Local public services are central to the collective well-being and community development. Identifying sustainable success factors in managing public services is crucial. Drawing on Public Value Theory, this study investigates the key factors enabling public service operators to produce value simultaneously for citizens (social value), the environment (environmental value) and themselves (economic value), as well as the elements that make the management of public services unique to companies with entirely publicly owned capital. Through an in-depth analysis of four Italian, fully municipality-owned public service companies operating in different sectors, we found that four interconnected key success factors enable the production of such a multi-dimensional value: responsible corporate governance, high-quality and stable management, commitment to research and innovation, and stakeholder engagement. Moreover, two elements seem to distinguish the management of public services offered by companies with wholly publicly owned capital from those with mixed or entirely private capital: lower pressure for dividends, which supports investments through self-financing, and the lack of perceived competition, which fosters knowledge sharing beyond the served territories.
Points for practitioners
This study provides useful suggestions to policymakers and public managers on how to enhance public value creation for citizens and stakeholders, the environment and the company itself through municipally owned corporations offering public services. This is expected to occur through pursuing responsible and cohesive forms of governance, hiring high-quality, autonomous managers, engaging citizens and stakeholders and making a commitment to innovation, as well as having a parsimonious dividend policy aimed at internal funding of investments and fostering openness to knowledge sharing beyond the served territories.
Adeoye-OlatundeOAOlenikNL (2021) Research and scholarly methods: semi-structured interviews. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy4(10): 1358–1367.
2.
AlbalateDBelGGradusR, et al. (2021) Re-municipalization of local public services: incidence, causes and prospects. International Review of Administrative Sciences87(3): 419–424.
3.
AndersenOJTorsteinsenH (2017) The master of the house’—agencies in municipal service provision: balancing autonomy and accountability. Administration and Society49(5): 730–752.
4.
AndrewsRCliftonJFerryL (2022) Corporatization of public services. Public Administration100(2): 179–192.
ASSTRA (2023) Presentazione indagine annuale sulla qualità dei servizi di TPL.
7.
BeningtonJ (2009) Creating the public in order to create public value?International Journal of Public Administration32(3–4): 232–249.
8.
BoardmanAEViningAR (1989) Ownership and performance in competitive environments: a comparison of the performance of private, mixed and state-owned enterprises. The Journal of Law and Economics32(1): 1–33.
9.
BourgeoisLJEisenhardtKM (1988) Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science34(7): 816–835.
10.
BoyckoMShleiferAVishnyRW (1996) A theory of privatization. The Economic Journal106(435): 309–319.
11.
BozecRDiaM (2007) Board structure and firm technical efficiency: evidence from Canadian state-owned enterprises. European Journal of Operational Research177(3): 1734–1750.
12.
BozemanB (2007) Public Values and Public Interest. Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
13.
BrysonJMCrosbyBCStoneMM (2015) Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Administration Review76(6): 912–925.
14.
CanonicoPDe NitoEMangiaG, et al. (2013) Regulation issues in the Italian local transport system: aligning transactions and governance structures. Journal of Management and Governance17(4): 939–961.
15.
Cittadinanzattiva, Federfarma (2023) VI Rapporto Annuale Farmacia. Available at: https://www.federfarma.it/Documenti/Comunicati-Stampa/VI-Rapporto-Annuale-sulla-Farmacia.aspx.
16.
CollingtonRMazzucatoM (2024) Beyond outsourcing: re-embedding the state in public value production. Organization31(7): 1136–1156.
17.
ColonMGuérin-SchneiderL (2015) The reform of new public management and the creation of public values: compatible processes? An empirical analysis of public water utilities. International Review of Administrative Sciences81(2): 264–281.
18.
CorvellecHBramrydTHultmanJ (2012) The business model of solid waste management in Sweden—a case study of two municipally-owned companies. Waste Management and Research30(5): 512–518.
19.
DaiserPWirtzBW (2021) Strategic corporate governance factors for municipally owned companies: an empirical analysis from a municipal perspective. International Review of Administrative Sciences87(1): 135–153.
20.
DenhardtRBDenhardtJV (2000) The new public service: serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review60(6): 549–559.
21.
DeruytterLJuwetGBassensD (2022) Why do state-owned utilities become subject to financial logics? The case of energy distribution in flanders. Competition & Change26(2): 266–288.
22.
D’InvernoGCarosiLRomanoG (2021) Environmental sustainability and service quality beyond economic and financial indicators: a performance evaluation of Italian water utilities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences75: 100852.
23.
DouglasSMeijerA (2016) Transparency and public value—analyzing the transparency practices and value creation of public utilities. International Journal of Public Administration39(12): 940–951.
24.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
25.
EisenhardtKMGraebnerME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal50(1): 25–32.
26.
ElkingtonJ (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Oxford: Capstone.
27.
EspositoPSpiridioneLDDoronzoE (2021) The effect of ownership on sustainable development and environmental policy in urban waste management: an explicatory empirical analysis of Italian municipal corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment30: 1067–1079.
28.
FaulknerNKaufmanS (2018) Avoiding theoretical stagnation: a systematic review and framework for measuring public value. Australian Journal of Public Administration77(1): 69–86.
29.
FerreiraDCMarquesRC (2021) Public–private partnerships in health care services: do they outperform public hospitals regarding quality and access? Evidence from Portugal. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences73: 100798.
30.
