BRASIL
COLOMBIA
GLOBAL
0. Preamble
0.1. Purpose and scope of the 100 Open Startups Ranking
0.2. Ranking Principles
0.3. Nature of the Ranking
0.4. General statements
1. Definitions and Glossary
1.1. General Definitions
1.2. Participant Categories
1.3. Methodological terms
1.4. Governance Terms
2. Ranking Architecture: Stages, Approvals, and Criteria
2.1. Overview of the steps and their effects
2.2. Step 0 - Registration on the 100 Open Startups Platform
2.3. Step 1 - Participate in the Ranking (registration and validation of relationships)
2.4. Step 2 - Register for the Ranking (contracting the Audit)
2.5. Stage 3 - Being Audited (scope, due diligence, evidence and decisions)
2.6. Stage 4 - To Be Published (Official Publication and Editorial Clippings)
2.7. Stage 5 - Being Awarded (Open Innovation Awards)
2.8. Feedback
3. Eligibility and Classification of Participants
3.1. Startups Early Stage e Scaleups
3.2. Enterprise and Middle Market Corporations
3.3. Investors, Universities/ICTs, Ecosystem Agents and Executives
3.4. Impediments and prohibitions
4. Scoring Methodology
4.1. Unit of measurement: formal relationship and accepted typologies
4.2. Types of relationships and weights
4.3. Point calculation and accumulation rules
4.4. Performance-based bonuses
4.5. Currency, conversion and reference period (base year) rules
5. Validation, Audit and Evidence
5.1. Counterparty validation
5.2. Audit
5.3. Minimum evidence
5.4. Due diligence, response times and decisions
5.5. Integrity rules: inconsistencies, duplications and penalties
6. Cases
6.1. Case as a requirement and approval criteria
6.2. Confidentiality Model and Levels
6.3. Authorization for editorial use of the Case and limits of disclosure
7. Edition Schedule
7.1. Official Dates
7.2. Closure, data freeze, and final version
8. Publication, Visibility, and Use of the Brand
8.1. Official Publication of the Ranking (ISBN)
8.2. Editorial clippings and public communications
8.3. Rules for the use of trademarks, names and seals
9. Open Innovation Awards
9.1. Nature and independence in relation to the Ranking calculation
9.2. Eligibility criteria for awards and recognized categories
9.3. Recognition materials
9.4. Operational rule (accreditation, delivery and absence)
9.5. Rules for image, recording and communication of the event
10. Objection, Rectification and Removal
10.1. Request for reconsideration (investigation/audit)
10.2. Editorial correction (post-publication)
10.3. Data removal and effects on history
11. Confidentiality, Data Protection and Compliance
11.1. Confidentiality and third-party information
11.2. Protection of personal data
11.3. Sharing with partners, aggregated research and reports
11.4. Information security and retention
12. Final Provisions
12.1. Governance
12.2. Amendments to the regulations
12.3. Applicable law and jurisdiction
Attachments
Appendix A - Relationship Types: Definitions and Examples
0.1.1. The 100 Open Startups Ranking is a data collection, verification, and evidence curation system for Open Innovation with startups, which aims to: (i) measure the intensity and quality of relationships between startups and organizations; (ii) compare performances using public and replicable criteria; (iii) generate feedback and references for decision-making in the ecosystem; and (iv) promote learning and visibility, according to the paths and rules set forth in these Regulations.
0.1.2. Starting from the 2026–2035 Decade, the Ranking will emphasize, in addition to volume and diversity of relationships, the measurement of impact and verifiable results, especially for corporations (including results-oriented bonuses), with enhanced governance, traceability, and eligibility by category.
0.1.3. This Regulation governs the participation of institutions and individuals linked to the ecosystem (including, without limitation, startups/scaleups, corporations, universities/ICTs, investors and ecosystem agents), as well as the rules for registration, participation, enrollment, auditing, publication and awards associated with each edition.
0.2.1. The Ranking is governed by the following principles:
a) Transparency: disclosure of criteria, stages, rules for assessment and governance; without this implying an obligation to publicly disclose all lists, positions or individual data.
b) Traceability: maintenance of evidence trails and verification mechanisms (validation/audit), with registration and curation compatible with official publication when applicable.
c) Comparability: use of operational definitions, typologies, and time windows that allow for consistent comparisons between participants and editions.
d) Confidentiality: preservation of strategic and third-party information, with provisions for disclosure levels and handling of evidence/cases in accordance with specific rules.
e) Integrity: commitment to truthfulness, consistency, prevention of duplication, combating fraud, and applying corrective measures/penalties when applicable.
0.3.1. The Ranking is a proprietary editorial product of 100 Open Startups, based on data registered/validated on its platform, rules for calculation and curation criteria defined in these Regulations.
0.3.2. The Ranking comprises connected but distinct experiences (tracks), each with its own benefits, rules, and potential costs, among which the following stand out:
i. Registration/Participation in the database (relationship registration and validation);
ii. Case Study Congress (learning and visibility through approved case studies);
iii. Official Publication (ISBN, traceability and minimum audit);
iv. Open Innovation Awards - OIA (celebration/awards ceremony, gala evening and live broadcast).
0.3.3. 100 Open Startups may, at its editorial discretion, publish the full list or only excerpts (e.g., TOP 10, TOP 100, sectoral, geographic, or thematic), with no obligation to publicly disclose the complete list of participants or ranked organizations.
0.3.4. The Open Innovation Awards (OIA) is a separate celebratory event from the Ranking and does not interfere with its results or the Official Publication; participation and awards follow their own rules, connected to the Ranking, but not automatic.
0.3.5. The Ranking does not imply the right to cash prizes or prizes of any kind from 100 Open Startups for participants. The materialization of recognitions (e.g., trophies, physical certificates, invitations, and other operational conditions) may be subject to adherence to the OIA's rules, and will be governed by specific conditions communicated for each edition, without impacting the Ranking's calculation.
0.4.1. The Ranking is for informational, comparative, and learning purposes only. Its results do not constitute investment recommendations, full due diligence, compliance certification, performance guarantees, or contractual obligations between parties.
0.4.2. Public use of results, rankings, seals, and statements must comply with the rules of this Regulation and applicable brand/communication guidelines, including editorial selections and the possibility of feedback in a restricted environment when applicable.
0.4.3. In the 2026-2035 Decade, eligibility to be included in the Ranking and/or official publications will be conditional upon meeting enhanced criteria, including (as applicable) approved case, minimum audit for publication, and minimum requirements by category.
1.1.1. Interpretation. For the purposes of this Regulation, the terms defined in this Section shall be interpreted operationally, aiming to standardize the understanding, measurement, validation, and auditing of the Ranking.
1.1.2. Prevalence. In case of discrepancy between usual market understanding and the definition in this Regulation, the definition established herein shall prevail.
1.1.3. Undefined terms. Undefined terms should be interpreted according to the technical context of the Ranking, good faith, and market practices in innovation and entrepreneurship, without prejudice to supplementary definitions in annexes.
1.1.4. Decision-making and governance. The definitions and their uses may be detailed, refined, or supplemented by decision of the Committees (as per Section 1.4 and Section 12), with application by edition.
1.1.5. Additional references. The operational relationship typologies and examples are found in Annex A, which forms an integral part of this Regulation for all purposes.
1.2.1. Participant. Any individual or legal entity that registers on the Platform and/or registers, validates, or is mentioned in eligible relationships, in accordance with the rules of this Regulation.
1.2.2. Organization / Institution. Legal entities, whether public or private, including companies, universities/ICTs, third-sector entities, public bodies, and other institutions that may be parties to eligible relationships.
1.2.3. Startup Early Stage. Organization classified as an early-stage startup, according to the eligibility criteria in Section 3.1, for the purposes of participation and feedback in the Ranking, with specific registration rules and costs.
1.2.4. Startup Scaleup. Organization classified as a startup in the scaling phase, according to the eligibility criteria in Section 3.1, for the purposes of participation, eligibility, and feedback in the Ranking.
1.2.5. Corporation. An organization whose main economic activity is not the provision of investment services to startups and which acts as a counterparty in relationships with startups/scaleups, according to the typologies in Annex A.
1.2.6. Middle Market Corporation. Corporation classified as "Middle Market" for Ranking purposes, according to size and/or revenue criteria defined in Section 3.2.
1.2.7. Enterprise Corporation. Corporation classified as an “Enterprise” for Ranking purposes, according to the size and/or revenue criteria defined in Section 3.2.
1.2.8. Investor. An organization (or vehicle) whose activity includes investment in startups/scaleups (e.g., venture capital, corporate venture capital, private equity with an applicable thesis, organized angel investors), as per the rules in Section 3.3.
1.2.9. University / ICT. A higher education institution, science and technology institute, or similar entity, public or private, engaged in research, development, innovation, technology transfer, and/or business creation.
1.2.10. Ecosystem Agent. An organization whose activities include, in a structured way, the promotion of the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem (e.g., hubs, parks, accelerators, incubators, sectoral entities, funding agencies and public policies, networks and programs), as per Section 3.3.
1.2.11. Executive. An individual participating in the Ranking who is affiliated with a corporation, in a leadership, management, or operational role in innovation, corporate entrepreneurship, strategic partnerships, technology, and related areas, as per the rules in Section 3.3.
1.2.12. Counterpart. An organization or person linked to the other party in a stated relationship, responsible for validating and/or being audited in accordance with the validation and audit rules (Section 5).
1.2.13. Operational Contact Point. A person designated by the corporation or ecosystem agent with permission to edit institutional data, with access to the entire set of registered relationships and contracts.
1.3.1. Open Innovation. Innovation practice based on collaboration with actors external to the organization, involving intentional flows of knowledge, technology, assets, and capabilities for the development, validation, acquisition, commercialization, or scalability of solutions.
1.3.2. Eligible relationship. Formal link, with the purpose of innovation and/or value creation, established between organizations according to the typologies in Annex A, registered on the Platform and considered in the calculation according to the rules of this edition.
1.3.3. Unit of measurement. The minimum unit of measurement for the Ranking is the formal relationship (according to the typologies in Annex A), with the minimum attributes necessary for registration, validation, and eventual auditing.
1.3.4. Registration. The act of entering essential information about an eligible relationship into the Platform. The record includes minimum attributes such as identification of the parties, type, description, and period/window, and additional attributes such as...value/range (when applicable), respecting the fields in the Ranking form on the Platform.
