in which organisations operate has changed dramatically in recent
years. Cases of corruption, unethical practices and the economic crisis have led to a new complex
landscape in which institutions must rebuild the lost trust. The objective of this work is to demonstrate
how museums are committed to transparency to showcase themselves as reliable organisations that
fulfil their social purpose. Methods. This study is based on the content analysis of the websites of a
sample of museums in order to determine whether these channels meet the transparency requirements
proposed by the report of the Commitment and Transparency Foundation. Results and conclusions.
Like other types of organisations, museums use their corporate websites as transparent platforms,
where they meet a series of criteria that increase the public’s trust and provide information of interest
to society.
Keywords
Transparency; museums; corporate communication; new complexity; trust.
Contents
1. Introduction. 1.1. Transparency: a tool to make institutions stand out. 1.2. The museum: an
institution that uses transparency to achieve greater proximity to the public. 2. Research objectives and
methods. 3. Results. 4. Conclusions. 5. Notes. 6. References.
Translation by CA Martínez-Arcos (PhD in Communication, University of London)
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 941
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
1. Introduction
In recent years, the ups and downs in the political, economic and social environments have led to the
transformation of the reality in which institutions operate. Access to information has been multiplied
by the Internet and this medium has changed the way in which people communicate with each other.
The deep economic crisis, added to the public dissatisfaction provoked by cases of corruption have
fostered the loss of confidence in institutions by their stakeholders (Laporte and Gutiérrez, 2013: 9).
All this has made the public sick and tired, which has been reflected in numerous citizen movements
around the world, such as the 15M or the protests of Venezuelan students against President Maduro.
Ultimately, it has been shown that civil society can get organised to actively demand their rights and
influence public policies (Derville, 2005).
The latest reports issued by the Edelman Trust Barometer (2016, 2017) show that the vast majority of
the population does not trust institutions, be they NGOs, governments, private organisations or the
media. Both documents encourage organisations to rebuild society’s trust in them by undertaking
specific actions and plans. Confidence is an intangible good that will help these organisations to stand
out in the face of competition and, given the global market in which all institutions compete today, the
benefits of this opportunity are great.
1.1. Transparency: as a tool to make institutions stand out
In recent years, and in view of the different events that have taken place since the end of the 20th
century, organisations have begun to carry out a readjustment to the environments in which they
operate, by making their performance distinguishable in a globalised environment (Siriamesh, 2010).
The Internet has changed the way in which society interacts and communicates with each other,
offering a greater plurality of opinions (Castello et al., 2013). This fact has complicated
communication management in organisations, which must compete in an increasingly saturated
information market (Freeman, 1984; Cortina, 2003).
Institutions have understood that in view of this new social landscape that has made a dent on their
reputation, they have to readjust themselves to deal with an environment which expects them to be not
only political agents, but also social and political players (Scherer et al. 2014). This context highlights
the importance intangibles have acquired in recent years among organisations that wish to meet the
expectations of their stakeholders to regain the lost confidence and legitimacy.
This has given way to the emergence of a new management model that is based on sustainable growth
and focuses on good governance and the creation of value for companies. It is what some authors like
Alloza (2011) have called “reputation economy”. Reputation, corporate citizenship and corporate
social responsibility become protagonist elements within the new form of management in
organisations. The objective is a common good economy that generates shared value that can benefit
both the institution and the different stakeholders. Therefore, and as Freeman et al. (2010) explain,
companies integrate the interests of their stakeholders with the interests and objectives established by
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 942
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
the institutions, achieving a very beneficial level of public confidence. As stated by Alloza (2011),
relations with stakeholders can destroy and create value, which has a positive impact on reputation and
acts as a key differentiator with respect to the competition.
In the case of Spain, where the loss of confidence in institutions for the abovementioned reasons has
been reported in the media and through citizen protests, the national government decided to take a
series of measures to force organisations to comply with minimum standards of transparency and urged
institutions to regain the lost credibility.
The Spanish Prime Minister took several steps in this regard: firstly, he enacted the 2013 Law on
Transparency, Access to Public Information and Good Governance. Secondly, he established, in Title
III of this Law, the creation of the Council for Transparency and Good Governance. And, finally, at
the end of 2014, he promoted the creation of the Transparency Website (Portal de la Transparencia).
