About the Author(s)


Tsedal L. Mikael Email symbol
Department of Management Accounting, School of Accountancy, College of Accounting Science, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Isaac Mabhungu symbol
Department of Management Accounting, School of Accountancy, College of Accounting Science, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Citation


Mikael, T.L. & Mabhungu, I., 2024, ‘Performance reporting practices in state-owned enterprises: A systematic literature review’, Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review 12(1), a866. https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v12i1.866

Review Article

Performance reporting practices in state-owned enterprises: A systematic literature review

Tsedal L. Mikael, Isaac Mabhungu

Received: 15 June 2024; Accepted: 30 Aug. 2024; Published: 31 Oct. 2024

Copyright: © 2024. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Performance reporting and measurement in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have been ambiguous for years subject to the nature of the sector. State-owned enterprises are third sector public entities characterised by hybridity of rationales, heterogeneity of goals and multiple stakeholders’ interest. Besides, the diverse institutional frameworks and ownership structure in SOEs make performance reporting and measurements in the sector more complex than in private profit enterprises.

Aim: The systematic review of the literature focusses on performance reporting practices in SOEs. It examines SOE performance report users, performance measurement metrics, and the alignment of objectives and performance information.

Method: Critical searches of literature in databases such as Scopus or Science Direct, Emerald Insight and JSTOR were made using ’performance reporting’ and/or ’State-owned Enterprises’ as main keywords. More literature was explored in Google Scholar.

Results: The concept of performance reporting in SOEs is embedded in broader subjects such as ‘governance in public sectors’, ‘corporate governance in SOEs’ and ‘accountability in public sector’. Performance reports of SOEs in practice focus on the traditional financial performance measurement.

Conclusion: There is no straightforward approach in performance reporting of SOEs in the literature. This shows that performance reporting in SOEs is highly slanted, making it difficult to assess efficiency of SOEs.

Contribution: The article contributes in unlocking knowledge in highly blurred practices of performance reporting in SOEs.

Keywords: performance reporting; performance measurements; state-owned enterprises; financial performance; non-financial performance; multiple objectives; stakeholders interest.

Introduction

Performance reporting (PR) is a means of communicating an entity’s performance information to its vested stakeholders (International Accounting Standards Board [IASB] 2015; OECD 2022). Regardless of ownership, PR is important in all types of enterprises. Arguably, PR in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has a wider range of implication than in business enterprises (Nicolò, Zanellato & Tudor 2020; OECD 2021a). This can be justified by the multi-dimensional interest of several stakeholders in SOEs (Nicolò et al. 2020; OECD 2021a) and SOEs mandate to meet those interests from stakeholders theory perspective (Freeman 1984). Sturesson, McIntyre and Jones (2015) described the sector as a ‘penta helix’ of private companies, not-for-profit organisations, academia, public sector and citizens. State-owned enterprises’ mandates range from infrastructural development to stabilising the economic environment, being strategic tool to policy machine, foreign export role to powerhouse of global economy (Kikeri 2022; Dappe et al. 2022; IMF 2020; Kwiatkowski et al. 2013; Megersa 2020; Tabak 2020). In many countries, SOEs determine the living standards of the population (Dappe et al. 2022; World Bank 2017). Therefore, PR in SOEs ‘needs to reflect performance mandates to the wider range of stakeholders.

Performance reporting in SOEs should be in line with the multiple objectives of the entities (OECD 2021a). However, the challenge in PR in SOEs is the multiplicity of SOEs’ objectives and difficulty in developing proper performance metrics (Fisher 2021; Sturesson et al. 2015). Performance measurement and reporting framework in the public sector includes three pillars: stakeholders, performance measurements and the quality of the information (Fisher 2021). Performance reporting in SOEs should address information needs of vested stakeholders (Nicolò et al. 2020). Most importantly, performance measurement in SOEs should be aligned with objectives, and integrate financial and non-financial performance indicators (OECD 2021b). Accordingly, such robust PR in SOEs enhances transparency and credibility of their performances (Fisher 2021; IBP 2020; Nicolo et al. 2020; OECD 2021b).