1.3.5. Validation (by counterparty). Procedure by which the designated counterparty confirms the existence of the relationship, its typological classification and minimum attributes, according to the rules and deadlines of Section 5.1. Validation does not replace an audit.
1.3.6. Evidence. A document, record, or verifiable source that proves, in whole or in part, the essential attributes of a relationship (e.g., contract, purchase order, invoice, formal communication, operational records, public publications, or other accepted evidence).
1.3.7. Trail of evidence. An organized body of evidence that allows one to trace a relationship from its origin (e.g., proposal/pilot) to its formalization and/or developments (e.g., contract, expansion), as applicable.
1.3.8. Scoring. The result of the calculation defined in Section 4, obtained from eligible relationships that have been registered, validated, and/or audited, applying relevant weights, accumulation rules, timeframes, and conversions.
1.3.9. Bonus. Additional points are awarded when supplementary criteria are demonstrated, especially those oriented towards results and impact, as per the rules in Section 4.4.
1.3.10. Base year. Reference time window for determining relationships and calculating scores in a given edition, as per Section 7 (schedule) and cut-off rules.
1.3.11. Case. A structured and verifiable account of a relationship (or set of related relationships), containing at least context, challenge, solution, execution, results/evidence, and lessons learned, as per Section 6.
1.3.12. Case approved. The case was submitted and accepted according to the curation criteria defined in Section 6, and may require adjustments or additions.
1.3.13. Case anonymization. Editorial treatment that removes or generalizes identifiable and/or sensitive elements, while preserving methodological consistency and minimum verifiability, according to the levels defined in Section 6.2.
1.3.14. Feedback. Feedback provided to the participant regarding records, validations, status, score and/or relative performance, in formats that may vary according to the stage and associated rights (Section 2.8).
1.3.15. Open Coins (Coins). Internal unit used on the Platform for registration and access to specific tracks (e.g., audit/publication, awards event), according to the cost rules and conditions defined in the edition. The method of acquisition, billing time, and usage/refund conditions will be defined and communicated by 100 Open Startups in the registration flow (Section 2.4).
1.4.1. Methodology Committee. The body responsible for defining and evolving the scoring rules, typologies, weights, bonuses, and technical criteria of the Ranking, applied on a per-edition basis.
1.4.2. Audit Committee. The body responsible for establishing guidelines, criteria, and audit procedures, including due diligence, evidence sufficiency criteria, and technical decisions on compliance.
1.4.3. Editorial Committee. The body responsible for decisions regarding publication and awards, editorial selections, the format of results presentation, and any editorial corrections, as per Sections 8 and 10.
1.4.4. Audit. Documentary and/or systemic verification procedure, carried out in accordance with the rules of this Regulation, intended to confirm consistency, methodological adherence and sufficiency of evidence, which may include due diligence and checks by sampling/risk.
1.4.5. Minimum audit. Mandatory and standardized audit scope required to enable the Official Publication of the Ranking (ISBN), ensuring the integrity of the published content.
1.4.6. Sampling/Risk-Based Audit. Additional scope, not necessarily applicable to all participants, used for quality control, system integrity, fraud prevention, and method consistency.
1.4.7. Due diligence. Formal request for supplementary information, clarification, or additional evidence during the audit process, with a response deadline and effects defined in Section 5.4.
1.4.8. Registration. The act by which the participant agrees to the terms of the Audit/Official Publication track, including specific consents, duty of cooperation, and applicable cost conditions (Section 2.4 and Section 5).
1.4.9. Official Publication of the Ranking (ISBN). Annual editorial product of the Ranking, with formal registration and curation, which includes only participants who meet the eligibility criteria and minimum audit, as per Section 8.1.
1.4.10. Editorial clipping. Partial and thematic public disclosure of results (e.g., TOP 10, TOP 100, sectoral, geographic, or thematic), defined by editorial criteria, without obligation to publish all lists.
1.4.11. Awards (Open Innovation Awards - OIA). A celebratory event connected to the Ranking, with its own rules, which does not alter the Ranking's calculation.
1.4.12. Recognition materials. Recognition elements associated with the OIA and/or the Ranking (e.g., certificates, trophies, seals), with operational conditions defined for each edition.
1.4.13. Accredited representative. A person designated and authorized, in accordance with the OIA, to represent the organization at the ceremony and receive, where applicable, recognition materials.
The parametric rules (deadlines, cutoffs, values, minimum requirements per category and cutoffs) are defined by edition, by decision of the competent committee, and published on official channels.
2.1.1. Staged Structure. Participation in the 100 Open Startups Ranking is organized in successive stages, with progressively more demanding approvals and criteria. Advancement from one stage to another is not automatic and depends on meeting the rules of this edition.
2.1.1.1. Scoring logic based on validated relationships (and/or contracts). The Ranking calculates the score based on the registration of eligible Open Innovation relationships (including, where applicable, contracts, pilots, partnerships, and other types foreseen in Annex A). As a general rule:
a) the relationship is registered by one (or both) of the parties on the Platform;
b) the designated counterpart is contacted to validate the existence and context of the relationship, as per Section 5.1;
c) The validated relationships of organizations duly registered in the Ranking (as per Section 2.4) are audited at least within the minimum applicable scope, and additional audits may be conducted through sampling, risk assessment, and due diligence, as per Section 5.2;
d) After the audit is completed, the score is calculated according to the Methodology (Section 4).
2.1.1.2. Schedule and critical windows.Each edition of the Ranking is governed by an official schedule, detailed in Section 7.
2.1.2. Essential distinctions. To avoid ambiguity, this Regulation expressly distinguishes:
a) Participate in the 100 Open Startups Platform and the relationship registration and validation system for the Ranking, generating history and feedback, without necessarily having audited participation;
b) Participation in the Official Ranking Publication (ISBN): requires registration for the audit phase and other requirements described in item 2.6.2, in addition to meeting eligibility and editorial eligibility criteria;
c) Being Awarded (Open Innovation Awards - OIA): participation according to the rules and criteria defined by the Editorial Committee for the edition, without this altering the Ranking calculation.
2.1.3. Participant Status. For operational purposes, the participant may assume, among others, the following statuses:
a) Registered on the 100 Open Startups Platform (Stage 0);
b) Participant in the Ranking contract registration system (Stage 1);
c) Registered for Ranking Audit (Stage 2);
d) Audited (Stage 3);
e) Published / Ranked (Stage 4);
f) Awarded (Stage 5).
2.1.4. Minimum cross-cutting agreements.At any stage, the following duties apply: (i) truthfulness and traceability of recorded information; (ii) good faith and cooperation in validations and due diligence; (iii) observance of confidentiality and trademark usage and communication rules.
2.2.1. Description. Registration on the 100 Open Startups Platform enables participants to maintain a profile, access the form for registering relationships and contracts, and monitoring functionalities.
2.2.2. Access. Users who do not yet have a login for 100 Open Startups must register on the platform at: https://100os.net/app-100os
2.3.1. Description. Participating in the Ranking means being included in the annual database through the registration and/or validation of eligible relationships (Annex A), generating history and feedback on the Platform.
2.3.2. Access (Ranking form). Participation is formalized by completing the Ranking form at: https://100os.net/ranking-form
2.3.3. Minimum operational rule for participating in the ranking.
a) To register contracts/relationships in the Ranking, prior registration on the Platform is required (Step 0);
b) To validate or reject relationships registered by the counterparty, prior registration is not mandatory, although it is recommended.
2.3.4. Minimum Consents. By participating, the participant declares that the information recorded corresponds to real and verifiable relationships. The participant agrees to cooperate with requests for correction of inconsistencies and to observe the integrity rules and sanctions provided for in Sections 5.5 and 10.
2.4.1. Purpose. Registration is the formal adherence to the Audit track and eligibility for the Official Ranking Publication (ISBN), that is, the track to have your relationships audited, your score calculated, compete for a position and be officially ranked.
2.4.2. Central rule. Only registered and audited participants (Sections 2.5 and 5\) are eligible for a position in the Official Publication and the official ranking.
2.4.3. Registration link. Registration for the Audit and Official Publication will be available at: https://100os.net/ranking-inscricao
2.4.4. Costs. For this edition:
a) Early Stage Startups, Ecosystem Agents and Investors: free registration;
b) Scaleups and Corporations (Middle Market and Enterprise): registration of 2 (two) Open Coins, according to the rules and conditions of the edition. The Open Coins will be charged at the time of registration (or at the operational milestone defined in the edition), through the mechanism available on the Platform.
2.4.4. 1 Early Stage Startups with 100 or more distinct corporate clients with whom they have validated contracts from Groups C and/or D will be categorized as Scaleups (Section 3.1.4(b)), implying the registration of 2 (two) Open Coins.
2.4.4.2. The method of purchase, payment method, and refund policy (when applicable) will be provided during registration, within the Platform's workflow, as terms and conditions of the edition.
2.4.4.3. Registration and/or payment of Coins does not guarantee placement, position, publication in a specific section, or award; it only guarantees eligibility for the track, subject to audit and editorial criteria.
2.5.1. Description. The audit verifies the eligibility, traceability, and integrity of the relationships and evidence of the organizations enrolled in this stage (Section 2.4), and may involve due diligence. The rules, scope, and audit decisions follow Section 5.
2.6.1. Concept. Being Published means being included in the Official Ranking Publication (with ISBN) and, when applicable, editorial selections defined by the Editorial Committee.
2.6.2. Minimum requirements for Official Publication of the Ranking. Organizations wishing to be included in the Official Publication must, cumulatively:
a) register for the audit and scoring phase (Section 2.4);
b) meet the eligibility criteria for their category (Section 3);
c) have at least 1 (one) case approved at the Latin American Congress of Open Innovation Cases (as per Section 6). Case registration for Ranking purposes and bonuses follows Section 4.4.4.
2.6.3. Editorial criteria and public list. Public disclosure of results may occur through editorial selections, in accordance with the editorial policy and confidentiality provisions outlined in Section 8.2 and Section 11.
2.6.4. Communication of results (minimum milestones).
a) The most prominent positions (including the TOP 10 and other defined categories) may be announced during the live broadcast of the Open Innovation Awards;
b) Individual feedback to participants will follow the rules in Section 2.8 and the deadlines in Section 7.
2.7.1. Concept. The award ceremony takes place within the scope of the Open Innovation Awards (OIA), a celebratory event connected to the Ranking, with its own rules (Section 9), and participation is by invitation only, according to criteria defined for the edition.
