Transparency has been a critical concern for modern society as it makes information about
priorities, capabilities, and behaviour of powerful centers of authority widely available to the
public (Fung et al, 2007; Holzner & Holzner, 2006)
It can be defined as a set of characteristics that allow providing stakeholders with general information about (see Figure 1): Accessibility, the quality of being easy to deal with; Usability, the quality of providing good use; Informativeness, the quality of providing or conveying information; Understandability, the quality of comprehensible language; and Auditability, the ability to examine with the intent of verification (Leite & Cappelli,
2010).
However, the implementation of this concept is difficult to achieve. As shown in Figure 1, the combination of these five characteristics creates the concept of transparency. Thus, these various characteristics must be considered so that a solution can be said to be effectively transparent.
Moreover, transparency reaches different contexts, having as scope three levels (Leite & Cappelli,2010): organizational transparency, which focuses on an organization’s stakeholders; target transparency, which aims at consumers of some service or goods; and social transparency, which is geared towards citizens. Nonetheless, what is observed in practice is the attempt of applying transparency to a limited extent, just following the practices demanded by regulatory instruments.
Source:
Transparency Challenges in Blockchain , Paulo Fontana, Bruna Diirr, Claudia Cappelli,
Proceedings of the International Conference EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2018-(page 193-200)