State-owned enterprises’ fragmented and distinct PR approach makes it difficult to compare the performance of SOEs with the same mandates; as a result, it is difficult to ascertain credibility and transparency of the sector (OECD 2021). Extensive literature reviews on the subject indicate that coherent PR in SOEs is scarce. Thus, the article aims to assess PR practices of SOEs guided by three questions: Who are the stakeholders of PR in SOEs? What are the common performance measures in the performance reports? Is there alignment between the performance reports and the objectives of SOEs? The rest of this article is organised as follows: section ‘Performance reporting in state-owned enterprises’ presents an overview of performance reporting in SOEs; section ‘Methods’ the details of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method; section ‘Analysis’ an analysis of empirical results; section ‘Potential for future research’ presents the conclusions and implications and, finally, section ‘Conclusion’ presents an agenda for future researchers in performance reporting practices of SOEs.

Performance reporting in state-owned enterprises

Performance reporting is led by performance objectives, performance measurement and users (stakeholders) of the report (Fisher 2021; Omurgonulsen 2002). Measurement of performance in SOEs is the most vital part of PR in these enterprises (Fisher 2021; Kowalski et al. 2013). Drucker (1954) once claimed, if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. Managers and policymakers of SOEs cannot manage these enterprises or propose proper developmental policies effectively without knowing how the enterprises perform (Kowalski et al. 2013; Okere & Peschka 2021:252). Thus, the key issue is to have key performance indicators and information that helps to analyse the performance of SOEs over the years or across sectors. The performance indicators of SOEs are set in line with their objectives (Kowalski et al. 2013; Okere & Peschka 2021). Once the state has set up performance objectives for SOEs, the enterprises should produce reliable and high-quality financial and non-financial reports that allow the state to assess how well they have achieved their objectives (OECD 2021a; WB 2018). Performance reporting in SOEs should satisfy other stakeholders interested in the SOEs’ performance information. Aharoni (1981) points out three factors regarding stakeholders’ dilemma in SOEs to measure efficiency of the sector, such as structure of decision-making, integration between stakeholders and type of information, which should address problems in measuring effectiveness of SOEs that makes pillars of PR in SOEs.

The stakeholders are a group of users who have vested rights or interest in performance information of SOEs (Fisher 2021; Okere & Peschka 2021).

Performance reporting in SOEs should give greater emphasis on stakeholders’ interests rather than solely focussing on shareholders’ interests to produce meaningful performance metrics (Okere & Peschka 2021; OECD 2021a). Stakeholders of PR in SOEs are difficult to find in literature as it is affected by institutional framework and corporate management structure of the SOEs. However, it is convenient to categorise the stakeholders in distinct groups as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1: User group of performance reporting in state-owned enterprises.

State-owned enterprises with economic importance are particularly of public interest (OECD 2018). The SOEs adhere to accountability and transparency principles through their PR (Fisher 2021; Sturesson 2015). The public as owner of SOEs is interested in evaluating the performance of SOEs.

The management and board of the enterprises are also other users and stewards of the entities (Mahuni 2018). Management evaluates the financial and non-financial performance of SOEs through evaluation of operation performances. Government acts as an agent between the public and SOEs. The role of government and management is to control the operation and performance of the entities (Okere & Peschka 2021).

In general, one can argue that PR in SOEs should consider the interest of its vested stakeholders. The argument can be posited from the context of stakeholder’s theory. The theory assumes that companies should act in the best interest of their stakeholders (Freeman 1984). To ensure accountability and transparency, PR in SOEs needs to be accessed by the public, management of SOEs, board of SOEs and agencies in mandate of supervising SOEs.