These decisions have benefited citizens’ access to the open data that public institutions decide to put
at the service of society and which contributes to the improvement of the perception of organisations
by citizens (Gértrudix et al., 2016).
As stated in its preamble, the 2012 Transparency Law has a triple objective: “It increases and
strengthens transparency in public activities (...), recognises and guarantees access to information (...)
and lays down the good governance obligations that must be met by public authorities as well as the
legal consequences of non-compliance”. With this declaration of intent, the law aims to respond to the
demands of several increasingly critical stakeholders who, in recent years, have requested greater
involvement in the public powers. To carry out this work, the Law establishes the creation and
regulation of the Council for Transparency and Good Governance which was born as: “an independent
body with power to promote the culture of transparency in the activities of the public administration,
to control the fulfilment of the obligations of active advertising, as well as the right of access to public
information and compliance with the provisions of good governance”. Finally, as stated in Article 5
of this law, the public administrations regulated by this law must regularly publish the information
deemed relevant to ensure full transparency in their actions. To do this, the Spanish Government
decided to create the Transparency Website [1], where any citizen can consult or request public
information of interest. This way public institutions can easily meet their duties to reasonable explain
to society the decisions they have taken and provide stakeholders with data for consultation (Arenilla,
2011; La Rosa et al., 2016; Beltrán et al., 2016).
Following the Spanish Government’s decision to make data available, and leaving aside those experts
who argue that the Law on Transparency is not as exhaustive as it should be (Lizcano, 2013; Magallon,
2013; La Rosa et al., 2016), the truth is that this Law has had a direct impact on public institutions.
Many researchers have addressed the needs for, and implementation and evaluation of transparency
by different administrations (Woo Yoo and Gil de Zúñiga, 2014; Beltrán et al., 2016; Cabezuelo et al.
2016; Rebolledo et al., 2016; Carey, 2017).
However, and despite the interest generated by this commitment to transparency among public
administrations, the truth is that organisations unrelated to the world of politics are also making an
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 943
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
effort to show themselves as open entities to stakeholders, to provide relevant information and regain
the lost trust. In recent years, there have been several studies on transparency in organisations unrelated
to politics (Craig et al., 2016; López et al., 2017; Karlson et al., 2017; Suárez-Villegas et al., 2017).
Following this interest in research on transparency and its management by organisations outside the
public sector, this article focuses on the world of museums. These century-old institutions have adapted
to a changing environment over the years and have shown interest to demonstrate, where appropriate,
that they can also bet on transparency as a differentiating tool that has a positive impact on their
reputation (Villafañe, 2004, 2013; Huang, 2015).
1.2. The museum: an institution that uses transparency to achieve greater proximity to the public
As far as museums are concerned, the truth is that their proximity to the public is a reality. With the
arrival of new museology, these organisations have shifted their focus from collections to visitors
(Arias-Serrano, 2015). The reasons are diverse and range from their changing nature, which has been
made clear by their adaptation to the changes that have occurred ever since their birth, in the midst of
the French Revolution; including their redefinition towards dialogic spaces and virtual and physical
meeting points with their communities (Black, 2012; De la Iglesia et al.; Cordón et al., 2016), up to
their own definition.
With regards to this last point, the fact is that the last definition of museum offered by the International
Council of Museums (ICOM) [2] in 2007 points out that: “A museum is a non-profit, permanent
institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves,
researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its
environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.” Therefore, this contribution shows
that a museum, intrinsically, is an organisation open to society, with objectives focused on it and that,
therefore, needs to establish and maintain trust and mutually beneficial relationships with its
stakeholders.
For this reason, museums are committed to use communication as a management tool that affects the
confidence of stakeholders and the reputation of the organisation (Cornelissen, 2004; Doorley et al.,
2007).