2.7.2. Minimum eligibility.
a) Only those registered in the Ranking are eligible for the OIA award, provided they meet the other requirements defined for this edition (Section 9.2);
b) Additional criteria (categories, cuts, accreditation and conditions) will be defined and published in the OIA rules (Section 9).
2.7.3. Recognition materials. The rules for recognition materials and their operation are set out in Section 9 and the specific rules of the OIA.
2.8.1. Feedback Principle. The Ranking will seek to offer feedback proportional to the level of participation, ensuring a minimum return to Participants and an expanded return to Registered/Audited/Published users, without obligation of full public disclosure.
2.8.2. Feedback for Participants (Steps 0-1). Includes, at a minimum:
a) extract of registered relationships and their validation status;
b) only for corporations and startups/scaleups: real-time indication of the estimated relative position, of an informative nature and in distinct segments: (i) based on registered relationships, (ii) based on validated relationships, without disclosure of complete lists, official positions or individual scores;
c) when applicable, eligibility indicators (“checklist”) for higher stages (Registration/Audit/Publication), according to the edition's rules.
2.8.3. Feedback for Applicants/Audited/Published Participants (Steps 2-4). Includes, at a minimum:
a) Audit results by item/relationship, when applicable;
b) consolidated audited score report, including, where applicable, relative position against all registered participants, in accordance with the edition's editorial policy;
c) confirmation of inclusion in the Official Ranking Publication and/or applicable editorial excerpts;
d) guidelines for the use of trademarks, seals and communication (Section 8).
2.8.4. Feedback for Award Winners (Step 5). Includes, according to OIA rules:
a) certificate and/or other recognition materials, according to the definitions of the Editorial Committee;
b) rights and communication limits associated with the award (Section 9).
3.1.1. General Eligibility of Early Stage Startups (Open Startups). Organizations that cumulatively meet the following criteria may participate as Early Stage Startups:
a) are registered with 100 Open Startups, in accordance with the applicable rules of the program;
b) have eligible contracts and/or relationships with corporations that have been active at any time during the base year period (in the 2026 edition: 01/07/2025 to 30/06/2026);
c) are not controlled by a corporation, as defined in item 3.1.3;
d) fill out the corresponding form; and
(e) register and/or validate relationship data with corporations on the Platform.
3.1.2. General Eligibility of Startup Scaleups (Open Scaleups). Organizations that cumulatively meet the following criteria may participate as Startup Scaleups:
a) are registered with 100 Open Startups;
c) fill out the corresponding form; and
d) register and/or validate relationship data with corporations on the Platform.
3.1.3. Control criteria by corporation (Early Stage Startup vs. Scaleup). For the purposes of this Regulation:
a) A "controlling corporation" is considered to be a company with more than 100 employees or annual revenue exceeding USD 20 million;
b) Startups controlled by corporations may participate as Scaleups, provided they meet the other eligibility criteria for this category.
3.1.4. Framework for TOP lists (Open Startups x Open Scaleups). For the purposes of participation in the TOP 100 Open Startups, TOP Categories and Special Categories lists, the organization must observe that:
a) To compete as an Open Startup on these lists, it must not have annual revenue exceeding USD 2.5 million in 2025, nor have received investment exceeding USD 2.5 million by December 31, 2025; and
b) To compete as an Open Scaleup, it is sufficient to meet the general criteria and, additionally, observe the scaling triggers foreseen: have revenue exceeding USD 2.5 million (two and a half million dollars) in fiscal year 2025; or have received investment exceeding USD 2.5 million (two and a half million dollars) by 12/31/2025;or have 100 or more corporate clients with whom they have valid Group C and/or D contracts (Section 4.2); and a revenue ceiling of USD 20 million in 2025; above that, the organization must compete as a Corporation.
3.1.5. Rotation and Performance-Based Eligibility Rule (Startups/Scaleups). Early Stage Startups and Scaleups already listed in at least 3 (three) editions and whose score and number of contracts fall by more than 10% from one edition to another may not be listed again in this edition. Inactive startups or those that have changed their business model in such a way that they are no longer classified as startups may also be eliminated, as assessed by the Committee. The rule aims to give visibility to emerging companies and maintain the annual representativeness of the publication.
3.1.6. International Participation. The Ranking is open to startups and corporations from outside Brazil. Specific country and/or region rankings may be defined according to the country of origin of the startup/scaleup or the country where the contract is being executed.
3.2.1. General Eligibility of Corporations (Open Corps). Organizations that cumulatively meet the following criteria may participate as a Corporation:
a) have more than 100 employees or revenue exceeding USD 20 million in fiscal year 2025;
b) have eligible contracts and/or relationships with active startups in the base year (in the 2026 edition: July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026); and
c) record and/or validate relationship data with startups or scaleups.
3.2.2. Classification by size: Middle Market and Enterprise.
a) For the purposes of size-based categorization, the Ranking may distinguish between Open Corps Middle Market (with annual revenue in 2025 of up to USD 200 million) and other listings by size and type of corporation, according to score density.
b) An Enterprise is considered to be a corporation with annual revenue exceeding USD 200 million, subject to the additional publication rules set forth in this edition (including minimum points where applicable).
3.2.3. Economic group, domains and units. To preserve consistency of assessment and classification:
a) Corporations may request to compete as an economic group, subject to evaluation; the grouping may also be carried out at the initiative of the audit team after analysis of the case;
b) when the same company uses different email domains, it may request domain unification; and
(c) Business units and subsidiaries that use the same domain as the parent company will be considered as a single company, except for formal separation requests duly registered during the audit phase, when legally distinct and when technically feasible.
3.3.1. Venture Capital Managers. Managers that meet the following criteria may participate: (i) have invested, at any date up to 06/30/2026, in eligible startups or scaleups; and (ii) have registered and/or validated investment data in startups/scaleups.
3.3.2. Investors. Investors who meet the following criteria may participate: (i) have invested, at any date up to 06/30/2026, in eligible startups or scaleups; and (ii) have registered and/or validated investment data in startups/scaleups.
3.3.3. Ecosystem Agents. Agents who meet the following criteria may participate: (i) have supported eligible startups, scaleups, or corporations at any time up to June 30, 2026; and (ii) have registered and/or validated relationship data with the indicated organizations.
3.3.4. Corporate Executives. Executives who meet the following criteria may participate: (i) have closed contracts with active startups or scaleups at any time during the base year (in the 2026 edition: 01/07/2025 to 30/06/2026); (ii) register and/or validate relationship data with startups or scaleups; and (iii) agree to have their name highlighted in the corresponding category.
3.3.5. Contact Points. Corporations and ecosystem agents may indicate operational, senior, and communication/marketing contact points for the purposes of operating the Ranking, according to the fields available in the corresponding Ranking form and the edition rules.
3.3.5.1. Startups (Early Stage and Scaleups) may indicate a main point of contact for matters related to the 100 Open Startups Ranking, according to the field available in the corresponding Ranking form and edition rules.
3.4.1. Insufficient data and lack of cooperation. 100 Open Startups may, at any time, if in doubt about eligibility, request additional information and/or proof of the relationship by other means. Failure to comply may result in disqualification from the contract and/or limitation of the participant's eligibility, as the case may be.
3.4.2. Fraud, Duplication, and Inconsistencies. The identification of materially false information, intentional duplication, manipulation of evidence, or any practice intended to distort scoring, validation, or auditing may result in: (i) disqualification of relationships; (ii) denial of bonuses; and (iii) other measures provided for in Sections 5.5 and 10, without prejudice to any communications and appropriate actions.
3.4.3. Conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is considered to be any situation that compromises the impartiality of validations, audits, editorial curation, or awards (for example, validation by a person without an appropriate link to the counterpart, or participation in a decision-making body with a direct interest in the outcome). In such cases, replacement of the point of contact, reinforcement of evidence, additional risk audit, and/or other integrity measures may be required.
4.1.1. Unit of measurement. The minimum unit of measurement for the Ranking is the eligible relationship (including, where applicable, a contract), according to the typologies in Annex A, registered via the Ranking form on the Platform.
4.1.2. Accounting condition. For scoring purposes, the relationship must be registered and validated according to counterparty validation rules, noting that: (i) validation does not replace auditing; and (ii) auditing only applies under the terms of the registration/audit tracks, when applicable.
4.1.3. Exclusion due to lack of formalization. Unformalized relationships will not be worth points for the Ranking, according to applicable methodological rules.
4.2.1. Base score by group. To calculate points in the Ranking, 15 (fifteen) types of relationships are considered, divided into 4 (four) groups, with a base score of 1, 5, 10 or 20 points, as follows:
a) Group A (Positioning) - 1 point:
1. Training and mentoring; 2. Recognition and awards; 3. Coworking spaces; 4. Service and technology vouchers.
b) Group B (Platform and Partnerships) - 5 points:
5. Licensing of IP from the large company; 6. Access to non-financial resources; 7. Access to the collaborator base; 8. Access to the customer base and sales channels; 9. Accelerator program.
c) Group C (Supplier Development) - 10 points:
10. Resources for R\&D and prototyping; 11. Licensing of startup IP; 12. Paid Proof of Concept; 13. Recurring supply (Venture Client).
d) Group D (Investment) - 20 points:
14. Investment with a minority equity stake exceeding USD 200,000; 15. Acquisition and incorporation of value exceeding USD 200,000.
4.2.2. Non-scoring relationships (specific rule). Relationships of the "Matchmaking and Connections" type will not be worth points for startups, scaleups and corporations, however they will be counted as 1 (one) point for the Executive Ranking, according to a specific rule.
4.3.1. Participant Score. The score is calculated from the relationships registered through the Ranking form on the Platform, applying the weights defined in Section 4.2 and the relevant validation/audit rules. The official assessment for publication/ranking results from the registration and audit process (Sections 2.4 and 5).
4.3.2. Non-duplication rule by pair (corporation → startup/scaleup). For the corporation's score, only the best Open Innovation relationship with each startup or scaleup will be counted.
4.3.3. Non-duplication rule by pair (startup/scaleup → corporation). For scoring startups and scaleups, only the best Open Innovation relationship with each corporation will be considered.
4.3.4. Harmonization rule by minimum value. Contracts with a monetary value for the startup above USD 200,000 will be worth 20 (twenty) base points, regardless of the type of relationship chosen.
4.3.5. Origin and responsibility for the information. The score is calculated based on the information provided by the users, and it is the participant's responsibility to declare, in the form corresponding to their category, when a relationship is established.