Performance reporting in SOEs is also affected by mandates and objectives of the sector. State-owned enterprises should balance both economic and social objectives (Kwiatkowski 2015; Vakkuri et al. 2021). According to this view, SOEs have two functions: economic function and social function (Phiri & Pinar 2017). The economic function is to manage business using business principles for profit motive and prosperity of shareholders. The social functions address social aspects in the sense of public service objectives not solely contemplated to profit motive. Performance reporting in SOEs needs to be a disclosure instrument for both of the functions (Ulil Hartono 2018).

Finally, performance measurement is a key aspect of PR in SOEs. Performance measurement indicators are means of assessing or measuring the performance of a service, programme or organisational efficiency (Omurgonulsen 2002). Performance measurement should eventually lead to performance management, a tool for transforming ideas, vision and mission of senior managers into actions that can be planned for, measured, modified and corrected. Performance reports include financial and non-financial information (OECD 2021b). The summaries of performance indicators used in SOEs are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2: State-owned enterprises performance indicators – selected empirical evidence.

Generally, certain financial indicators (profit, ROA and ROE) are straightforward and widely used in many countries. However, non-financial indicators are highly diverse, lack consistencies, difficult to measure and a challenge to ascertain transparency (OECD 2021b).

Methods

Performance reporting studies specifically in SOEs at the time of the review were chronically scarce. However, the concepts of PR in SOEs, which are hybrid organisations, were embedded in themes of ‘accountability’ and ‘governance’. This might be because SOEs are within the anatomy of the public sector where accountability and the governance aspect of the sector cover pivotal proliferation of studies and practical aspects of corporate management. Considering this gap, the systematic review used broad concepts in SOEs to explore performance reporting practices of SOEs. Accordingly, the key words used to the search strategy and the Boolean search strategy used in the article are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3: Boolean search strategy.

A range of databases including Scopus, Emerald Insight, Science Direct and JSTOR were selected for extensive literature searches. The databases are among the destinations of business, management and accounting studies. Additionally, ‘Google Scholar’ was used to explore literature on performance reporting in SOEs.

The literature search used multiple organisational and performance reporting keywords. Some of the multiple organisational keywords were ‘State owned enterprises’, ‘Government businesses’, ‘parastatals’ and ‘Public entities. Subject keywords like ‘Performance Reporting’, ‘performance reports’, ‘performance information’, ‘Performance measurements’ and ‘performance evaluation’ were used. Using the PRISMA method, articles were filtered considering exclusion criteria of SOE literatures related with different performance dimensions. For example, studies related to employee’s performance reporting in SOEs were excluded. State-owned enterprise’s PR literature included five continents (Asia, Europe, Africa, North America and Latin America). The PRISMA flowchart for literature included in the study is presented in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1: Literature search PRISMA flowchart.

As indicated in the flowchart, 61 articles were selected for the systematic review. In addition, two performance reports from Lithuania and Turkey were included in the review. Firstly, the primary inclusion criterion for the literature was relevance to the subject of the study. Secondly, the year of publication was used as exclusion criteria for dated literatures over a century. The summary of literature publication year and geographical distribution are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3.

FIGURE 2: State-owned enterprises performance literature.

FIGURE 3: State-owned enterprises’ performance literature.

Among the reviewed literature, 66% was considered state-of-the-art in the last 4 years, while cumulative 86% of the articles were published since 2011 (see Figure 1). This implies that the literature on PR in SOEs has shown an increasing trend in the past 5 years.

About 80% of SOEs in recent literature on PR topics in SOEs represent Asia and Europe. The United States, Latin America and Africa combined account for 20% of the literature. China accounts for 85% of SOEs’ performance literature in Asian countries, which should be remarked as importance of SOEs in Chinese economy.

Performance reporting literature in SOEs particularly in Africa and the United States was scarce in the last 35 years. This might imply that more studies are needed on the subject in Africa and other developing regions. Similarly, studies on SOEs’ PR in case of United States and Europe are limited in numbers; this is partially because of less number of SOEs in economies of industrialised countries where private sectors dominate the economy (Dappe et al. 2022).

