Methodology
REP Public Entities Rating is based on the ESG Sustainability indices, which is used in financial markets for companies and has been adapted to the world of PAs.
The Administrative Capacity Index (or Rating of Public Entities) is based on indicators constructed mainly on data that Public Administrations are obliged to publish by regulations in force as Legislative Decree no. 33/2013 and Law no. 190/2012.
The indicators are not only economic-financial, but also and mainly qualitative, relating to the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) sustainability of PAs.
The model uses the ESG Sustainability Indices methodology, common on financial markets for the corporate world, and it features two levels of analysis: macroareas and indicators.
The six macroareas:
-
Each macroarea is given a maximum score weighted on a 100 basis.
-
Each macroarea is composed by indicators, which are assigned a maximum score of 100, and weighted based on their assigned relevance.
-
For each indicator, the analysed PA can be given the maximum score (100% score), average score (half of the score) or minimum score (10% score).
If the PA under analysis does not publish data relevant to an indicator, it gets score zero as rating, because the regulatory obligation to publish cannot and must not be disregarded, much less by a PA spending public money. In other words, non-data is evaluated as data.
When the analysis is completed and scores are assigned, a set of algorithms processes the synthetic REP Rating of each PA by comparing it with other PAs of the same typology, positioning it within a ranking. This makes it possible to measure its distance from the benchmark reference, defined as the best possible rating at that specific moment for that typology of PA.
Seven classes rating score system
| Public Rating | Rating score | Rating class |
|---|---|---|
| 90-100 | Excellent | |
| 80-89 | Very Good | |
| 60-79 | Good | |
| 50-59 | Satisfactory | |
| 40-49 | Weak | |
| 20-39 | Poor | |
| 1-19 | Fallible |
The synthetic Rating can be disaggregated into its six macroareas, as well as into their constituent individual indicators.
The identification of indicators, the allocation of scores and weights, and the definition of threshold values for the Rating classes were carried out basing on the expertise and extensive experience of the research managers, who are also the founders of Fondazione Etica and have over two decades of research experience in ESG sustainability.
The model, protected by copyright and by the registration of its trademark and logo, is exclusively licensed to REP by Fondazione Etica.
The primary source used is the one specified by Legislative Decree no. 33/2013, as subsequently amended by Legislative Decree no. 97/2016: the “Transparent Administration” section available on the websites of Public Administrations.
Additional sources include, but are not limited to, the databases of:
No systematic request for information is made directly to the individual Administration under analysis, not even after the introduction of general civic access.
Such a methodological choice is based on the thought that the information required for calculating the Index must, on the one hand, be published by law, plus falling within the duty of accountability that Public Administrations owe to their stakeholders.
In Italy, the legislator has progressively introduced cogent obligations on transparency, integrity, and performance in Public Administrations through laws no.241/1990, no. 59/1997 and no.15/2009, as well as the more recent Legislative Decree no.90/2014, Law no. 124/2015, and Legislative Decree no.97/2016.
A decisive shift, however, came with Law no. 190/2012 and, above all, Legislative Decree no.33/2013.
This decree mandated that Public Administrations ensure transparency in a standardized manner by publishing the same information, in the same format, with the same frequency, and in the same section of their respective websites.
The legislator translated the general concept of transparency into accountability.
This shift is not merely terminological but substantive: it enables, on one hand, a comprehensive understanding of a Public Administration and, consequently, its evaluation, and on the other, the comparison among Public Administrations of the same typology.
D. Lgs. 33/2013
1. Transparency is understood as the full accessibility of data and documents held by public administrations, with the aim of (…) fostering widespread forms of oversight over the fulfilment of institutional functions and the use of public resources.
2. Transparency (…) contributes to implementing the principle (…) of good administration, accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency in the use of public resources, as well as integrity (…). It constitutes a safeguard for individual and collective freedoms and for civil, political, and social rights; it is an essential component of the right to good administration and contributes to the establishment of an open administration that serves citizens.
As stated by the Department of Public Administration on the website qualitapa.gov.it.
"Making data concerning the community usable and accessible so that everyone can benefit from it is not an innovation intended only for a few specialists; it involves everyone, as it allows access to information that, in fact, already belongs to users, but in a transparent and direct way. This makes citizens more informed and therefore more aware. There is no doubt, in fact, that having access to data on the financial reporting of one’s municipality, or data concerning traffic, the environment, and so on, represents an asset that every citizen has the right to know".
All EU Member States, except for Austria and Luxembourg, have adopted legislation on the right of access, the so-called FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), which is based on two pillars:
The FOIA allows access to data and information about and from Public Administrations. In some countries, this process is more complex than in others, as they have focused on the first pillar while neglecting the second one. However, all countries, in order to join and remain EU Member States, are required to meet minimum standards not only of democracy, but also of transparency, anticorruption measures, and efficiency of public governance: in other words, of administrative capacity.
“Good governance and quality of public administrations is recognisably in the interests of the EU citizens and Member States, to achieve maximum value from finite public funds (…) Worldwide, the evidence is irrefutable: high productivity, high income per head economies have the most effective and efficient public institutions”.
European Commission - Measuring Public Administration: A Feasibility Study for Better Comparative Indicators in the EU