4.3.5.1. The audit may reclassify the type of relationship recorded, if deemed necessary, potentially altering the score assigned to the relationship.
4.3.6. Scoring rules for specific categories (investors, ecosystem, and executives). In addition to the lists of startups/scaleups and corporations, specific rules apply for:
a) TOP Investors: score equal to the sum of the scores of the startups and scaleups listed in the Official Ranking Publication that have declared or confirmed investor funding;
b) TOP Ecosystem: score equal to the number of startups and corporations listed.in the Official Ranking Publicationthat have declared or confirmed support from the ecosystem agent;
c) TOP Executives: score based on validated contracts for which they are responsible.
#### 4.4.1. General Definition
To emphasize financial impact, continuity, and maturity of relationships, bonus tiers were established. In the decade 2026-2035, performance-based bonuses are part of the scoring methodology.of Startups (Early Stage and Scaleups) and Corporations (Middle Market and Enterprise), reinforcing the results-oriented logic.
#### 4.4.2. Bonus based on annual contract value (financial impact)
4.4.2.1. Calculation basis. The annual contract value bonus is based on the total value of validated and approved contracts established between the same startup/scaleup-corporation pair, active during the period covered by the Ranking.
4.4.2.2. Bonus table. Starting from a total value of USD 500,000, both parties receive:
i. USD 500,000 to USD 1 million: \+10 points;
ii. USD 1 million to USD 2 million: \+20 points;
iii. USD 2 million to USD 5 million: \+40 points;
iv. Starting at USD 5 million: \+1 point for every USD 100,000, capped at \+200 points.
4.4.2.3. Range vs. exact value. In the case of a declaration by value range, the starting value of the range will be considered for bonus purposes.
#### 4.4.3. Bonus for renewal (continuity)
4.4.3.1. Criteria. Contracts renewed annually with a value greater than or equal to USD 200,000 receive \+20 points per renewal, cumulative up to 100 points (or 5 successive renewals).
4.4.3.2. Conditions for implementation. For the bonus to be effective, the contract must have been declared within the indicated periods, validated by both parties, and approved in the audit, with retroactive declarations being permitted.
#### 4.4.4. Bonus per Case
4.4.4.1. Criteria. Participants may receive additional bonus points for approved cases submitted for presentation at the Latin American Congress of Open Innovation Cases (Section 6).
4.4.4.2. Scoring. The bonus will be \+30 points per approved case submitted for presentation at the Congress, and will be awarded to both the corporation and the startup/scaleup that make up the case, respecting the criteria described in item 4.4.4.4.
4.4.4.3. Requirements. To generate a bonus, each case must:
a) have your abstract submitted and approved at the Congress, within the applicable timeline and respecting its criteria (Section 6 and rules published on the Congress's official channel - link in Section 6.1.2(b));
b) have its complete version submitted for presentation at the Congress, within the applicable schedule and respecting its criteria (Section 6 and rules published on the official Congress channel - link in Section 6.1.2(b));
c) be registered in the Ranking form on the platform by the end of the deadline for relationship validations (Section 7.1.4);
d) If registered as a startup/scaleup, indicate only one partner corporation;
(e) If registered by a corporation, indicate a single partner startup/scaleup.
4.4.4.4. Calculation in the official assessment. The bonus per case submitted for presentation at the Congress will only be included in the official assessment and in the Official Ranking Publication (ISBN) for participants enrolled in the Audit/Publication track (Section 2.4) and approved within the applicable scope (Section 5).
#### 4.4.5. Bonus for internationalization
4.4.5.1. Criteria. International contracts will receive a bonus of \+20 points, including: (i) contracts executed in the contracting party's country by international startups/scaleups; and (ii) contracts executed abroad by national startups/scaleups.
4.4.5.2. Beneficiary Parties. The bonus will be granted to both the corporation and the startup/scaleup.
#### 4.4.6. Cumulativeness
4.4.6.1. Rule. Bonuses are not mutually exclusive and may be cumulative if the relationship/contract meets more than one criterion.
4.5.1. BRL/USD Conversion. For eligibility and/or contract scoring purposes, the exchange rate to be considered for converting values from Brazilian reais to US dollars is BRL 5.40 for USD 1.00.
4.5.1.1. For contracts signed in a currency other than the Brazilian Real or the US Dollar, the conversion rate to US Dollars at the time the contract is registered on the platform shall prevail.
4.5.2. Reference period (base year) for contracts. For startups, scaleups and corporations, contracts active at any time during the period from 01/07/2025 to 30/06/2026 (2026 edition) will be considered.
4.5.2.1. Contract Expiration. Active contracts declared and validated before July 1, 2024, will be considered expired for the 2026 edition and must be declared and validated again to be considered.
4.5.3. Reference period for investors and ecosystem. For ecosystem agents and investors, relationships/investments occurring at any time up to June 30, 2026 will be considered.
5.1.1. Purpose. The purpose of counterparty validation is to confirm the existence of the declared relationship, its typological classification (Annex A), and its minimum attributes for scoring. Validation is an essential step for system integrity and comparability between participants.
5.1.2. Nature. Validation:
a) It is a confirmation mechanism between parties;
b) It does not replace an audit, which has its own scope and effects (Sections 2.5 and 5.2).
c) does not imply automatic acceptance of attributes that trigger bonuses (Section 4.4), which remain subject to audit (Sections 5.2 and 5.3); and
d) does not, in itself, imply eligibility for the Official Publication of the Ranking, which depends on registration and auditing (Sections 2.4 and 5.2).
5.1.3. Validation Mechanisms. Validation may occur through digital means provided by 100 Open Startups, including, but not limited to:
a) validation within the Platform, by a registered user; and/or
b) validation via automated invitation flow (e.g., validation email sent to the counterparty), in which case prior registration is not required for the specific validation act, according to the mechanism implemented in the edition.
5.1.4. Who can validate. Validation must be performed by a representative with a legitimate link to the counterparty and the ability to confirm the relationship (e.g., person responsible for innovation, purchasing, legal, R\&D, partnerships, requesting area, or other designated point of contact).
5.1.5. What is validated. During validation, the counterparty may:
a) confirm the relationship as stated; or
b) reject the relationship (when it is not recognized or when it does not adhere to the definitions).
5.1.6. Validation deadlines. Validation deadlines will be defined in the Edition Schedule (Section 7). The participant acknowledges that validations submitted after the deadline may:
a) may not be included in the calculation for that edition; and/or
b) may be counted only in partial feedback, according to the Committee's rules.
5.1.7. Exceptions and controls. The Audit Committee may provide for exceptions and controls, including:
a) Validation subject to additional evidence when there is a high risk of inconsistency;
b) blocking the relationship in case of obvious duplication until the issue is resolved;
c) Sampling/risk audit of validated relationships, even when the counterparty has fully confirmed them;
d) Assisted validation by the 100 Open Startups team, subject to specific rules and conditions.
5.2.1. Purpose. The purpose of the audit is to verify the methodological consistency and sufficiency of evidence of the declared relationships and attributes, especially to enable:
a) the Official Publication of the Ranking (ISBN); and
b) the official tabulation of scores and positions for registered participants.
5.2.2. Who is audited.
a) The audit applied to the determination of positions and eligibility for Official Publication will only be carried out for Registered participants, in accordance with Section 2.4;
b) Regardless of registration, 100 Open Startups may conduct ad hoc audits on a sample/risk basis for system integrity purposes (Section 5.2.6), without this automatically granting the right to publication.
5.2.3. Minimum Audit (mandatory for Official Publication). To be included in the Official Publication of the Ranking, the participant must be approved, at a minimum, in the audit defined for the edition, which will consist of a standardized verification of the recorded information, focusing on the items that support the assessment and editorial integrity.
5.2.4. Scope and limits. The audit will cover, at a minimum:
a) relationships selected based on objective criteria (materiality, volume, bonuses, typology and/or relevance for specific analysis);
b) relationships that activate bonuses (Section 4.4); and/or
c) items under dispute, inconsistent, or of high risk.
There is no obligation for a full audit of all relationships recorded by all participants.
5.2.5. Duty of cooperation. Registered participants must:
a) provide the minimum required evidence and additional evidence if requested;
b) respond to inquiries within the deadline (Section 5.4);
c) maintain consistency between statement, validation, and evidence; and
d) to respect the rules of confidentiality and anonymization when applicable.
5.2.6. Sampling/Risk Audit (Systemic Control). Additional sampling/risk auditing may be applied for:
a) to prevent fraud and manipulation;
b) validate the statistical consistency of the dataset;
c) check for duplicates and unusual patterns; and
d) to strengthen the reliability of the database.
The selection process may consider: abnormal volume, abrupt variation, sensitive typology, lack of minimum evidence, conflicts of interest, and other criteria defined by the Committee.
5.2.7. Possible decisions. The audited items may be classified as Approved, Approved with reservations, Pending due diligence, or Rejected, according to the criteria described in this section.
5.3.1. General rule. The minimum evidence consists of the information to be recorded in the Ranking form fields on the platform and must be validated by the counterparty (Section 5.1). This information includes:
a) identification of the parties;
b) nature/object of the relationship;
c) period and status (active, completed, renewed); and
d) optionally and when applicable, value (by range or exact).
5.3.2. If necessary, the Audit Committee may request additional evidence of the relationship. By way of example, the following may be requested: contracts, addenda, purchase orders, invoices, bills, proof of payment, formal communications, auditable internal records or reliable public links (when applicable).
5.3.3. Evidence for bonuses. Any bonus (Section 4.4) may require evidence consistent with the triggered criterion, including:
a) Total annual value (when applicable);
b) proof of renewal (when applicable);
c) proof of internationalization (when applicable); and
d) Additional documentation for recognition/scaling criteria, when applicable.
5.3.4. Confidentiality and anonymization.
a) Additional evidence may be submitted in anonymized format, provided that it preserves minimum verifiability (parties, subject matter, dates and materiality), in accordance with the Committee's guidelines;
b) 100 Open Startups may require non-anonymized submission in a restricted environment when indispensable for auditing, observing the rules of confidentiality and data protection (Section 11).
c) Restricted environment: access controlled by profile, access log, minimum necessary sharing, equivalent confidentiality obligation for providers, and prohibition of downloading/redistribution when technically applicable, according to the edition's operational policy.