Analysis

The analysis section presents a statistical summary of SOEs’ PR literature based on the analysis of key elements of PR that determines the anatomy of PR in SOEs. The section is organised as follows: Objectives of state-owned enterprises, Performance measurement, Stakeholders of performance reporting in state-owned enterprises and Alignment between state-owned enterprises’ objectives and performance measurements.

Objectives of state-owned enterprises

The objectives of setting SOEs and level of emphasis over objectives may slightly differ between countries (OECD 2021). In the Chinese economy where SOEs played a paramount role in foreign export, SOEs set to dominate foreign market (Lin 2017; Zhang 2019). This can be assumed as a strategy for economic development or otherwise a policy mandate. Figure 4 shows a summary of SOEs’ objectives from review of the literature.

FIGURE 4: State-owned enterprises’ objectives.

The mandates of SOEs obviously overlap in many countries. The majority of SOEs bear multiple objectives (commercial, social objectives and strategic objectives) at 39% of literature reviewed. Even though SOEs settings may slightly vary between countries, commercial objectives (23%) and social objectives (27%) are common rationales for setting up SOEs. However, heterogeneity of SOEs’ objectives, which combine economic, public value creation and policy mandates, dominates at 38% in the literature (Figure 4).

The numbers of SOEs in developing countries are greater than in the developed world (Dappe et al. 2022) and potentially a reason for less studies on SOEs’ PR in industrialised economies. State-owned enterprises’ objectives in developing countries lean towards social mandates, to deliver fundamental public services and infrastructural needs of the public (Dappe et al. 2022; IBP 2020; OECD 2021b; World Bank 2018). Asian economies including China used SOEs to boost foreign trade (Chen et al. 2023; Jin et al. 2022). Europe and the United States also use SOEs primarily to build economies and compete in the international market (Castelnovo 2022).

Performance measurements

The key aspect of PR is the performance indicators. The performance indicators should be aligned with objectives of the reporting entity. Traditionally, financial indicators are used to measure performance of entities with commercial motives. State-owned enterprises with multiple and overlapping objectives also need to measure performance and efficiency in more robust performance indicators well merged with their objectives. Figure 5 shows a survey of overall performance measurement practices of SOEs in the literature.

FIGURE 5: Performance indicators.

Use of traditional financial indicators is widely in practice in SOEs (Figure 5). Reporting on social interest measurements, including employment rate and rate of services, provided contribution to GDP and quality of service accounts to non-financial indicators. State-owned enterprises with multiple mandates need to attend to dual performance indicators. Dual performance measurement is assumed to integrate financial and non-financial indicators. As shown in Figure 5, complete performance measurement requires a balance between the financial and non-financial performance of SOEs.

Stakeholders of performance reporting in state-owned enterprises

The managers of SOEs are immediate caretakers and users of PR in SOEs (Chung 2021). However, various stakeholders may also need to monitor the performance of these entities. Depending on the corporate management structure in place, SOEs may include a management board, agents and special units who evaluate performance of the public entities (Aharoni 1981; Mthombeni Admire 2021; Tabak 2020; Willy & Paul 2021). Empirical evidence and policy papers argue that the public should be privileged to access performance information of SOEs (Kwiatkowski 2015; OECD 2018, 2021b; Pargendler 2017). However, consistent user-based reporting is limited to countries. The summary of PR users in SOEs’ reviewed literature is as follows.

Performance reporting needs to address the interests of various stakeholders. Failure to address the stakeholders adversely impacts the decision of the users (Aversano et al. 2022). In order to ensure adherence to accountability and transparency principles, PR in SOEs should address the public who indirectly owns the sector. As indicated in Figure 6, majority (35%) of the articles reported that SOEs’ PR addresses an interest of multiple stakeholders, which include management, public, government and board of directors. State-owned enterprises from stakeholder’s theory point of view are multifaceted entities that are expected to meet an interest of its stakeholders.

FIGURE 6: State-owned enterprises’ stakeholder.

Alignment between state-owned enterprises’ objectives and performance measurements

Performance measurement is driven by performance objectives. Similarly, performance measurements of SOEs should have clear alignment with the multiple objectives of the sector across regions. However, the alignment between the two aspects of PR showed slight differences between regions. Table 4 shows a summary of the aspects of PR in literature across regions.