2. Research objectives and methods
The hypothesis that guides this study is that museums, as institutions with a strong social character,
have decided to restore the lost confidence by showing themselves as transparent entities through their
corporate websites. While some authors promote conceptions of museums as obsolete and elitist
organisations (Hooper-Greenhill, 1989, 1992, 2000; Bennett, 1996), the truth is that they are
institutions adaptable to the changes occurring in their surrounding environment.
Several objectives derive from this hypothesis: first, to analyse the importance that museums give to
transparency; second, to analyse the use of corporate websites to publish relevant information to the
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 944
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
public and, thirdly, to establish whether there is a relationship between the transparency offered by
museums through their websites and the number of visitors they receive.
Taking into account the aforementioned hypothesis and objectives, this research is based on the content
analysis of the websites of the most visited museums in Spain, the USA, England and France to
measure their transparency. The choice of these countries is justified by the amount of people who
visit these organisations to watch their exhibitions. As noted in the introduction, these institutions seek
to maintain and improve their reputation ratings through their communication strategies. The website
is a tool for the corporate communication of any organisation. For this reason, the article tries to show
that the most visited museums in the world develop transparent corporate websites.
During the documentation period, we identified the international publication of greater reference for
the art and museum sector, The Art Newspaper, which is published monthly by Umberto Allemandi &
Co. Since 1996, this publication publishes their annual study titled Visitor Figures: Exhibition &
Museum Attendance Survey [3], which presents and examines the most visited museums in the past 12
months and the most popular exhibitions based on the number of visitors around the world. Due to the
inability to find other studies with the same tradition that include the volume of visits to different
international museums, we decided to take this publication’s survey as the basis for the selection of
the sample of museums.
The selection of units of analysis is not random, and includes museums from France, Great Britain,
the USA and Spain that registered the largest number of visitors in the last ten years. The first three
museums always lead the ranking of most visited museums in the world and, in the case of the Spanish
museum, its location in the list ranges from the tenth to the twelfth position in the ten-year period.
However, it holds the distinction of being Spain’s most visited art centre. Its inclusion in the sample
is justified given the interest of this article in establishing a comparison and extract results of interest.
Bearing that in mind, the study analyses the corporate websites of the following museums: Louvre
Museum (Paris), British Museum (London), Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) and Museo
Nacional Centro de Arte -MNCARS.
Table. 1: Evolution of visitors to the sample of museums (2013-2016)
2013
2014
2015
2016
Louvre Museum
9,334,036
9,260,000
8,600,000
7,400,000
British Museum
6,701,036
6,695,213
6,820,686
6,420,395
Metropolitan Museum of Art
6,226,727
6,162,147
6,533,106
7,006,859
Museo Nacional Centro de Arte
3,185,413
2,673,745
3,249,591
3,646,598
Source: Authors’ own creation based on data taken from The Art Newspaper.
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 945
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
Before detailing the work performed, it is important to show the evolution of the visitor numbers of
the sample of four museums that are analysed from 2013 to 2016.
Figure. 1: Evolution of visitors to the sample of museums (2013-2016)
10.000.000
8.000.000
6.000.000
4.000.000
2.000.000
0
2013
2014
2015
2016
Musée du Louvre
British Museum
Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET)
Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía (MNCARS)
Source: Authors’ own creation based on data taken from The Art Newspaper.
The content analysis took into account the categories and indicators designed and employed by the
report on transparency in the websites of Spanish museums issued by the Commitment and
Transparency Foundation [3]. In this report, the foundation analyses the transparency of the websites
of the Spanish museums based on the information offered in such sites. The first report was published
in 2010 and has been followed by updated editions that measure the degree of improvement or
worsening of the information published on these websites.
The nine categories measured are: mission, strategy, activities, acts of disposal, organisational
structure, policies, government body, economic information and evaluation of results. These categories
are divided into twenty-four items that facilitate the evaluation of transparency of the museums based
on the relevant information they make public in their corporate website.
The analysis of the content of the institutional websites took place between 26 April and 3 May 2017.
Systematically, a template was established to verify that the previously listed categories were met or
not in each one of the museums that make up the sample. The following results were extracted from
the decoding of the obtained data.
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 946
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
3. Results
The results are structured according to the parameters analysed in the different websites of the
museums that make up the sample.
