Finance Ethics
Menu

Benchmarks with the method on the page

Commissioned research on how organizations in a sector govern, control and disclose money, with every method published.

Start a conversationTry the controls self-check
Part of
Financial Data Research
Runs as
5 stages, from frame the question to publish
You receive
5 deliverables, listed below
Pricing
Quoted after a scoping call

Comparisons without definitions mislead

Boards and funders want to know how an organization compares with its peers, and associations want to tell members where their sector stands. The numbers usually on offer do not help. A vendor survey reports a median close time without saying who answered. A slide shows a maturity score with no definition of the scale. A lender compares covenant headroom across borrowers whose accounting policies differ.

A useful benchmark starts with a precise question and a defined group, measures the same thing the same way for everyone, and says what the data cannot show. That only works if the method is published where a doubtful reader can test it.

Engraving of a row of graduated weights echoed by a city skyline behind them, one weight in magenta.
You only learn your size beside others.

Three kinds of commissioned study

  • Controls maturity benchmarks

    How a defined group performs across the five COSO components, using one standard instrument, with optional data tests for participants willing to share system exports.

  • Cost and process benchmarks

    Finance cost and timing measures such as days to close, invoices processed per AP staff member, payment approval layers and the share of manual journal entries, each defined before collection.

  • Sector transparency studies

    What organizations in a sector publish about governance and integrity, drawn from public sources such as websites, annual reports and, for nonprofits, the governance questions on Form 990.

  • Portfolio and member reviews

    Studies for lenders, funders or sponsors across their own borrowers, grantees or portfolio companies, reported in aggregate to the commissioner and individually to each participant if agreed.

  • Methodology and data package

    A published method, a data dictionary and, where participants consent, an anonymized dataset that others can reanalyze.

Report and method ship together

DeliverableWhat it isWhen
Research protocolThe question, population, sampling approach, measures and definitions, agreed with the commissioner before collection startsWeek 1
Collection instrumentsSurvey, data request or public-source coding sheet, piloted with a small group before full launchWeek 2
Written reportFindings in plain language with charts, ordered by significance, with limitations stated beside each findingWeek 7
Published methodologySample, response rate, definitions, exclusions, funding and conflicts, published with the report and never separated from itWeek 7
Participant summariesOptional individual reports showing each participant where it sits against the group, shared only with that participantWeek 8

Question first, data second

  1. Week 1

    Frame the question

    We agree the question, the group to study, the measures, and the decision or publication the research will support. The commissioner sets the question, not the answer.

  2. Week 2

    Build and pilot instruments

    We draft the survey, data request or coding sheet and pilot it with a few participants to catch ambiguous questions early.

  3. Weeks 3 to 5

    Collect and clean

    We collect responses and public data, query outliers with participants, and record every exclusion along with the reason for it.

  4. Weeks 5 to 7

    Analyze and review

    We analyze the data and draft the report and methodology, and a research editor who did none of the analysis reviews both.

  5. Week 8

    Publish

    We deliver the report, methodology and participant summaries, and brief the commissioner on what the findings can and cannot support.

Commissioners supply access and context

  • A defined question and the decision or publication it supports
  • Access to the group being studied, such as a member, grantee or portfolio contact list, and an introduction from you
  • Any data you already hold, such as prior surveys or financial filings, with permission to use it
  • A named contact who can settle questions on scope and participant access within a few days
  • Agreement on publication, covering what will be public, what stays with the commissioner and what goes only to participants

Is this the right fit?

A good fit

  • Trade associations and membership bodies that want defensible data on practice across their sector
  • Foundations and lenders that want to understand controls and governance across their grantees or borrowers
  • Boards that want a credible external comparison before setting finance staffing, systems or policy
  • Private-equity sponsors comparing finance functions across portfolio companies

Not the right fit

  • Commissioners who need a predetermined conclusion; methodology and findings are published as they fall
  • Rankings or ratings of named organizations without their consent

Definitions come before data

The hardest part of any benchmark is agreeing what each measure means. Take days to close. One company counts from month end to the day the trial balance is final, another to the day the board pack goes out. Both answers are reasonable, and they cannot be compared. We write every definition into the protocol before collection starts, test it with a few participants, and print it beside the result in the report.

Data tests beat self-reporting

Surveys record what finance leads believe. Where participants agree to share exports from QuickBooks Online, Xero, NetSuite, Sage Intacct or Business Central, we run the same tests on every dataset: the share of journal entries posted manually, the number of users who can both create vendors and approve payments, how often entries are posted outside working hours. Those results are measured rather than reported, and setting them beside the survey answers shows where belief and practice diverge. The questions in our internal controls checklist for growing companies show the kind of ground a maturity instrument covers.

Transparency studies use public sources

A sector transparency study asks what organizations publish about their own governance. For nonprofits, Part VI of Form 990 asks whether the organization has written conflict-of-interest and whistleblower policies, which gives a consistent public starting point. For companies, we code websites, annual reports and policy pages against a published checklist. Is there a dated code of conduct? A named contact for concerns? A statement of who audits the accounts? Each organization studied can see how it was coded and correct a factual error before publication.

The method is published in full

Every report carries a methodology section that lets a reader check our work: who was invited, who responded, how measures were defined, what was excluded and why, who commissioned and paid for the study, and any relationship between Finance Ethics and the participants. A research editor who did no analysis reviews both report and method before release.

For a quick reading of your own organization first, the Controls Health Self-Check scores your answers across the five COSO components. Organizations ready to publish their own position can turn it into a yearly Financial Integrity Report.

What people ask before hiring us

Who owns the research?

The commissioner owns the report and decides whether and where to publish it. The methodology always travels with the report, and each participant's individual data stays confidential unless that participant agrees otherwise.

Can participants be identified?

Not from anything we publish. Results are aggregated, and any breakdown small enough to point to a single participant is suppressed or merged with another group. Participant summaries go only to the participant they describe.

Do you rely on surveys or on real data?

Both, depending on the question. Surveys capture practice and opinion. Where participants agree, we also run standard tests on exports from their accounting systems, which measure what actually happens rather than what people report. Public-source studies use only published material.

What if the commissioner dislikes the findings?

We discuss the evidence, correct any errors and add context, but we do not change findings to suit the commissioner. If a commissioner decides not to publish, that is their decision, and we will not publish a different version under our own name without their agreement.

Also in Financial Data Research

Written research on counterparties, vendors and sectors, built from public records, filings and your own ledger, with every source and method stated.

  • Counterparty & Vendor Due Diligence

    Sourced research on who owns and controls a counterparty, whether it is sanctioned or in adverse media, and whether its finances support the relationship, written up as a red-flag report.

Related work and reading

Services

  • Board & Governance Review

    A three-to-four-week diagnostic of who holds authority, how conflicts and related parties are handled, what the board reads and how its decisions are recorded.

  • Controls Health Check

    A three-to-four-week diagnostic of your core money flows that ranks every control gap by consequence and hands you a fix list your team can act on.

  • Financial Integrity Report

    A voluntary annual report, in plain language and checked against your records, that tells boards, funders and partners how money is governed and what changed this year.

Articles and scenarios

Sectors

Tell us what you are seeing

A first conversation is a scoping call: what worries you, what you need to show, and to whom. You leave it with a view on where to start, whether or not you hire us.

Start a conversation
Writehello@financeethics.com
Call(307) 365-5252
Office7124 Commons Dr, Cheyenne, WY 82009
HoursMonday to Friday, 9:00 to 17:00 Mountain Time