TABLE 4: Regional summary of aspects of performance reporting.

State-owned enterprises in Asia have shown more robust performance measurements than other regions. All regions were likely to use the familiar financial performance measurements, specifically commercial profitability. However, the objectives of SOEs across regions have differences in prioritisation of an objective over the other. For example, in Africa, SOEs are set mainly for social, infrastructural objectives, while in Europe and America, SOEs have the role of economic objectives and public value creation.

Regardless of regional disparities, SOEs with multiple objectives accounted for 39% (Figure 4) and are supposed to produce more comprehensive performance reports comprising both financial and non-financial indicators. The combined financial and non-financial performance indicators reporting in the literature account for 22% (see Figure 5). Thus, the relationship between objectives of SOEs (Figure 4) and SOEs’ performance measurement (Figure 5) implies that the majority of SOEs are destined for overlapping objectives; however, comprehensive (dual) performance reporting is limited.

Potential for future research

The performance efficiency of SOEs is always compared to private profit enterprises in studies. This aspect is widely studied under the privatisation policy of SOEs. However, there is limited understanding of performance expectations, measurements and the performance information of SOEs. Future researchers can investigate the link between performance objectives and performance reports of the SOEs. Such studies can be commanding to understand multiple roles of SOEs in the economy and their performance efficiencies.

Conclusion

The extensive literature search and systematic review shows that PR studies in SOEs are limited in literature. However, the subject imbedded in broader subjects such as ‘public management’, ‘corporate management in public sector’, ‘corporate management in SOEs’ and ‘accountability in public sector’. State-owned enterprises’ performances were more explored in Asian economies than other regions of the world, with an overall increase in studies on this subject in the past 5 years. Performance reporting in SOEs is expected to meet an interest of multiple stakeholders (management, public, government and board of directors). Performance measurements in SOEs comprehend financial performance indicators and contextual (non-financial) information. However, the complexity to measure non-financial mandates of SOEs was also discussed in the literature. The alignment between objectives of SOEs and performance information produced commands the quality of the reports. However, while measurement of financial performance is straightforward, non-financial measures included in performance reports are inconsistent and less rigorous.

In general, considering SOEs’ role in the economy and broad range of stakeholders in the sector, performance agenda in SOEs should be a research agenda in literature. State-owned enterprises satisfy infrastructural needs of the public and are tools for stabilising the economy. State-owned enterprises pursuing commercial objectives can also be a powerhouse of the global economy as shown in the Chinese economy (Kwiatkowski 2015). Most importantly, in a world where the theory of ‘the survival of the fittest’ is more prominent among private entities than ever before, governments need to use SOEs as a tool to stabilise the economy. Hence, performance information of such entities might become a moving target of management studies in the future.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the efforts of University of South Africa in creating an enabling research ecosystem, specifically in areas of public entities’ performance.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.

Authors’ contributions

T.L.M. conceptualised the topic, gathered the e-resources, drafted the proposal and wrote the article. I.M. supervised the writing, commented and edited the review article.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of South Africa, College of Accounting Sciences Research Ethics Committee (No. 3286).

Funding information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.

Data availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References

Aharoni, Y., 1981, ‘Performance evaluation of state-owned enterprises a process perspective’, Management Science 27(11), 1340–1347. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.27.11.1340

Ahunov, H., 2022, ‘Non-financial reporting in hybrid organisations-a systematic literature review’, Meditari Accountancy Research 31(6), 1757–1797. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2022-1558

Anak, A. & Wening, I., 2021, ‘Factors affecting the earnings management of state-owned enterprises’, American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research 5(4), 487–494.