All analysed museums have a corporate section within their web architecture that allows users to find
relevant information about their history, structure, reports, among other relevant information. In all
cases examined in this article, the institutions explicitly state their mission. While it is true that many
of them adhere to the definition of museum proposed by the ICOM, their definitions differ from each
other, and are adapted to the particular circumstances and idiosyncrasies of their organisations.
With regards to the publication of the strategic plan, not all centres have a specific document that
details their main strategies for a given period of time. In the case of the British Museum and Museo
Nacional Centro de Arte (MNCARS), they have a plan that formulates the strategy for the future. In
the case of the British Museum, the document is named Towards 2020: The British Museum’s Strategy,
and can be found in the “Management and Governance” section of the website. In the case of the
MNCARS the plan is named “General Action Plan 2014-2017”, and can be found in the “Mission”
section of the website.
The MET does not have a specific document, but its annual report refers to the nuclear values of the
organisation and its strategic objectives for the next five years. The Louvre, on the other hand, does
not make its strategic plan public on the website, although it does shares its specific strategy of social
responsibility for the 2015-2017 period.
In relation to the websites’ publication of the activities of the museums, the question is divided in two
parts for a better structuring of the results. First, we investigated the inclusion of the description of the
main activities of the centres, emphasising documentation, curation, research and dissemination. In all
cases, their websites have sections with information related to these four main activities, being the
most common documentation and dissemination, understanding the latter as the communication
developed by these organisations’ press departments.
Second, the analysis focused on the sections that contained information about the educational activities
developed in these centres and their target audiences. The truth is that all the museums’ websites have
a space devoted to education, which highlights all educational programmes designed by the museum
and their target stakeholders. An interesting example is provided by the Museum MNCARS, which
publishes on its site a document called Educational Programme: Full programme, in a downloadable
PDF format. In addition, the website version offers the possibility to filter these activities by type of
audience: school-age publics (with their corresponding educational levels), children (families and
children's activities), young people (with different age groups), adults (with different types) and
accessibility (which can be filtered by type of difficulty affecting the visitor).
Another variable of analysis is related to acts of disposition of the collections, i.e., whether the website
offers information about acquisitions, loans, transfers, deposits, or purchases. Specific information
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 947
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
about this type of data is not published in three of the four museums. The websites do share information
about the history of the Museum and its collection, but there is no specific mention of what kind of
works are owned by the institution and which are transfers, loans, etc. However, it should be noted
that, despite not offering this information in a specific section of the website, this information can be
found in the annual reports, which explain all of these points. The only Museum which offers this
information in a specific section of its website is the British Museum, which contains the microsite
named “Annual Reports and Accounts”.
The analysis of the organisational structure indicates that there are differences in the publication of the
names and surnames of managers and artistic directors; the name and surname of the head of
departments and the emergence of an organisation chart explaining the departmental structure. The
cases under study do share the name and surname of the director or manager of the institution, which
is information of reference when it comes to meet the head of any organisation. This is not the case
with the full name of the people responsible for the various departments that make up the museums,
given that two of the four museums do not share this information or only publish the contact details
through a generic email address. The only museums that do make this information public are the British
Museum and the Queen Sofía Museum, in the sections “Freedom of Information Publication Scheme”
and “Team”, respectively.
The websites offer the names and surnames, as well as the position of the museum’s team members
and, in the case of the British Museum, this information is accompanied with a short biography, the
email and the contact information of the heads of department. Finally, two of the four analysed
museums make reference to their organisation chart: Musée du Louvre and Queen Sofía Museum.
Unfortunately, the first of these institutions offers a link with technical problems that prevent users
from reaching this information. Thus, the only valid organisational chart is the one provided by the
Spanish museum, whose website provides visitors with the structure and organisation of the different
areas and departments of this art centre. This helps users to better understand the organisation of the
institution and the interdependence of the areas.
