Brand rankings and reputation studies are published every year, nationally and internationally, often attracting attention for their league tables and headline positions. While such studies are inevitably shaped by methodological choices, sampling criteria, and contextual factors, they can nonetheless offer a useful lens for understanding how organisations are perceived within a shared ecosystem.
One of these studies is the annual Brand Reputation survey conducted by Onstrategy, which assesses more than 2,000 brands across over 70 sectors of activity in Portugal. The 2026 edition marks the fifth consecutive year in which the reputation of the Champalimaud Foundation has been evaluated within this framework, allowing for a longer-term view of how public, professional, and media perceptions have evolved over time.
In a study conducted in 2025, based on a 100-point scale, the Champalimaud Foundation was ranked among the brands considered “excellent” by citizens, with a score above 80 points, and stood out as the only organisation from the healthcare sector to appear in this group. Similar results were observed among journalists and opinion leaders, while sector-specific analysis placed the Champalimaud Foundation at the top of healthcare brands overall. Looking across the last five years, the results show a consistent pattern of strong reputation scores, both when healthcare was analysed as a single sector and when it was previously divided into public and private domains.
That consistency is perhaps more meaningful than any single ranking position. Reputation, after all, is not built in a year, nor does it rest on isolated achievements. It emerges gradually from sustained action, coherence over time, and the alignment between what an institution says, what it does, and how it engages with the communities around it. In the case of a research and healthcare organisation, this includes scientific credibility, clinical excellence, transparency, social responsibility, and the ability to communicate complex work with clarity and integrity.
At the same time, it is important to approach reputation rankings with a critical eye. A table can signal perception at a given moment, but it cannot fully capture the depth, diversity, or long-term impact of an institution’s work. Nor should reputation be treated as an end in itself. Instead, it can be understood as a by-product of everyday practices: rigorous research, ethical standards, collaboration, openness to scrutiny, and a continued commitment to serving patients and society.
Maintaining trust and credibility is an ongoing process rather than a static achievement. The past five years of results therefore offer not so much a reason for celebration as an opportunity for reflection on the responsibilities that come with public recognition, and on the need to continually earn that trust through actions, not rankings.
Regarding the methodology used to prepare the Onstrategy Brand Reputation reports: “On a 100-point scale, the study assessed more than 2,000 audited brands (across over 70 sectors of activity) throughout the year. These brands were previously identified spontaneously by more than 50,000 citizens, representative of Portuguese society in terms of geographic distribution, gender, age, level of education and social class; by over 8,000 business C-level executives reflecting the Portuguese business landscape in terms of geographic distribution and company size (large, medium, small and micro-enterprises); as well as by more than 900 journalists and over 200 opinion leaders.”
2022 - 2026 Brand Reputation Reports
Text by Catarina Ramos, Co-coordinator of the Champalimaud Foundation's Communication, Events & Outreach Team