Aversano, N., Ferullo, D., Nicolò, G. & Ardito, N., 2023, ‘Performance reporting in the healthcare sector: Evidence from Italian healthcare organisations’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 73(4), 1117–1136. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-07-2022-0341

Bozec, R., Breton, G. & Côté, L., 2008, ‘The performance of state–owned enterprises revisited’, Journal of Financial Accountability and Management 18(4), 383–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0408.00158

Castelnovo, P., 2022, ‘Innovation in private and state-owned enterprises: A cross-industry analysis of patenting activity’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 62, 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.05.007

Chen, A., He, M. & He, C., 2023, ‘Does quid pro quo benefit state-owned enterprise’s innovation in China?’, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8, 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100322

Chung, J.K.a.H., 2021, Empirical study on the performance of state-owned-enterprises and the privatising pressure: The case of Koream, Seoul National University, Seoul.

Cohanier, B., 2014, ‘What qualitative research can tell us about performance management systems?’, Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 11(4), 380–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-06-2013-0023

Dappe, M., Musacchio, A., Pan, C., Semikolenova, Y., Turkgulu, T. & Barboza, J., 2022, Infrastructure state-owned enterprises, a tale of inefficiency and fiscal dependence, Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank, New York.

Dragomir, V., Dumitru, M. & Feleagă, L., 2021, ‘Political interventions in state-owned enterprises: The corporate governance failures of a European airline’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 40(5), 106855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2021.106855

Drucker, P., 1954, The practice of management, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Fisher, N.I., 2021, ‘Performance measurement: Issues, approaches, and opportunities’, Harvard Data Science Review 34, 2–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.c28d2a68

Forrer, J., James, J.E., Newcomer, E., Boyer, E. & Kee, J., 2010, ‘Public private partnerships’, American Society for Public Administration 70(3), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02161.x

Freeman, R.E., 1984, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Pitman, Boston, MA.

Gasperin, S., 2022, ‘Lessons from the past for 21st century systems of state-owned enterprises: The case of Italy’s IRI in the 1930s’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 62, 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2022.03.010

Giuseppe Nicolò, G., Zanellato, G. & Tudor, A.T., 2020, ‘Integrated reporting and European state-owned enterprises: A disclosure analysis’, Sustainability 12(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051908

Hsiao, P., Low, M. & Thomas, P., 2023, ‘Service performance reporting and principles-based authoritative guidance: An analysis of New Zealand higher education institutions’, Meditari Accountancy Research 32(2), 367–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-10-2022-1825

Hsu, S. & Fan, Z., 2022, ‘Policy and media forces that shape the creation of Chinese state-owned enterprise policies’, Journal of policy Modelling 44(6), 1232–1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2022.08.002

IMF, 2020, State-owned enterprises: The other government. Fiscal monitor, The International Monetary Fund, viewed August 2023, from https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/fiscal-monitor/2020/April/English/ch3.ashx.

International Accounting Standards Board-IASB, 2015, Basis for conclusions to exposure draft 2015/3, Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, London.

International Budget Partnership-IBP, 2020, Quasi fiscal activities. Guide to transparency in public finances, Washington DC.

Ismail, Z., 2018, Privatisation of state-owned enterprises in Ethiopia since 1991, Helpdesk Report, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.

Jin, X., Xu, L., Xin, Y. & Adhikari, A., 2022, ‘Political governance in China’s state-owned enterprises’, China Journal of Accounting Research 15(2), 100236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2022.100236

Kikeri, S., 2022, ‘Privatisation-state-owned-enterprises’, in ADBI (ed.), governance-brief, pp. 1–16, Asian Development Bank, Tokyo.

Kloviene, R. & Gimzauskiene, E., 2016, ‘Peculiarities of performance measurement in state-owned enterprises – The case of Lithuania’, Journal for Public and Non-profit Services 39, 188–199. https://doi.org/10.5771/0344-9777-2016-1-2-188

Klovienė, R. & Gimžauskienė, E., 2014, ‘Performance measurement model formation in state-owned enterprises’, Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences 156, 594–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.247

Kowalski, P., Bügei, M., Sztajerowskai, S. & Egelandi, M., 2013, State-owned enterprises: Trade effects and policy implications, OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 147, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Kwiatkowski, G., 2015, State-owned enterprises in the global economy – Analysis based on fortune global 500 list, Technology, Innovation and Industrial Management, Paris.