The analysis of the rules governing the operation of each of these centres, as well as the policies
guiding their different areas, provided very homogeneous results. The websites of the four museums
have a section that mentions the various laws that regulate their general performance and the specific
operation of their areas (acquisitions, transfers, conservation, etc.). In the case of the MET, this
information is published in a section named “Policies and Documents”; in the British Museum, this
documentation can be found in the section named “Management and Governance”, which includes 22
regulations in this regard; the Louvre offers this legislation in a section named “Documents juridiques
et marchés publics” and, finally, the MNCARS stores these data in the section named “Misión”.
In relation to the governing body of each of these centres, the website of the MET does not publish the
names of the members of this body, unlike the rest of the analysed museums which do share all the
names of their board members. Of all the art centres, only the British Museum publishes on its website
a small biography for each of these people, and specifies their position within the governing body, just
like the MNCARS. However, none of the museums describes the responsibilities of these people
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 948
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
within the committees of which they are part. With respect to the meetings of these governing, only
the British Museum and the Louvre publish the minute, agenda and agreements of the meetings.
All the analysed museums adhere to a code of good governance. The Louvre has a microsite called
“Documents juridiques et marchés publics” which contains all the regulations that govern their daily
work. In the case of the MET, it is guided by the specific law of the Museum and a series of policies
that can be found in the “Policies and Documents” section. The British Museum, as mentioned,
includes a section named “Freedom of Information Publication Scheme”, which presents the different
policies and codes that govern its performance based on the “Freedom of Information Act”. And in the
case of the MNCARS, this information is available in the “Mission” and “Range of Services”, which
contain the 2011 Law that regulates the museum, and their statutes and regulations that ensure best
practices in this institution.
In relation to the economic information made available in the corporate websites of the organisations
under analysis, it is worth noting that all of them publish their budget for the current financial year, as
well as their incomes. This type of information is collected, mainly and in the case of the Louvre and
British Museums, in the annual reports, which explain in detail the accounts of the museums,
differentiating revenues and expenses attached to their annual budgets. On the one hand, the MET
offers annual reports of expenses, differentiated from its annual report, as well as the “Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) Form 990”, a specific document requested by the USA Treasury Department that must
be complied with. On the other hand, MNCARS offers the explanation of its financial information not
only in its annual reports, but also, as explained in the theoretical framework of this research, since it
is a public institution it must publish this information in the Transparency Website of the Spanish
Government. It is noteworthy that only the MET published a full report of accounts signed by an
external auditor, which increases the objectivity of the data reflected in the financial reports.
Finally, all of the analysed centres make reference in their annual reports to the fulfilment of the
objectives set out for that time period, specifying the extent of compliance with the general and
particular budgets within the institutions. However, these annual reports that assesses the results
obtained by the museum do not mention in any case the number of visitors received in the year
reported. These data are not available in the reports, but are available on their institutional websites,
in the form of press releases distributed by the communications departments of these organisations.
In addition, in most cases, the reports offer a comparison between the results of the previous and the
current year, with particular emphasis on whether the number of visitors has increased or decreased.
However, they do not offer a more detailed analysis of the monthly visitor numbers, despite all of
them, in addition to the physical visits, also count the number of followers in the different social
networks in which the museums have public profiles.
After the analysis of the twenty-four items selected by this work, the percentage of transparency in the
analysed museums exceeds 70%, being the British Museum (83%) the institution that meets the largest
number of requirements related to transparency, followed by the Spanish Museum MNCARS (80%)
and, in last place and sharing position, the Louvre Museum and the MET (71%).
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 949
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
Figure. 2: Percentage of transparency of the sample of museums
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Museo del Louvre
British Museum
MET Museum
MNCARS
Source: Authors’ own creation based on the transparency variables proposed by the Commitment and
Transparency Foundation in its report on transparency in the websites of Spanish museums.
After presenting all the results of the research study, it is important to offer a series of conclusions that
respond to the hypotheses and objectives.
4. Conclusions
The main hypothesis proposed by this research was confirmed because the museums do have begun
to use their websites to improve transparency and publish relevant information related to their
activities.
Based on the data presented in this work and the analysed items, we perceived that these organisations
are interested in making visible not only their corporate principles, but also the information relating to
their organisational structure, management bodies, regulatory frameworks that guide their work, their
good practices and the state and distribution of their budgets. As it occurs with other types of
institutions such as, for example, public administrations, which have been the protagonists of many
scientific publications related to transparency, museums have also adapted to this new complexity.