5.3.5. Insufficient evidence. Insufficient evidence may result in:
a) Disregarding the relationship for scoring purposes;
b) rejection of bonuses; and/or
c) limitation of eligibility for Official Publication.
5.4.1. Due diligence. Due diligence is the formal request by the Audit Committee for clarifications and/or supplementary evidence during enhanced validation or audit, with a response deadline.
5.4.1.1. Official Channel. Due diligence will be conducted directly through the relationships and contracts registered in the Ranking form, or as officially directed by the Audit Committee.
5.4.2. Deadlines. The deadlines for responding to requests for information will be defined as follows:
a) in the Edition Schedule (Section 7); and/or
b) in the due diligence communication itself.
The Committee may provide for exceptional extensions, provided they are justified and compatible with the editorial schedule.
5.4.3. Effects of non-compliance. Failure to respond or the provision of insufficient evidence may result in:
a) maintaining the item as Pending until the deadline; and, after the deadline,
b) classification as Failed (due to insufficient evidence) or Approved with reservations, as the case may be and according to the criteria of the edition.
5.4.4. Possible classifications. At the end of the process (by item/relationship and/or set), the following classifications may be assigned:
a) Approved;
b) Approved with reservations;
c) Due diligence pending;
d) Failed.
5.4.5. Reconsideration. Audit decisions and their classifications may be subject to a request for reconsideration, in accordance with the procedures and deadlines set forth in Section 10.
5.5.1. Integrity of registration and records. The Ranking adopts integrity mechanisms to prevent distortions, including consistency checks, counterparty validation, minimum audit, and sample/risk audits.
5.5.2. Duplicate relationships. Relevant inconsistencies will include, among others:
a) Duplicate record of the same relationship with undue variations in type/value;
b) multiple records to inflate scores; and
c) Use of entities, domains, or units with the aim of improperly duplicating the same relationship.
In these cases, the Committee may consolidate, disqualify, or require correction before calculating the score.
5.5.3. Material inconsistency. Material discrepancies between declaration, validation, and evidence (e.g., values, dates, typology, existence of the contract) may result in due diligence and/or rejection of the item.
5.5.4. Evidence of fraud and manipulation. The identification of materially false information, manipulation of evidence, improper validations, or any practice intended to distort scoring, validation, auditing, or publication may give rise, individually or cumulatively, to:
a) disregard for the relationship;
b) rejection of bonuses;
c) limitation of eligibility for Official Publication;
d) suspension of the participant from the edition; and/or
(e) other measures provided for in Sections 10, 11 and 12, as applicable.
Integrity measures may be accompanied by a formal decision record, to preserve traceability (Section 10.3.4).
5.5.5. Controls for conflict of interest. Situations that compromise the impartiality of validations or audits may require: replacement of the point of contact, reinforcement of evidence, additional risk audit and/or other measures defined by the Committee.
6.1.1. Purpose of the Case Study. The purpose of the Case Study is to record and share verifiable learning about Open Innovation practices and impacts, based on collaborative case studies between organizations (startups, corporations, universities, and other actors), and it forms part of the governance and curation track for the 2026-2035 decade.
6.1.2. Relationship with the Latin American Congress of Open Innovation Cases.
a) The Latin American Congress of Open Innovation Cases, held by 100 Open Startups, is the case study track considered for the purposes of the 100 Open Startups Ranking.
b) Access to the call for and submission of cases is available at the following address:https://100os.net/Congresso_Casos, which directs you to the official pages of the Congress and its submission and registration processes.
c) The Congress foresees a two-stage submission format: (i) submission of an abstract for evaluation by the Technical Committee; and (ii) after approval, registration in the Author/Presenter category and submission of the complete case, to be included in the official program and proceedings, according to the Congress rules.
6.1.3. Case as an eligibility requirement for the Ranking (Official Publication). Eligibility for the Official Publication of the Ranking (ISBN) requires at least 1 (one) Case with an approved abstract, in accordance with these Regulations and the curation rules published on the official channel of the Congress (link in Section 6.1.2(b)).
6.1.4. Case Study as a Bonus Criterion. Case studies approved and registered for presentation at the Congress, in accordance with these Regulations and the Congress's curation rules, and duly registered in the Ranking form on the Platform, generate bonus points for the corporations and startups/scaleups that are part of the case study and are duly registered in the Audit phase, as per Section 4.4.4.
6.1.5. Approved case (for ranking purposes) x participation in the Congress (presentation/proceedings).
a) Case approved for eligibility purposes for the Ranking: a case is considered approved if its abstract has been approved by the technical curation of the Latin American Congress of Open Innovation Cases, submitted through the official channel of the Congress (link in Section 6.1.2(b)). Approval of the abstract is sufficient to meet the eligibility requirement for the Ranking, regardless of subsequent stages of the Congress (such as submission of the complete case, presentation or publication in proceedings).
b) Presentation and publication in the Congress proceedings: presentation in the official program and publication in the proceedings follow the specific rules of the Congress, including the requirement for the author/presenter to register after abstract approval. Bonus points in the Ranking (Section 4.4.4.) require a complete case study and registration for presentation and publication in the Congress proceedings, according to the rules defined in the official Congress channels (link in Section 6.1.2(b)).
c) Participation as an audience member: is governed by the participant registration process, according to the Congress rules.
6.1.6. Registration, Presentation, and Proceedings. Submission and approval of a case study for eligibility in the Ranking is free of charge. However, the presentation and publication of the case study in the Congress proceedings – a requirement for bonus points in the Ranking – requires submission of the complete case study and specific registration for the event, according to the Congress's own regulations.
6.1.7. Minimum Case Eligibility Criteria. To be considered eligible, the Case must, at a minimum:
a) report a practice, situation or problem related to Open Innovation;
b) demonstrate an effective partnership between at least two distinct entities; and
c) refer to a recent case, active or closed within the last 3 (three) years, as called by Congress.
6.1.8. Cases not accepted (examples of ineligibility). The following, among others, will not be accepted:
a) cases involving only one entity;
b) reports exclusively on product/service performance unrelated to Open Innovation;
c) purely descriptive cases of the benefits of a technological solution; and
d) resubmission of an identical case already presented in previous editions, according to the rules of the Congress.
6.1.9. Attribution and responsibility. The participant is responsible for the accuracy of the Case's content and for ensuring that the submission does not violate confidentiality obligations, intellectual property, or the rights of third parties, observing the rules of confidentiality and data protection (Section 11).
6.2.1. Template and minimum structure. The Case must follow the Congress/Ranking template, containing at least:
a) context and organizations involved (or their anonymized form, when applicable);
b) challenge, objectives and strategic rationale;
c) Relationship design (typology, governance, and form of collaboration);
d) implementation (key milestones);
e) results and minimum evidence (qualitative and/or quantitative); and
f) Lessons learned and recommendations.
If the template provided/described on the official channels of Congress differs from this description, the template provided/described on the official channels of Congress shall prevail.
6.2.2. Levels of confidentiality. To balance rigor and information protection, the Cases may adopt the following levels:
a) Public: complete identification of the case elements;
b) Public with anonymization: omission/generalization of identifiable and/or sensitive elements, while preserving coherence and minimal verifiability;
c) Public with restricted evidence: public narrative (with or without anonymization) and documentation/evidence made available only in a restricted audit/curation environment, when required, as per Section 5 and Section 11.
6.2.2.1. Consistency rule. Anonymization may not misrepresent the Open Innovation link (existence of a partnership between distinct entities) nor suppress elements essential to merit assessment and minimum verifiability, including, but not limited to, the identification of the entities that make up the case.
6.2.2.2. Discrepancies and updates. If the confidentiality rules described in the official channels of Congress differ from this description, the confidentiality rules described in the official channels of Congress shall prevail.
6.2.3. Adjustments and curation. The Technical Committee/curatorship may request adjustments to wording, completeness, minimum evidence, or level of anonymization as a condition for approval.
6.3.1. License for editorial use. By submitting a Case, the participant grants 100 Open Startups, on a non-exclusive basis and for the period necessary for the purposes of the Ranking and the Congress, authorization to:
a) analyze and curate the content;
b) publish the Case (in full or in excerpts) on the Congress and Ranking channels, according to the level of confidentiality adopted, including editorial anonymization and/or in a public narrative format with restricted evidence, when applicable (Sections 6.2, 5 and 11);
c) to produce abridged versions, promotional materials, compilations and editorial clippings; and
d) translate the content, when applicable, while preserving confidentiality restrictions.
6.3.2. Limits and safeguards.
a) The authorization does not imply the transfer of intellectual property rights to the technological solution, trademark, or know-how of the participant;
b) The publication will respect the defined level of confidentiality and any adjustments required by the curation team;
c) When there is restricted evidence, it will be handled in accordance with the audit rules (Section 5\) and confidentiality/data protection rules (Section 11).
6.3.3. Co-authorship and internal approval. It is the authors' responsibility to secure internal approval and, when applicable, approval from counterparts for the disclosure and publication of the case in the applicable environments.
6.3.4. Relationship to Congress registration. The submission and curation of the case study follow the Congress call for papers, and participation as an author/presenter and publication in the proceedings may depend on specific registration for the event, according to the steps described in the call for papers.
7.1.1. Base year and reference period.
a) For the Startups, Scaleups, and Corporations categories, contracts that were active at any time between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026, will be considered. For ranking purposes, a contract is considered 'active' if it was in effect on any day of the base year period, even if it started before or ended during that period.
b) For the Ecosystem Agents and Investors categories, relationships/investments that occurred at any time up to June 30, 2026 will be considered.
c) Active contracts declared and validated before July 1, 2024, will be considered expired for the 2026 edition and must be declared and validated again, as set forth in item 4.5.2.1.
7.1.2. Deadline for contract registration (participation). The deadline for contract registration is June 15, 2026, so that participants can take part in the entire validation campaign period.
7.1.3. Cutoff for the right to request reconsideration. Only contracts declared up to 06/30/2026 will be eligible to request reconsideration of the audit results for the 2026 Ranking.
7.1.4. Deadline for validation (counterparty). The deadline for validating contracts to be considered in the 2026 Ranking is 23:59 (UTC) on 15/07/2026 (equivalent to 20:59 Brasília time, UTC-3).
7.1.5. Disclosure of audit results (platform). The audit results of the contracts of organizations duly registered in the audit phase of the Ranking will be published on the platform itself by July 30, 2026.