Lim, K.Y. & Morris, D., 2022, ‘Thresholds in natural resource rents and state-owned enterprise profitability: Cross country evidence’, Energy Economics 106, 105779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105779

Lin, L.-W., 2017, A network anatomy of Chinese state-owned enterprises, European University Institute, Global Governance Programme, vol. 251, pp. 1–23.

Mahuni, N., 2019, ‘Do Performance Measurement Reports Address The Problem of Accountability In The Public Sector?’, CAS thesis, University of South Africa.

Mai, V. & Casady, C., 2023, ‘Delivering transport infrastructure using state-owned enterprises (SOEs): A business history of Vietnam Expressway Corporation between 2004 and 2016’, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 65, 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2023.03.006

Marika, A.M., Azzone, G. & Bengo, I., 2015, ‘Performance measurement for social enterprises’, Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organisations 26(2), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9436-8

Matthew, J., 2021, ‘The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews’, Journal of American Medical Association, BMJ 2021;372:n71

Megersa, K., 2020, State owned enterprises and public finances in developing countries: The impact of economic and health-related crises, K4D Helpdesk Report 865, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Minor, P., Walmsley, T. & Strutt, A., 2017, ‘State-owned enterprise reform in Vietnam: A dynamic CGE analysis’, Journal of Asian Economics 55, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2017.09.002

Modell, S., 2021, ‘New developments in institutional research on performance measurement and management in the public sector’, Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Finance 34(3), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-04-2021-0070

Mthombeni Admire, N.J., Sifile, O. & Manuere, F., 2021, ‘Corporate governance reform strategies for State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs): An integrated review of literature’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied and Basic Subjects 1(12), 38–47.

Nicolo, G., Zanellato, G. & Tiron-Tudor, A., 2020, ‘Integrated Reporting and European State-Owned Enterprises: A Disclosure Analysis Pre and Post 2014/95/EU’, Suitability Journal 12(5), 1–17.

O’Toole, C., Edgar, L.W. & Morgenroth, T.H., 2016, ‘Investment efficiency, state-owned enterprises and privatisation: Evidence from Viet Nam in Transition’, Journal of Corporate Finance 37, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.12.011

OECD, 2018, Ownership and governance of state-owned enterprises, OECD Publishing, pp. 9–83, Paris.

OECD, 2021a, Ownership and governance of state-owned enterprises a compendium of national practices, OECD Publishing, pp. 3–110, Paris.

OECD, 2021b, ‘SOEs-dimension 6 a policy outlook’, in Competitiveness in South East Europe, pp. 255–280, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OECD, 2022, Monitoring the performance of state-owned enterprises: Good practice guide for annual aggregate reporting, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Okere, E.O. & Peschka, M.P., 2021, SOEs leadership, World Bank Group and International Finance Corporation toolkit. World backup (3-412), World Bank, NY.

Omurgonulsen, U., 2002, ‘Performance measurement in the public sector: Rising concern, problems in practice and prospects’, H.Ü. Đktisadi 20(1), 99–134.

Pan, X., Cheng, W. & Gao, Y., 2022, ‘The impact of privatisation of state-owned enterprises on innovation in China: A tale of privatisation degree’, Technovation 118, 102587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102587

Pargendler, C.J.M.M., 2017, ‘Governance challenges of listed state-owned enterprises around the world: National experiences and a framework for reform’, Cornell International Law Journal 50, 473–542.

Pestieau, P. & Tulkens, H., 1993, Assessing and explaining the performance of public enterprises, FinanzArchiv / Public Finance, New Series, pp. 293–323.