This research study confirms a good use of corporate websites by museums as tools to demonstrate
transparency. However, there is still room for improvement. While the trend is good, some data are
still not shared with the public. It is striking that the composition of the governing organs remains, in
some cases, a mystery, as well as the identity and curriculum of the members of these bodies, as well
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 950
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
as the responsibilities of each of them. Economic data, despite being published, still do not have the
endorsement of an independent agency that certifies accuracy and objectivity of this information,
which tends to be considered sensitive. The endorsement of external auditor would have a positive
effect on the credibility of the museums. The websites of the museums neither have sections that share
the global numbers of visitors, or their monthly distribution, which is surprising given that these
institutions do not hesitate to make public this information in specialised publications, like the one
taken as reference to select the sample of this study. Finally, it is interesting to find that not all of the
cases under analysis publish the minutes of the board meetings, nor the topics discussed and the
decisions taken in these meetings, which would provide greater clarity about the decision-making
processes that take place in these meetings.
An objective fact is that of the analysed museums, only the British Museum has a section on its
website, “Government transparency agenda”, which refers explicitly to the word transparency and
clearly reflects its interest in being perceived as a transparent institution by its public. Here it is
important to note that other museums that are not part of the sample for failing to comply with the
selection criteria, like the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum of Madrid, do have a specific section for this
purpose. In the case of this art gallery, its website section is named “Transparency Portal” [5].
Of the sample of museums’ corporate websites, despite having relevant information that makes them
transparent for the public, the truth is that it is not enough to meet the twenty-four transparency items.
Some of these items are not met and most of the information directly related to the transparency
indexes are distributed across different sections within the website. Therefore, none of the analysed
museums collects all the data analysed into one single section within its website architecture. Thus,
users have to find the different items manually or, occasionally, by using the websites’ own search
engines.
Of the 24 items analysed in this research, which are related the transparency index, all museums exceed
70% of compliance. However, if we correlate the percentage of transparency and the number of visitors
registered over the years, the MNCARS obtains a better result as it increases its general volume of
visitors, especially in the year 2016. This finding raises a future line of research focused on the
relationship that exists between good transparency indexes and the number of visitors to such
organisations. It is relevant to research whether, given the characteristics of this type of institution,
museums’ self-presentation as transparent organisations is enough to achieve good results in the
number of people who enjoy their services. Other elements also seem to influence this factor, such as
the appeal of the exhibition offer, the museum’s own services, and the institution’s communication of
their daily work.
It is clear that museums, as any other type of organisation at the service of society, as stated in their
definition, are dynamic institutions that are perceptive of society and have understood the need to adapt
to the changes promoted by a new complex landscape that they must face. Through different
communication tools, as in the analysed cases, their corporate websites, are approaching their
stakeholders by providing them with relevant and interesting information. In this way, they show that
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 951
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
they are institutions that, like the government organisations, are committed to transparency and
understand it as a need to rebuild society’s trust in them.
Dates:
-Start of research: March 2017
-End of research: June 2017
This work has been funded by UNIR Research (http://research.unir.net), the International
University of La Rioja (UNIR, http://www.unir.net), as part of its Institutional Research,
Development and Innovation Plan [2015-2017], and the Communication and Digital
Society (COYSODI) research group.
5. Notes
[1] The transparency website can be accessed at the following URL: http://transparencia.gob.es/
(accessed on 28/5/2017).
[2] The most recent definition of museum offered by the International Council of Museums (ICOM)
can be found at the following URL: http://icom.museum/la-vision/definicion-del-museo/L/1/
(accessed on 28/05/2017).
[3] The Visitor Figures and Attendance Numbers report, developed by The Art Newspaper, are
available at the following URL: http://theartnewspaper.com/reports/ (accessed on 28/05/017).
[4] The reports produced by the Fundación Compromiso y Transparencia are available at the
following URL: http://www.compromisoytransparencia.com/conocimientos/informes/ (accessed on
28/05/2017).
