Public policy objectives of state‑owned enterprises

5. Transparency and disclosure frameworks

Transparency is a cornerstone of accountability when SOEs are entrusted with delivering public policy objectives (PPOs) or public service obligations (PSOs). Clear disclosure of the mandates assigned to SOEs, the resources used to pursue them, and the results achieved helps ensure that these activities remain consistent with sound governance and competitive neutrality principles. Robust reporting also enables stakeholders to understand how public resources are deployed and whether these mandates are implemented efficiently. Effective disclosure frameworks can also support fiscal oversight, strengthen public trust and reduce risks associated with opaque financing or poorly monitoring public support arrangements.

Drawing on country practices, this section examines how information on PPOs and PSOs is disclosed in practice, focusing on reporting frameworks at both the SOE level and the level of the state as owner. The SOE Guidelines posit that high levels of disclosure are especially relevant for SOEs pursuing important PPOs. The Guidelines recommend that (i) when a SOE is used for PPOs, both the SOE and state owner should report on how these are being achieved, and that (ii) when SOEs are expected to fulfil specific PSOs, information on the costs and related activities be disclosed (Guidelines V.A and V.E). In addition, sustainability-related information should be disclosed, which may interlink with the achievement of a PPO or PSO (Guideline V.A.10).

5.1. SOE-level disclosure frameworks

In practice, disclosure of PPOs and PSOs often begin at the enterprise level, where SOEs report on the mandates assigned to them, their implementation and associated financial implications. Information surrounding PPOs and PSOs is not always disclosed in a consistent manner, and disclosure frameworks vary significantly across countries. In most surveyed countries, large or listed SOEs are required to report on their financial performance and the financing of PSOs. The extent and quality of such disclosure often depend on the application of international or national financial reporting standards, such as the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), across the SOE portfolio. These frameworks typically require the disclosure of information on government grants and other forms of public assistance, including indirect financing mechanisms such as below-market-rate government loans supporting the achievement of both PPOs and PSOs.

Beyond the IFRS, a number of national and supranational frameworks impose additional financial reporting requirements related to the financing of PPOs. For example, EU state aid rules require member states to accurately record and report the granting of state and de minimis aid, as well as to submit such measures for approval. The EU Transparency Directive further mandates the maintenance of separate accounts for entities entrusted with special obligations, ensuring that costs associated with these obligations are disclosed publicly. In the United Kingdom, a self-assessment model is used to ensure that subsidies comply with the UK’s subsidy control principles (UK Department for Business and Trade, 2024[12]).

Beyond financial reporting standards, there are frameworks on sustainability-related information disclosure that intersect with performance reporting on PPO and PSO achievement. Some survey respondents, like Austria, among other EU countries subject to the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (EU CSRD), draw a link between their PPO-related disclosures to sustainability-related reporting and disclosure obligations. This alignment is particularly strong where PPOs are designed around sustainability goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting biodiversity, or advancing social equity and diversity-related initiatives. Such disclosures are typically made through annual or performance reports.

Beyond broader financial and non-financial reporting obligations, several jurisdictions have also required SOE-specific disclosure frameworks tailored to the monitoring of PPOs. Greece provides a notable example: SOEs within the Growthfund (formerly Hellenic Corporation of Assets and Participations) portfolio publish information relating to the implementation of certain elements relating to the SOEs’ mandate and statement of commitments. Greek SOEs publish information on their websites regarding the implementation of responsible business conduct, consultation with stakeholders, corporate governance, financial management and transparency, as well as strategic goals. In Croatia, SOEs also specifically report on PPO performance, though performance reports are only shared with competent authorities. While information regarding the fulfilment of PSOs is currently not publicly available, the forthcoming regulatory framework is expected to provide for public disclosure going forward. The Netherlands expects SOEs to report on PPOs in their annual management report.

The content and accessibility of disclosures often depend on the institutional or legal mechanisms through which these obligations are established. Typically, the way PPOs and PSOs and their performance are communicated depends on whether PPOs and PSOs are established through a contractual arrangement or policy mandate. In several countries, PPOs and PSOs are anchored in publicly available ownership policies, or legally binding documents such as public service or performance contracts, or other formal instruments (as in Colombia, Czechia, Iceland, and Norway). In other cases, objectives are communicated mainly through annual letters of expectations or shareholder agreements between the state owner and the SOE (as in Australia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine). Letters of expectations are sometimes disclosed on SOE webpages, as it is the case for Romania, while in other jurisdictions they are not always easily accessible. Some countries choose to anchor the PPOs in the charters or corporate bylaws of relevant SOEs, presidential decrees, laws, and sectoral legislation, such as Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Italy, and Switzerland.