Phiri, J., 2017, ‘Stakeholder expectations of performance in public healthcare services Evidence from a less developed country’, Meditari Accountancy Research 25(1), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-08-2016-0070

Phiri, J. & Pinar, G., 2018, ‘Institutional pluralism, two public’s theory and performance reporting practices in Zambia’s health sector’, Accounting in Emerging Economies 8(1), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-07-2017-0074

Rahman, M.Z., 1987, ‘Accounting reports and performance measurement of multinational enterprises in less developed countries’, Management International Review 27(2), 35–46.

Ramamurti, R., 1987, ‘Performance evaluation of state-owned enterprises in theory and practice’, Management Science 33(7), 876–893. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.7.876

Rana, Z., Ahmed, A.N. & Zheng, M., 2021, ‘An institutional theory perspective on public sector reform and service performance reporting by New Zealand universities’, Journal of Accounting and Organisational Change 18(3), 461–484. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAOC-08-2020-0112

Randolph, N., 2022, ‘Understanding the cultural underpinnings of managerial performance reporting (MPR) in Ghana’, Journal of Accounting & Organisational Change 19(1), 1–23.

Richard, W.C., Travers, B.C., Wai-Man, L. & Phang, T.H.N., 2021, ‘The dynamism of partially state-owned enterprises in East Asia’, Journal of Corporate Finance 68, 101951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.101951

Sinkevičius, V.D.a.V., 2019, State owned enterprises in Lithuinia, G. C. Centre, Lithuania.

Sturesson, J., McIntyre, S. & Jones, N.C., 2015, State-owned enterprises: catalysts for public value creation, Pwc, London.

Syrjä, P., Sjögrén, H. & Ilmarinen, A., 2017, Performance measurement in social enterprises – A conceptual accounting approach, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lappeenranta.

Szarzec, K., Dombi, A. & Matuszak, P., 2021, ‘State-owned enterprises and economic growth: Evidence from the post-Lehman period’, Journal of Economic Psychology 94, 102575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2021.03.009

Tabak, S.B.a.P., 2020, Economic performance of state-owned-enterprises in emerging-economies. A cross-country study, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, pp. 4–32, European Bank.

Tang, Q., Xie, E. & Reddy, K., 2022, ‘Global production aspirations and internationalisation by state-owned enterprises: A Co-evolutionary view of state driven industrialised economy’, International Journal of Innovation Studies 6, 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2022.08.003

Willy, T.K. & Paul, M., 2021, ‘Integrated financial management information system implementation on procurement performance of state owned enterprises in Kenya’, International Research Journal of Business and Strategic Management 2(2), 298–314.

Ulil Hartono, M.M., 2018, ‘Corporate governance quality assessment based on internet’, Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 65(4), 280–286.

Vakkuri, J., Johanson, J.E., Feng, N.C. & Giordano, F., 2021, ‘Governance and accountability in hybrid organisations past, present and future’, Accounting in Emerging Economies 33(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-02-2021-0033

Van Helden, J.P. & Adhikari, C.K., 2021, ‘Public sector accounting in emerging economies’, Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies 11(5), 776–798. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-02-2020-0038

Wang, Q., Liu, M. & Zhang, B., 2022, ‘Do state-owned enterprises really have better environmental performance in China? Environmental regulation and corporate environmental strategies’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 185, 106500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106500

World Bank, 2017, Who sponsors infrastructure projects? Disentangling public and private contributions, IBRD, Washington, DC.

World Bank, 2018, World Bank Group Support for the Reform of State-Owned Enterprises, 2007–2018, IEG 1, pp. 1–45, Washington, DC.

Yu, Z., Shen, Y. & Jiang, S., 2022, ‘The effects of corporate governance uncertainty on state-owned enterprises’ green innovation in China: Perspective from the participation of non-state-owned shareholders’, Energy Economics 115, 106402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2022.106402

Zhang, C., 2019, How-much-do-state-owned-enterprises-contribute-to-China-s-GDP-and-employment, World Bank, NY.

Zhang, C., Zhou, B. & Tian, X., 2022, ‘Political connections and green innovation: The role of a corporate entrepreneurship strategy in state-owned enterprises’, Journal of Business Research 146, 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.084



Crossref Citations

No related citations found.