Public Administrations have to be transparent not because it’s fair or popular, but because it’s part of their essence. As a matter of fact, they exist only to pursue the general interest and they receive public money for that: that’s why they have to account their stakeholders.
It may sound strange or improper, but PA has its own stakeholders, such as citizens, companies, banks, associations, and so on, which fund the public machine through taxes. It’s lot of money and they don’t expect simply to receive good services back: they have to know how much those services cost, if they may be realized better or in a cheaper way. In other words, the PA’s stakeholders have the right to be correctly informed in order to evaluate public performance that they fund.
It’s not only matter if spent money is too much or too little, but also for what it is spent: even a cent has to be spent only for the purpose a PA is created to reach.
That’s why transparency it’s not enough: even if it may be a value itself, in a modern State it is a mean to make the public system accountable.
Many regulatory systems, in Europe and in the Us, provide for the concept of performance: not only private companies, but also Public Administrations have to be assessed on it. Accountability is the pre-requisite to make it possible.
The Sustainability Rating for PA allows to measure accountability and, therefore, to evaluate a PA’s performance itself and in a ranking: the comparison among Ratings makes possible to identify the reference benchmark.[/column]