Florez-JimenezMPLleoADanvila-del-Valle, et al. (2024) Corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose: a triple concept for achieving long-term prosperity. Management Decision62(7): 2189–2213.
31.
FlorioM (2014) Contemporary public enterprises: innovation, accountability, governance. Journal of Economic Policy Reform17(3): 201–208.
32.
GehmanJGlaserVLEisenhardtKM, et al. (2018) Finding theory–method fit: a comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. Journal of Management Inquiry27(3): 284–300.
33.
GioiaDAChittipeddiK (1991) Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal12(6): 433–448.
34.
GioiaDACorleyKGHamiltonAL (2013) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods16(1): 15–31.
35.
GrossiGPapenfußUTremblayMS (2015) Corporate governance and accountability of state-owned enterprises: relevance for science and society and interdisciplinary research perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management28(4/5): 274–285.
36.
GuerriniAMancaJ (2020) Regulatory interventions to sustain circular economy in the water sector. Insights from the Italian regulatory authority (ARERA). H2Open Journal3(1): 499–518.
37.
HahnTFiggeF (2011) Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics104(3): 325–345.
38.
HallD (2001) Water Privatisation and Quality of Service. London: Public Services International Research Unit. University of Greenwich. Available at: http:// www.psiru.org.
39.
HartleyJAlfordJKniesE, et al. (2017) Towards an empirical research agenda for public value theory. Public Management Review19(5): 670–685.
40.
Herreras MartinezSHarmsenRMenkveldM, et al. (2023) Why go public? Public configurations and the supportive and divergent views towards public district heating in The Netherlands. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities5: 1220884.
41.
KirchherrJYangNHNSchulze-SpüntrupF, et al. (2023) Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): an analysis of 221 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling194: 107001.
42.
KlausenJEWinsvoldM (2021) Corporate governance and democratic accountability: local state-owned enterprises in Norway. Journal of Public Policy41(1): 161–184.
43.
KrauseTPolzerTSidkiM (2024) ‘Mind the board!’: board efficacy, managerial role dilemmas and performance in municipally owned corporations. International Review of Administrative Sciences90(3): 651–668.
MagnaniGGioiaD (2023) Using the Gioia Methodology in international business and entrepreneurship research. International Business Review32(2): 102097.
46.
MayolASaussierS (2023) Remunicipalization of water services in France and inter-municipal cooperation: who’s at the helm?Local Government Studies50: 786–805.
47.
MazzucatoMRyan-CollinsJ (2022) Putting value creation back into “public value”: from market-fixing to market-shaping. Journal of Economic Policy Reform25(4): 345–360.
48.
MenozziAGutiérrez UrtiagaMVannoniD (2012) Board composition, political connections, and performance in state-owned enterprises. Industrial and Corporate Change21(3): 671–698.
49.
MooreMH (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
MurrayASkeneKHaynesK (2017) The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics140(3): 369–380.
51.
OECD (2024) OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-owned Enterprises 2024. Paris: OECD Publishing.
52.
OsborneSP (2020) Public Service Logic: Creating Value For Public Service Users, Citizens, and Society Through Public Service Delivery. London: Routledge.
53.
OsborneSPBrownL (2011) Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be king?Public Administration89(4): 1335–1350.
54.
OsborneSPPowellMCuiT, et al. (2022) Value creation in the public service ecosystem: an integrative framework. Public Administration Review82: 634–645.
55.
OsborneSPRadnorZNasiG (2013) A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration43(2): 135–158.
56.
PedersenTThomsenS (2003) Ownership structure and value of the largest European firms: the importance of owner identity. Journal of Management and Governance7(1): 27–55.
57.
RadićMRavasiDMunirK (2021) Privatization: implications of a shift from state to private ownership. Journal of Management47(6): 1596–1629.
58.
RomanoGGuerriniA (2014) The effects of ownership, board size and board composition on the performance of Italian water utilities. Utilities Policy31: 18–28.
59.
RomanoGMarcianoCMinojaM (2022) Successful remunicipalization processes in Italian waste management: triggers, key success factors, and results. International Review of Administrative Sciences89(3): 648–666.
60.
SancinoA (2022) Public Value Co-creation. A Multi-actor & Multisector Perspective. Bingley: Emerald.
61.
ShleiferAVishnyRW (1994) Politicians and firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics109(4): 995–1025.
62.
SimõesPMarquesRC (2012) On the economic performance of the waste sector. A literature review. Journal of Environmental Management106: 40–47.
63.
StiglianiIRavasiD (2012) Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal55(5): 1232–1259.
64.
ThabitSSancinoAMoraL (2024) Strategic public value(s) governance: a systematic literature review and framework for analysis. Public Administration Review85: 885–906.
65.
ThomsenSPedersenT (2000) Ownership structure and economic performance in the largest European companies. Strategic Management Journal21(6): 689–705.
66.
TraceyPPhillipsN (2016) Managing the consequences of organizational stigmatization: identity work in a social enterprise. Academy of Management Journal59(3): 740–765.
67.
VirtanenPJalonenH (2024) Public value creation mechanisms in the context of public service logic: an integrated conceptual framework. Public Management Review26(8): 2331–2354.
68.
VoornBvan GenugtenMLvan ThielS (2017) The efficiency and effectiveness of municipally owned corporations: a systematic review. Local Government Studies43(5): 820–841.
WilliamsIShearerH (2011) Appraising public value: past, present and futures. Public Administration89(4): 1367–1384.
71.
YinRK (1988) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