Disclosure and reporting requirements may also evolve in exceptional circumstances, particularly where temporary public support, crisis-response measures or emergency PSOs are introduced. Several jurisdictions apply specific transparency, using other frameworks in exceptional circumstances, particularly during crises or where continuity of essential services is at risk. These arrangements often involve temporary state interventions, targeted financial support or enhanced oversight mechanisms linked to public interest objectives. Examples are listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Examples of exceptional PPO and PSO arrangements

Cases	Examples
COVID-19 emergency responses	In several EU member countries, the aviation sector and other transport infrastructure operators were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The European Commission's Temporary Framework for state aid measures to support the economy during the pandemic allowed for special support arrangements for a limited time. For example, in Greece, a one-off financial aid was granted to Aegean Airlines.
Energy crisis	The German government acquired a stake in Uniper SE in 2022 in order to ensure the security of energy supply in Germany against the backdrop of the energy crisis. At the time, Uniper SE had been facing considerable losses due to supply restrictions of natural gas from the Russian Federation.
Financial crisis	In Colombia, special arrangements and interventions in the financial sector are regulated by law and allow the Fondo de Garantías de Instituciones Financieras to intervene in banks at risk pursuing PSOs to ensure the continuity of essential services and restoring market confidence, as seen during the financial crisis of the late 1990s. In Norway's banking crisis of the 1990s, the state took over the shares in a number of Norwegian banks as a result of the state having infused fresh capital to enable the banks to continue to operate.
Universal access to services at risk	In Costa Rica, the Governing Council evaluates the economic situation of wholly-owned SOEs and, if it deems necessary, may make capital contributions to the company so that it can continue to operate and mitigate the impacts on the public service it provides. Peru's Petroperú S.A. was subject to special regulations that provided loans and a guarantee for its access to credit, based on the public and national interests in maintaining hydrocarbon distribution in the country's most remote areas.
Natural disasters	In Iceland, in times of volcanic activity threatening close by villages and communities, the state buys-out housing in at-risk zones to provide security and protect families.

Source: OECD Survey on PPOs in SOEs.

5.2. Owner-level disclosure frameworks

While SOE-level disclosures provide information on the implementation of individual PPOs and PSOs, several jurisdictions also complement these with portfolio-wide reporting frameworks at the level of the state owner. Aggregate reporting on a portfolio‑wide basis is becoming increasingly common as government owners maintain (OECD, 2024[8]) a strategic overview of whether SOEs are delivering on their PPOs and PSOs, from a portfolio-perspective. Countries such as Iceland, Italy, Norway, and Sweden, publish annual aggregate ownership reports that summarise objectives, financial performance and, to varying degrees, public policy outcomes. However, while reporting mechanisms often exist, information on PPO and PSO achievement is not always systematically disclosed, and in some cases PPO- and PSO‑related information is not comprehensively or consistently captured by existing reporting tools.

In some jurisdictions, these disclosure frameworks are increasingly supported by digital reporting tools and centralised disclosure platforms. Korea’s ALIO portal functions as a centralised, real‑time “one‑stop shop” for SOE disclosures, aggregating data on PPO and PSO performance across the portfolio, including KPIs, service quality metrics and financial information. Similar digital reporting approaches exist in countries such as Colombia and Lithuania, where central ownership entities compile and publish standardised SOE performance data. These digital tools complement narrative aggregate reports by enhancing accessibility, comparability and the analytical use of SOE data for policymakers, oversight bodies and the public.

Beyond public accessibility, aggregate disclosure frameworks may also support parliamentary scrutiny and broader evaluation of public policy effectiveness. In Switzerland, aggregate reporting on PSO fulfilment is embedded in the framework for parliamentary oversight. Reports prepared by the ownership entity serve as formal inputs into parliamentary hearings, budgetary deliberations and evaluations of sectoral policy effectiveness.

Across surveyed jurisdictions, these practices illustrate the growing importance of combining enterprise-level transparency with portfolio-wide disclosure and public accountability mechanisms.

Key findings – Consistent and portfolio-aligned disclosure of PPOs and PSOs

Transparency disclosure frameworks help clarify how PPOs and PSOs are implemented, financed and monitored across the portfolio. Effective approaches combine SOE‑level reporting with portfolio‑wide oversight and disclosure. Key findings of this section highlight:

• Align PPO and PSO-related reporting with recognised financial and non-financial disclosure frameworks. A growing number of countries require their large and listed SOEs to align financial and non-financial reporting and disclosure with international standards, improving comparability and information quality. In Austria, PPO-related disclosures are related to sustainability reporting obligations under the EU CSRD framework.

• Ensure consistent disclosure of PSO‑related costs, compensation and funding arrangements. Clear reporting compensation methodologies, public support and associated costs helps strengthen transparency and accountability, while reducing risks related to opaque financing arrangements or hidden cross subsidisation. In the United Kingdom, subsidy-control frameworks include PPO and PSO reporting frameworks, while the EU transparency requirements mandate separate accounts for entities entrusted with special obligations. Enhanced reporting requirements may be warranted when they are linked to emergency support measures or temporary public interventions.

• Combine SOE-level disclosures with aggregate state-owner reporting. Portfolio-wide reporting frameworks can support strategic oversight of PPO and PSO implementation at a portfolio-level. Korea’s ALIO dashboard provides centralised disclosure of portfolio-wide SOE performance. Such frameworks help to enhance transparency vis‑à‑vis the public, legislature and state audit bodies.