7.1.6. Appeal (request for reconsideration) and final audit.
a) From the date of publication of the audit, participants from organizations registered in the audit phase who registered their contracts by June 30, 2026, will have 5 (five) consecutive days to request reconsideration. The request must comply with the form and minimum requirements of Section 10.1 (justification \+ additional evidence when applicable).
b) After the reassessment of contracts with requests for reconsideration, the final audit will be published within 7 (seven) calendar days.
c) Preliminary audit results may exist for contracts validated in advance; the final result may be subject to changes due to consistency checks performed after the validation process is completed.
7.1.7. Latin American Congress of Open Innovation Cases (5th Congress) - deadlines and integration with the Ranking.
a) The 5th Congress will take place on July 30 and 31, 2026, in São Paulo (SP), and is structured as a technical-scientific track with merit-based curation.
b) The submission process is in two stages: (i) submission of an abstract (evaluated by a Technical Committee on a rolling basis) and (ii) after approval, submission of the complete case (with confirmation/registration of the author/presenter, when applicable).
c) The Congress schedule (for authors) includes, among other milestones: deadline for abstract submissions: July 10th; announcement of accepted papers: July 15th; and submission of the complete case study from February 20th to July 15th (for approved authors with confirmed registration).
d) For eligibility purposes for the Official Ranking Publication (ISBN), the participant must ensure that the case study has an abstract submitted and approved within the scope of the Congress (as per Section 6), respecting the schedule and rules published on the official Congress channel, as per the link provided in Section 6.1.2(b).
7.1.8. Registration for the audit and Official Publication of the Ranking. Registration for the audit phase (Stage 2\) must occur within the period defined and announced by 100 Open Startups, exclusively through the link provided in Section 2.4.3.
7.1.9. Editorial Disclosure and Publication (Excerpts vs. Registered Entrant Access). Public disclosure may occur through excerpts (e.g., TOP 10, TOP 100, and others), at the discretion of the Editorial Committee. Institutions duly registered in the audit/publication phase will have access to their final score and relative position compared to all registered institutions.
7.1.10. Awards and Ceremony (Open Innovation Awards - OIA). The awards ceremony and participation in the OIA constitute a separate event from the Ranking, with specific rules and conditions defined by the Editorial Committee. The criteria for invitations, accreditation, and formal recognition will be detailed in the OIA rules and officially communicated.
7.2.1. Freezing for verification. Once the final validation deadline has passed (July 15, 2026, 11:59 PM UTC), new relationships registered and/or validated after this date will not be considered for the 2026 edition and may be included in the 2027 edition, provided that their validity coincides with the base year of the edition.
7.2.1.1. Relationships registered and validated within the deadline will be subject to final consistency checks and audits according to applicable procedures.
7.2.2. Preliminary audit vs. final audit. Preliminary results may be published for contracts validated in advance; the final result may be subject to changes due to consistency checks performed after the validation process is completed.
7.2.3. Final version (after appeals). After the period for requests for reconsideration and their reassessment, the final audit will be published within 7 (seven) calendar days.
7.2.4. Changes to deadlines. Any changes to the deadlines for registration, validation, enrollment, auditing, appeals, publication, and awarding of prizes.Information will be communicated through the official channels of 100 Open Startups.
7.2.4.1. In case of discrepancies between PDFs/versions and operational communications, the official channels of 100 Open Startups shall prevail, and for case studies, the official channel of the Congress.
8.1.1. Concept and nature. The Official Publication of the 100 Open Startups Ranking (ISBN) is the annual editorial product that consolidates, with traceability and curation, the results of the edition, according to this Regulation, including only eligible and audited participants within the minimum applicable scope (Sections 2, 5 and 7).
8.1.2. Inclusion conditions. To be included in the Official Ranking Publication, the participant must cumulatively meet the following requirements:
a) to have registered for the audit and verification phase (Section 2.4);
b) have been audited and approved within the minimum applicable scope (Sections 2.5 and 5.2);
c) possess at least 1 (one) case with an abstract approved by the Congress, as per Section 6; and
d) meet the eligibility criteria and any minimum requirements per category (Section 3), including additional requirements established for the edition. For the Enterprise category, the following applies:Additional minimum requirement for publication (≥ 100 audited points in the base year), according to the edition's parameters.
8.1.3. Editorial curation. The inclusion, presentation format, ordering, and published excerpts will adhere to the criteria of the Editorial Committee, respecting the methodology and integrity rules of the Ranking (Sections 4 and 5).
8.1.4. Editorial License and Identification. By participating in the Ranking tracks (and especially by registering for auditing/publication), the participant authorizes 100 Open Startups to use, for editorial and promotional purposes of the Ranking:
a) company name, trade name, brand and logo;
b) category, scope and position (when published); and
c) aggregated and non-confidential information associated with the publication, respecting confidentiality and data protection (Section 11).
The above authorization does not imply the transfer of intellectual property or authorization for use beyond the purposes of the Ranking and its connected products.
8.1.5. Formats and media. The Official Publication may be made available in physical and/or digital media, as well as in consolidated versions by decade, collection or retrospective, according to editorial decision.
8.1.5.1. Distribution and access. The availability of the Official Ranking Publication does not imply unrestricted public access. Distribution and access may occur in restricted environments and/or through access policies defined by edition (for example, for participants, members/subscribers, authorized organizations and partners, and other audiences defined by 100 Open Startups), while preserving editorial curation and confidentiality (Section 11).
8.2.1. Editorial excerpts. 100 Open Startups may publish excerpts from the Ranking (e.g., TOP 10, TOP 100, sectoral, regional, thematic and/or by category).
8.2.1.1. The publication of excerpts does not imply the full publication of the Official Publication or the complete set of positions/scores, which may remain available only in accordance with the distribution and access policies of the edition (Section 8.1.5.1) and feedback in a restricted environment (Section 2.8).
8.2.2. Layered communication (engaged first). Based on the Ranking Architecture (Section 2\) and the Timeline (Section 7):
a) Public communication will prioritize excerpts and highlights defined by the Editorial Committee;
b) Registered participants may receive, in a restricted environment, expanded feedback (including their relative ranking and applicable reports) before broad public disclosure, in accordance with the edition's editorial policy;
c) broad public dissemination (when applicable) may occur at a later date, defined by the Editorial Committee, in order to prioritize reputational and communication benefits for participants who adhered to the formal tracks (audit/publication) and to preserve editorial integrity and consistency of communication of the edition.
8.2.3. Limits on individual disclosure. Public disclosure of individual information (e.g., exact score and position outside of published clippings) shall observe:
a) confidentiality and data protection (Section 11);
b) editorial criteria for the edition; and
c) the level of feedback applicable to the participant's stage (Section 2.8).
Unless expressly published in an official publication, participants should not publicly disclose their position as if it were an "officially published position," and should follow the guidelines sent to the official contact points (Section 3.3.5) by 100 Open Startups.
8.2.4. Use of permitted terms and statements. To avoid confusion between participation, publication, and awarding, participants must use, when making public communications, only statements compatible with their status, in accordance with the guidelines sent by 100 Open Startups to official contact points (Section 3.3.5).
8.2.5. Prohibitions and bans against inducing error. Participants are prohibited from:
a) to use the Ranking's brand, seal, or language to suggest commercial endorsement, compliance certification, performance guarantee, investment recommendation, or obligation to hire;
b) to declare oneself “TOP 10”, “TOP 100”, “Ranked” or “Awarded” without being listed in the applicable official ranking/publication/OIA;
c) Use OIA materials to communicate an award when there is no invitation/accreditation or when the award has not been granted;
d) Disclosing third-party information or evidence/contracts without authorization and without observing confidentiality.
8.2.6. Measures for misuse. Misuse of trademarks, seals or statements may give rise to:
a) request for public correction/rectification;
b) suspension of the right to use the seal and materials;
c) editorial disregard and/or limitation of eligibility in future editions; and
d) other measures provided for in Sections 5.5, 10 and 12;
(e) Repeat offenses may lead to limitations on participation in future editions.
8.3.1. Ownership and Title. The trademarks, names, seals, and identity elements of the Ranking and its connected products (including the Case Congress and Open Innovation Awards) are owned by 100 Open Startups or its licensors, and their use is governed by these Regulations.
8.3.2. Status-based badge. Badges and communication materials will be defined by status and segment. Participants may only use the badge compatible with their status and segment as published by 100 Open Startups.
8.3.3. Rules for integrity of use. When using any seal, the participant must:
a) maintain a clear reference to the edition (year) and the clipping, when applicable;
b) preserve the proportions, colors, and graphic integrity of the seal, without alterations; and
c) not to associate the seal with unproven claims or claims incompatible with the organization's status in the Ranking.
8.3.4. Prior approval (when required). The Editorial Committee may establish, for each edition, cases in which the use of certain materials (e.g., broad campaigns, paid advertisements, TV spots, co-branding with sponsors) will require prior validation or additional guidelines.
8.3.5. Coexistence with third-party trademarks. The participant is responsible for obtaining authorizations from counterparties and third parties for any joint disclosure (e.g., mentioning corporations, partner startups, logos, and results), respecting confidentiality, intellectual property, and data protection.
9.1.1. Concept. The Open Innovation Awards (OIA) is the recognition ceremony connected to the 100 Open Startups Ranking, intended to celebrate results and highlights defined for the edition, according to criteria and rules established by the Editorial Committee.
9.1.2. Methodological independence. The OIA does not alter the Ranking's calculation, nor its scoring, validation, auditing, and publication criteria. Participation in the OIA, its invitations, accreditations, and operational conditions are governed by the ceremony's own rules and those of the Editorial Committee.
9.1.3. Invitations and accreditation. Participation in the ceremony will be by invitation only and accreditation may be required, and may include rules regarding access, seating, tables, quotas, sponsorships, and other conditions defined by the Editorial Committee and officially communicated.
9.2.1. Minimum eligibility. To be eligible for recognition by the OIA, the organization must, at a minimum:
a) be registered in the Ranking in the Audit/Official Publication track (Section 2.4);
b) comply with the integrity and eligibility requirements applicable to the edition (Sections 3, 5 and 7); and
c) meet the invitation, selection, and accreditation criteria defined by the Editorial Committee.
9.2.2. Case as an eligibility requirement for the OIA. The Editorial Committee may establish, for the edition, that recognition in the OIA is conditional upon the existence of an approved case, as per Section 6, especially when the award is associated with the recognition of verifiable learning and impact.
