State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are important actors in the global economy. They provide essential services and operate in strategic sectors for resilience and competitiveness, such as energy, infrastructure and finance. Their economic footprint has doubled over the past decade, increasing the importance of sound governance to ensure they contribute to fair and competitive markets while delivering value in the public interest. Drawing on new evidence from 58 OECD Member and partner economies, the 2026 edition of Ownership and Governance of State-Owned Enterprises provides a comprehensive picture of the global SOE landscape and how ownership and governance practices are evolving.
Ownership and Governance of State‑Owned Enterprises 2026
Introduction
Key figures
33 800
large SOEs operated globally in 2024, with USD 141 trillion in assets
43%
of countries have a government‑wide policy for managing state ownership
54%
of countries require a minimum number of independent directors on SOE boards
State-owned enterprises are playing a growing role in the global economy
By 2024, approximately 33 800 SOEs held USD 141 trillion in assets globally, equivalent to 126% of global GDP. Most SOEs are non‑financial and employ around three‑quarters of SOE workers, but financial SOEs hold the largest share of SOE assets, at USD 102 trillion. Between 2013 and 2024, the number of non financial SOEs and the value of their total assets roughly doubled in real terms. SOEs are particularly significant in emerging economies, accounting for 80% of global SOE assets and 83% of SOE employment, and are prominent in strategic sectors including energy, mining, manufacturing, transport and finance. Many compete in the marketplace, highlighting the importance of a level playing field.
Countries are professionalising ownership, but fragmented ownership frameworks and blurred institutional boundaries can weaken accountability
Governments are increasingly professionalising ownership through stronger co‑ordination, improved oversight and greater transparency. However, fewer than half of countries (43%) have a single government‑wide policy defining the state’s objectives and rationales as an owner. In many others, these remain dispersed across multiple legal, regulatory and policy instruments. This can result in less clearly articulated objectives and responsibilities and contribute to inconsistent ownership practices.
Legal exemptions and public service compensation arrangements for SOEs continue to present an uneven playing field
Only 57% of countries apply the same legal rules to SOEs as to private companies. Where exemptions exist, they often concern areas such as bankruptcy, public procurement, competition law and regulatory oversight, potentially giving SOEs different operating conditions. Public service obligations are also widespread, but only 48% of countries tie compensation directly to the costs incurred and require separate accounts, while others use less transparent or more indirect arrangements.
The authority and independence of SOE boards remain uneven across countries
Requirements aimed at strengthening SOE board independence and effectiveness vary across countries. Only 54% of countries require that boards have a minimum number of independent directors. Board authority also differs, as SOE boards have full authority to define corporate strategy in only 43% of countries, while in 47% boards develop the strategy subject to approval by the state shareholder.
Sustainability expectations for SOEs are becoming more formalised
In 73% of countries, some or all SOEs are required to report on sustainability. However, the integration of sustainability considerations into due diligence, risk‑management and reporting requirements remains uneven and applies primarily to larger or listed SOEs. Around 60% of countries also integrate sustainability information in aggregate reporting on their SOE portfolios, although the scope and depth of reporting vary.
What can governments do?
Clear institutional responsibilities and reduced overlap between these functions can help minimise conflicts of interest, strengthen accountability and support competitive neutrality.
Reporting on financial and non‑financial performance at both enterprise and portfolio level can strengthen public accountability and support more informed decision making.
Ensuring transparent nomination procedures, merit‑based appointments and well‑composed boards that balance skills, experience and independence can support effective oversight and long‑term value creation.
Ownership and governance frameworks that incorporate sustainability expectations, risk management, due diligence and anti‑corruption measures can help SOEs lead by example.