[5] The Transparency website of the Thyssen-Bornemisza Museum of Madrid is available at the
following URL: http://transparencia.museothyssen.org/ (accessed on 28/05/2017).
6. References
M. Arenilla, J.C. Redondo (2011): “Ética, transparencia y participación”. In M. Arenilla (Dir.).
Crisis y reforma de la administración pública. Oleiros: Netbiblo.
L. Arias-Serrano (2015): “New Museological Approaches in Contemporary Art Museums: From the
First Critiques of the Museum in the Early Twentieth Century to Today’s Micronarratives”.
Complutum. Vol. 26, n. 2, pp. 133-143.
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 952
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
A. Alloza, (2011): “La emergencia de la economía de la reputación corporativa”. Revista Uno, 5, pp.
1-7.
http://www.revista-uno.com/numero-5/la-emergencia-dela-economia-de-la-reputacion-corporativa/
P. Beltrán-Orenes, Pilar; E. Martínez-Pastor (2016): “Grado de cumplimiento de las leyes de
transparencia, acceso y buen gobierno, y de reutilización de los datos de contratación de la
Administración central española”. El profesional de la información, v. 25, n.4, pp. 557-567.
G. Black (2012): Transforming Museums in the Twenty-First Century. London and New York:
Routledge.
F. Cabezuelo-Lorenzo, P. Rey-García, A. Tapia-Frade (2016): “Análisis de las herramientas de
control ciudadano sobre los representantes públicos: La transparencia informativa municipal en
Castilla y León”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71, pp. 1.261-1279.
M. C. Carey (2017): “Transparency and the lobbying efforts of newspaper associations in the United
States”. Journalism Studies. Vol. 18, n. 4, pp. 409-429.
I. Castelló, M. Morsing & F. Schultz (2013): “Communicative Dynamics and the Polyphony of
Corporate Social Responsibility in the Network Society”. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(4), pp.
683-694.
D. Cordón-Benito, D. González-González (2016): “Museos y comunicación: los nuevos medios
como herramienta de diálogo y sociabilidad de la institución. El uso de Twitter por el Museo del
Prado, Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza y Museo Reina Sofía”. Fonseca Journal of Communication. Vol.
1, nº12, pp. 149-165.
J. Cornelissen (2004): Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice. CaliforniaLondres: SAGE.
A. Cortina, (Ed.) (2003): Construir confianza: ética de la empresa en la sociedad de la información
y las comunicaciones. Madrid: Editorial Trotta.
C. Craig, P. Ngondo, M.A. Flynn (2016): “How firm is your digital handshake? Mission statements
and transparency”. Public Relations Review, Vol. 42, n. 4, pp. 692-694.
B. De la Iglesia, M.R. Roselló-Ramón (2014): “Identificación de las barreras de acceso a la
información, a la participación y al aprendizaje en el Museo Es Baluard”. Arte, Individuo y Sociedad,
Vol. 26, n º1, p. 21-38.
T. Derville (2005): “Radical Activist Tactics: Overturning Public Relations
Conceptualizations”. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 527-533.
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 953
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
J. Doodey, H.F, García (2007): “Reputation Management”. In J. Doorley, H.F. García (Eds.).
Reputation management: the key to successful public relations and corporate communications, pp.
1-26. New York and London: Routledge
Edelman (2016): Edelman Trust Barometer Executive Summary.
http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2016-edelman-trust-barometer/executivesummary/
Edelman (2017): Edelman Trust Barometer Executive Summary.
http://www.edelman.com/executive-summary/
R. E. Freeman (1984): Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
R. E. Freeman, J. S. Harrison, A. C. Mechas, B. L. Parmar & S. De Colle. (2010): Stakeholder
theory: the state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
M. Gértrudix, M.C. Gertrudis-Casado, S. Álvarez-García (2016): “Consumption of public
institutions. Open Data by Spanish citizens”. El profesional de la información, v. 25, n.4, pp. 535544.
E. Gutiérrez; M.T. Laporte (Eds.) (2013): Tendencias emergentes en la comunicación de
instituciones. Barcelona: UOC Press.
E. Hooper-Greenhill, (1989): “The museum in the disciplinary society”, in S. Pearce (Ed.). Museum
Studies in Material Culture, pp. 61-72. London: Leicester University Press.