9.2.3. Recognized Categories. The categories and scopes recognized in the OIA will be defined by the Editorial Committee and may include, among other examples:
a) performance-based breakdowns (e.g., TOP 10, TOP 100, sectoral and thematic);
b) breakdowns by size and category (e.g., Middle Market and Enterprise, when applicable);
c) special recognitions defined by edition (e.g., internationalization, continuity, portfolio governance, among others); and
d) recognitions linked to the Case Congress (e.g., merit-based case awards), when applicable.
9.2.4. Disclosure of criteria. The eligibility criteria, cut-offs, invitations, categories, and conditions of the ceremony will be disclosed on the official OIA channel and/or in the edition's announcements, as part of the Ranking's editorial rules.
9.3.1. Types of materials. Recognition materials may include, as decided by the Editorial Committee for the edition:
a) certificates (digital and/or physical);
b) plates;
c) trophies;
d) medals; and/or
(e) other recognition items defined by edition.
9.3.2. Lack of guarantee of physical material. The existence, format, quantity, and distribution criteria of physical materials are not automatic for all segments (for example, there is no guarantee of physical material for all TOP 100 or TOP 10 organizations), and must comply with the policy defined by the Editorial Committee.
9.4.1. Delivery is conditional upon attendance/accreditation. Physical materials (when adopted in this edition) will be made available exclusively to the representative present and accredited at the ceremony, according to the rules of the Editorial Committee.
9.4.2. No mailings. Trophies, plaques, medals, or any physical materials will not be mailed, even if the organization is eligible, published, ranked, or recognized by the OIA.
9.4.3. Certificates for Absentees. Organizations recognized by the OIA that do not attend the ceremony will receive a certificate, in accordance with the edition's policy and the Editorial Committee's rules.
9.4.4. Additional conditions. Quantity per organization, representative identification, withdrawal deadlines, confirmation procedures, and other operational conditions will be defined and published in the specific OIA rules.
9.5.1. Recording and transmission. The Editorial Committee may decide that the OIA be recorded by photography and video and/or transmitted live on official channels.
9.5.2. Image Use Authorization. By participating in the ceremony, attendees authorize, for institutional purposes and for the dissemination of the Ranking and the OIA:
a) capture and use of image, voice and name; and
b) dissemination in communication materials, historical records, archives and editorial clippings, respecting applicable legislation and data protection rules (Section 11).
9.5.3. Conduct and compliance. Participants must observe the rules of conduct, accreditation, security, and compliance of the event venue and the guidelines of the Editorial Committee, under penalty of restricted access, loss of accreditation, and other applicable measures.
9.5.4. Use of branding in post-event communication. Public communication of recognition at the OIA must follow the standards for branding and permitted statements (Section 8), including clear reference to the corresponding edition, category, and trim.
10.1.1. Purpose. The request for reconsideration is the formal mechanism for registered participants to contest audit decisions and/or material impacts on the scoring process, by presenting justification and, when applicable, supplementary evidence.
10.1.2. Eligibility for a request for reconsideration. The following shall be entitled to request reconsideration, under the terms of this Regulation:
a) participants who have registered for the Audit/Official Publication track (Section 2.4); and
b) relationships/contracts declared up to 06/30/2026 (or the cutoff date defined in the edition), according to the Schedule (Section 7).
10.1.3. Deadline. The request for reconsideration must be submitted within 5 (five) consecutive days from the publication of the audit result on the platform, according to the Edition Schedule (Section 7).
10.1.4. Form and minimum requirements. The application must:
a) provide objective justification and indicate the point of divergence (e.g., type, period, value, bonus, duplication); and
b) attach or reference additional evidence when requested by the Audit Committee.
10.1.5. Effects of the request. Submitting a request for reconsideration:
a) does not suspend the editorial schedule of the edition; and
b) may result in maintaining, partially adjusting, or reversing the audited decision, as determined by reassessment.
10.1.6. Reassessment and final decision. After the application period, the contested items will be reassessed and the final audit will be published within 7 (seven) calendar days, according to the Schedule (Section 7), constituting the reference for official assessment and for the purposes of curating the Official Publication of the Ranking.
10.1.6. 1 The final audit published within the publication period constitutes the reference for official verification and editorial review; there is no reopening outside of these windows, except by express decision for integrity reasons.
10.1.7. Limits. Requests for reconsideration will not be accepted:
a) outside the deadline;
b) relating to items not declared within the cut-off period; or
c) without minimal justification and without verifiable elements that justify the reassessment.
10.2.1. Concept. Editorial rectification is the formal correction of information published in an official clipping, public communication, or in the Official Ranking Publication, when a material error, proven inconsistency, or subsequent decision by the Editorial Committee is verified.
10.2.2. Grounds for rectification. The following may give rise to rectification, among others:
a) material error in spelling, identification of organization, category or section;
b) editorial classification error (e.g., incorrect attribution of clipping);
c) inconsistency proven by final audit, subsequent due diligence, or integrity decision; and
d) The Editorial Committee's determination to preserve the consistency and traceability of the record.
10.2.3. Procedure. The rectification:
a) will be analyzed by the Editorial Committee (or a body designated by it), which may request input from the Audit Committee;
b) may require additional documentation; and
c) will be published by means of an update to the digital material and/or errata, when applicable.
10.2.4. Limits. Editorial correction:
a) does not imply reopening the audit process outside of official channels, unless expressly decided otherwise for integrity reasons; and
b) does not automatically entitle the holder to an award, invitation, or physical material at the OIA.
10.3.1. Concept. Removal is the deletion or unpublishing of a participant's records and/or data, subject to legal limitations, the historical traceability of the Ranking, and the rules of confidentiality and data protection (Section 11).
10.3.2. Hypotheses and requests. Removal may occur:
a) at the request of the data subject or the organization, where applicable;
b) due to legal requirement or order from a competent authority;
c) for proven violation of integrity rules (fraud, manipulation, misuse), as defined in Sections 5.5 and 12; and/or
d) by editorial decision in cases of insurmountable material inconsistency that compromises the record.
10.3.3. Effects on scoring and publication. Removal may imply:
a) Disregarding relationships for scoring purposes in the current edition;
b) exclusion of the participant from the Official Publication (when not yet published), or issuance of an erratum/correction (when already published); and
c) Restriction on the use of stamps and declarations (Section 8).
10.3.4. Limits and preservation of traceability.
a) When necessary for the preservation of historical records (especially in Official Publications with ISBN), removal may be implemented by unpublishing or anonymizing in digital versions, and by issuing an erratum in relation to previously published material;
b) Removal may not be used to erase traces of fraud or material inconsistency without proper rectification registration, where applicable.
10.3.5. Procedure and deadlines. The removal procedure and response times will be defined by 100 Open Startups according to the nature of the request and applicable legal obligations, and may require proof of the applicant's legitimacy and precise delimitation of the scope.
11.1.1. General rule. Participants acknowledge that, within the scope of the Ranking, data and documents containing strategic, commercial and/or third-party information (“Confidential Information”) may be processed. Such information must be treated confidentially, in accordance with these Regulations and applicable legislation.
11.1.2. Restricted use for Ranking purposes. Confidential information eventually provided in the context of validation, auditing, due diligence or case studies will be used exclusively for:
a) Validation and auditing of relationships (Section 5);
b) Editorial curation of the Ranking and Official Publication (Section 8);
c) curation and evaluation of cases (Section 6); and
d) integrity, fraud prevention and process compliance (Sections 5.5, 10 and 12).
11.1.3. Limited Sharing. The sharing of Confidential Information will be limited to individuals and service providers strictly necessary for the execution of the Ranking (including auditors, curators, and technical support), subject to equivalent confidentiality obligations.
11.1.4. Anonymized evidence and documents. Whenever possible, participants should prioritize submitting evidence in anonymized format, provided that minimum verifiability is preserved (parties, subject matter, dates, materiality), as per Section 5.3. 100 Open Startups may request non-anonymized submission in a restricted environment when indispensable for auditing.
11.2.1. Application of legislation. The processing of personal data within the scope of the Ranking will comply with applicable legislation, including Law No. 13.709/2018 (General Law on the Protection of Personal Data - LGPD), as well as related regulations.
11.2.2. Roles in treatment. For the purposes of operating the Ranking:
a) 100 Open Startups will act as the data controller and/or operator, as the case may be.
b) Participants remain responsible for obtaining the necessary legal bases and authorizations for the personal data they enter or share within the scope of the Ranking.
(c) Each party will be responsible for the processing of data under its respective governance and for any excesses or irregularities in the use of personal data;
d) Involved service providers (platform, auditing, curation, and support) may act as operators, according to defined instructions and purposes.
11.2.3. Purposes of processing. Personal data may be processed for:
a) identification and registration of participants;
b) registration, validation and auditing of relationships;
c) Management of operational communications and feedback;
d) editorial curation and publication of results by selection;
e) organization and curation of case studies and the Congress;
f) organization and execution of the OIA and other related events; and
g) Fraud prevention, security, internal audit, and compliance with legal obligations.
11.2.4. Legal basis. Processing may occur based on, among other grounds:
a) Contract execution and preliminary procedures (e.g., registration and audit);
b) legitimate interest (e.g., Ranking integrity, fraud prevention, reasonable institutional communications and aggregated statistics);
c) compliance with a legal/regulatory obligation; and
d) consent, when required, especially for sensitive personal data.
11.2.5. Sensitive personal data. When sensitive personal data is collected/processed (for example, self-declaration in specific categories), the processing will occur through:
a) specific and highlighted consent, when applicable; and/or
b) other legally permitted grounds, when applicable.
The absence of consent for sensitive data will not prevent general participation in the Ranking, but may limit participation in categories that depend on this data, according to the rules of this edition.
11.2.6. Data subject rights. Data subjects may request, under the terms of the LGPD: confirmation of processing, access, correction, anonymization, portability, deletion (when applicable), information on data sharing, and revocation of consent, subject to legal limitations and the historical traceability of the Ranking (Section 10.3).
11.2.7. Contact Channel. The channels and procedures for requests relating to personal data will be available on the official channels of 100 Open Startups and may be indicated on the Ranking website.
11.3.1. Aggregate reports. 100 Open Startups may prepare and publish aggregate reports and statistical analyses of the Ranking (e.g., by sector, region, size, and trends), without disclosing individualized or confidential data, except when already published by official sources.
11.3.2. Academic and institutional partnerships. Partnerships with academic institutions and/or entities may exist for the production of research and studies on Open Innovation, provided that:
a) confidentiality and data protection are respected;
b) the use of aggregated and/or anonymized data is prioritized; and
c) the sharing of individualized data, when indispensable, must observe legal basis, minimization, and access controls.