E. Hooper-Greenhill (1992): Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
E. Hooper-Greenhill (2000): Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London: Routledge.
T. Bennett (1996): The Birth of the Museum, London: Routledge.
N.C. Huang-Horowitz (2015): “Public relations in the small business environment: creating identity
and building reputation”. Public Relations Review. Vol. 41, n. 3, pp. 345-353.
M. Karlsson, C. Clerwall, L. Nord (2017): “Do not stand corrected: Transparency and users”
attitudes to inaccurate news and corrections in online journalism”. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 94, n. 1, pp. 148-167.
M. Lizcano (2013): “La nueva Ley de Transparencia: un importante desafío social”. Abogacía.es.
España.
http://www.abogacia.es/2013/12/23/la-nueva-ley-de-transparencia-un-importante-desafio-social/
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 954
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
L. La-Rosa, T. Sandoval-Martín (2016): “La insuficiencia de la Ley de Transparencia para el
ejercicio del periodismo de datos en España”. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 71, pp. 1.2081.229.
P. C. Lopez-Lopez, I. Puentes- Rivera & J. Ruas-Araujo (2017): “Transparency in public televisions:
development of indicators and case analysis in Spain and Chile”. Revista Latina de Comunicación
Social, Vol. 72, n.3, pp. 253-272.
R. Magallón (2013): “Por qué es importante una buena Ley de Transparencia para el periodismo y
para los periodistas”. Instituto para la Innovación Periodística. España.
http://www.2ip.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Ley_trasnparencia.pdf
M. Rebolledo, R. Zamora-Medina, J. Rodríguez-Virgili (2016): “Transparency, accountability and
participation in local governments: a comparative study of Spanish council Websites”. Medijske
Studije-Media Studies, Vol. 7, n.14, pp. 48-64.
A. G. Scherer, G. Palazzo & D. Matten (2014): “The Business Firm as a Political Actor: A New
Theory of the Firm for a Globalized World”. Business & Society, 538(2), pp. 143-156.
K. Sriramesh, (2010): “Globalization and Public Relations. Opportunities for Growth and
Reformulation”. In R. Heath (Ed). The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations, pp. 691-707.
California-London: SAGE.
J.C. Suárez-Villegas, R. Rodríguez-Martínez, M. Mauri-Ríos, A. López-Meri (2017):
“Accountability and Media Systems in Spain: real impact and good practices in Spanish media”.
Revista Latina de Comunicación Social. Vol. 72, n. 3, pp. 321-330.
J. Villafañe (2004): La buena reputación: claves del valor intangible de las empresas. Madrid:
Pirámide.
J. Villafañe (2013): La buena empresa: propuesta para una teoría de la reputación corporativa.
Madrid: Pearson.
S.W. Yoo, H. Gil de Zúñiga (2014): “Connecting blog, twitter and Facebook use with gaps in
knowledge and participation. Communication & Society, Vol. 27, n. 4, pp. 33-48.
Sources
General
Musée du Louvre, Paris
Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET), New York
British Museum, London
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 955
RLCS, Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72 – Pages 941 to 956
Funded Research | DOI: 10.4185/RLCS, 72-2017-1201| ISSN 1138-5820 | Year 2017
Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía (MNCARS), Madrid
Portal de Transparencia (Transparency website)
International Council of Museums (ICOM)
Regulations
Law 19/2013, of 9 December, on Transparency and access to public information and good
governance
Law 34/2011, of 4 October, on the Regulation of Queen Sofía Art Centre National Museum
Freedom of Information Act (U.K.)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 900 (USA).
_________________________________________________________________
How to cite this article in bibliographies / References
D Cordón Benito, L Maestro Espínola (2017): “Museums’ corporate websites as tools for transparency”.
Revista Latina de Comunicación Social, 72, pp. 941 to 956.
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
DOI: 10.4185/RLCS-2017-1200-51en
Article received on 2 July 2017. Accepted on 18 August.
Published on 23 August 2017.
http://www.revistalatinacs.org/072paper/1201/51en.html
Página 956