11.3.3. Operational Sharing. Sharing with infrastructure providers, communication services, auditing, curation, and event organization may occur to the extent necessary for operation, with contractual and technical security measures in place. Sharing will observe minimization, access control based on necessity, and equivalent confidentiality obligations.
11.3.4. Sharing with local partners. The Ranking may be published in other countries with the support of regional implementing partners. These partners will have access to local contract data to the extent necessary for the operation of the Ranking, with contractual and technical information security measures in place. Sharing will observe minimization, access control based on necessity, and equivalent confidentiality obligations.
11.4.1. Security measures. 100 Open Startups will adopt reasonable technical and organizational measures to protect data and evidence against unauthorized access, loss, destruction, alteration, and leakage, considering risks and best practices.
11.4.2. Retention. Data and documents may be retained for the time necessary to:
a) to fulfill the purposes of the Ranking and historical traceability;
b) to meet legal and regulatory obligations;
c) allow for auditing, contesting, and rectification within reasonable timeframes; and
d) maintain consistency of official collections and publications.
Exclusion, when applicable, will observe limitations regarding historical records and errata/anonymization mechanisms (Section 10.3).
11.4.3. Incidents. In the event of significant security incidents, containment, investigation and communication measures will be adopted in accordance with applicable legislation and internal protocols.
11.4.3.1. The channels and procedures for communicating with holders/participants, when applicable, will be executed in accordance with legislation and internal policy, with a record of the measures adopted.
12.1.1. Governance Bodies. The Ranking is governed by governance bodies, including, but not limited to:
a) Methodology Committee (technical rules for scoring and progression);
b) Audit Committee (criteria and procedures for evidence, due diligence and auditing); and
c) Editorial Committee (publication, clippings, communication and awards).
12.1.2. Decision-making authority. Decisions regarding methodology, auditing, editorial curation, and awards will be made by the competent bodies, as per these Regulations, and may be formalized in official communications.
12.1.2.1. Equivalent cases will be treated with equivalent criteria, preserving materiality and evidence.
12.1.3. Conflict of interest. Committee members and evaluators must observe integrity rules and avoid conflicts of interest; when identified, abstentions, replacements, and audit reinforcements may be required.
12.2.1. Updates and evolution. The Ranking evolves continuously. This Regulation may be updated by governance decision, preferably through an edition, respecting the predictability of the schedule and communication to the participants.
12.2.2. Publicity. Relevant changes will be announced through official Ranking channels and/or formal communications.
12.2.3. Prospective application. Rule changes that impact rights, costs, eligibility, or auditing should, whenever possible, have prospective application, that is, be applicable from a specific edition or communicated milestone, preserving the security and good faith of participants already enrolled in a given edition.
12.3.1. Applicable Law. This Regulation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Federative Republic of Brazil.
12.3.2. Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the district of São Paulo/SP is chosen to settle any controversies arising from this Regulation, with waiver of any other, however privileged it may be, unless the Editorial Committee establishes, for each edition, an alternative dispute resolution mechanism (for example, mediation), disclosed in an official communication.
12.3.3. Independence of the tracks. Any participation in the Case Congress and/or the OIA is subject to the specific regulations of those events, which coexist with these Regulations, without prejudice to the application of the integrity, confidentiality and trademark usage rules established herein.
---
A.0.1. Unit of measurement. Each eligible relationship represents a formal Open Innovation link between two parties, framed within a typology of this Annex.
A.0.2. Best pairwise ratio. For scoring purposes, the “best pairwise ratio” rule (startup/scaleup ↔ corporation) applies, as per Section 4.3.
A.0.3. Matchmaking and connections. Records of “matchmaking and connections” (without formalization of relationship/contract) do not score points for startups/scaleups and corporations; they may score points for the executive ranking when provided for in the edition (Section 4.2.2).
A1.1. Training and Mentoring (1 point).
Definition: Initiatives sponsored by corporations that offer, as benefits to selected startups, structured training and mentoring programs for entrepreneurs, with a defined track/agenda and follow-up.
Examples:
a) Startup selected for a corporate mentoring program with thematic tracks (e.g., B2B sales, governance, compliance).
b) Corporate-sponsored bootcamp with recurring mentoring and development goals.
c) Training program to prepare startups for hiring as suppliers.
A1.2. Recognition and Awards (1 point).
Definition: Initiatives undertaken by corporations that offer awards recognizing and/or selecting startups through institutional selection, providing visibility and positioning them as standouts in a specific theme/segment.
a) Startup that is a winner or finalist in a corporate open innovation award.
b) Selection as a "featured startup" in a corporate challenge (with official announcement).
c) Institutional recognition for performance/innovation in a thematic program.
A1.3. Coworking Spaces (1 point).
Definition: Coworking spaces/corporate hubs designed for interaction between corporations and startups, with formal access granted for a defined period for collaboration, networking, and opportunity development.
a) Startup residing in a corporate hub for a cycle (e.g., 3-6 months) to interact with internal areas.
b) Access to innovation space for meetings, demonstrations and joint development.
c) Workstation in a corporate environment to bring teams closer together and accelerate interaction.
A1.4. Service and Technology Vouchers (1 point).
Definition: Corporate programs that offer selected startups access to services and technologies free of charge or at a subsidized rate, with defined benefits and duration.
a) Cloud/infrastructure credit granted for development and testing.
b) Corporate software voucher (licenses) for a period to support deployment.
c) Subsidized access to technical tools/services (e.g., security, analytics, DevOps).
A2.5. Corporate IP Licensing (5 points).
Definition: Contracts in which a corporation licenses technology/intellectual property for use or exploitation by startups, with a defined purpose and term.
a) Startup licenses corporation's proprietary API to create a complementary solution.
b) Corporate patent/know-how license for a startup to produce/operate a solution.
c) Licensing of corporate technology for integration into the startup's product.
A2.6. Access to Non-Financial Resources (5 points).
Definition: Agreements in which a corporation offers access to laboratories, equipment, databases, and other assets under its control so that startups can develop, test, or validate their innovations, without constituting a recurring supply.
a) Use of corporate laboratory/equipment to test prototype.
b) Controlled access to dataset/environment to validate model/algorithm.
c) Access to infrastructure (plant, store, network) for technical and operational testing.
A2.7. Access to the Collaborator Database (5 points).
Definition: Agreements in which a corporation grants startups access to its employee base to explore, test, or validate their services and products while they are still in the development/validation phase, with minimal governance regarding scope and timeframe.
a) Internal pilot with employees as test subjects (closed beta).
b) Testing of HR/benefits/health solutions with a group of employees.
c) Controlled experimentation of a digital product with internal users.
A2.8. Access to Customer Base and Sales Channels (5 points).
Definition: Business partnerships in which corporations share their sales channels and/or customer base with startups, through models such as co-selling, reselling, distribution, or structured referrals.
a) Corporation resells startup's solution as part of its portfolio.
b) Co-selling: corporate sales team and startup work together on the account.
c) Structured referral: corporation directs startup to clients with a formal process.
A2.9. Acceleration Program (5 points).
Definition: A structured acceleration program offered by a corporation (directly or through a partner accelerator), with selection, track, and mentoring, which may include financial support to the startup of less than US$200,000 (when it involves a significant equity stake and above the minimum, it falls under Group D).
a) Corporate acceleration with sprints, mentoring and follow-up, with scholarship/financial support.
b) Program with resources for execution (e.g., development, validation) below the Group D floor.
c) Acceleration via a partner (accelerator) sponsored by the corporation with defined reciprocal benefits.
A3.10. Resources for R\&D and Prototyping (10 points).
Definition: The corporation selects and provides financial resources for startups to develop R\&D projects and/or prototype solutions applicable to its business (or of indirect interest), without constituting an equity investment.
a) Funding for a prototype technology applied to a corporate process.
b) Financial support for applied research with defined technical deliverables.
c) Resources for developing an MVP/prototype with joint specification.
A3.11. Startup IP Licensing (10 points).
Definition: Agreements in which startups license their proprietary technology for exploitation by corporations in products, services, or production processes.
a) Corporation licenses algorithm/software from startup to incorporate into its own offering.
b) Intellectual Property License for internal use in production operations/processes.
c) Licensing for distribution/use within the corporation's customer base.
A3.12. Paid Proof of Concept (10 points).
Definition: Contracting a proof-of-concept project with remuneration for the startup, with a defined scope, timeframe, and acceptance criteria, intended to demonstrate the technical and/or operational feasibility of the solution in a real or controlled context, generally as a step prior to recurring contracting and/or scaling.
a) Paid Proof of Concept (PoC) to validate integration with legacy systems and performance in a real-world environment.
b) Paid Proof of Concept (PoC) in a specific unit/line to measure KPIs and success criteria before scaling up.
c) Paid pilot implementation to test operation, safety, and regulatory compliance before wider adoption.
A3.13. Recurring Supply (Venture Client) (10 points).
Definition: Recurring contracting (subscription, recurring licenses, or ongoing supply) of an innovative product/service from a startup by a corporation, characterizing a client-supplier relationship with continuity, renewal, and/or expansion (scaling by units, users, branches, or volume), going beyond a one-off test.
a) Annual subscription contract with renewal and scope expansion (more areas/units/users).
b) Continuous supply with recurring orders and gradual expansion in operation (rollout).
c) Recurring contracting for critical operations (continuous service), with service level metrics and planned expansion.
A4.14. Investment with minority stake above USD 200,000 (20 points).
Definition: Investment starting at US$200,000 in exchange for a minority equity stake in the startup/scaleup, made by a corporation (directly) and/or by Corporate Venture Capital funds (including corporate participation in Venture Capital funds).
a) Investment in a funding round (seed/series) via the corporation's CVC vehicle.
b) Co-investment in a fund/round with a minority stake in the startup.
c) Direct investment by the corporation with a formalized equity stake.
A4.15. Acquisition and incorporation above USD 200,000 (20 points).
Definition: Acquisition of a majority or full stake in a startup by a corporation and/or corporate investment vehicle, with incorporation of the company and/or assets/technology, for a value exceeding US$200,000.
a) Corporation acquires control of the startup and integrates its operation/technology.
b) Full acquisition (M\&A) to incorporate product/IP into the corporate offering.
c) Corporate merger following majority acquisition.
Last updated: March 4, 2026