Every state owns companies: the water works, the railway, the port, the heating plant, a bus company in every town. They provide essential services and sit in strategic sectors, and their footprint has doubled in a decade. Yet few governments can list every enterprise they own, fewer can say which ones earn their keep, and the public is left to suspect the worst.
The challenge
The OECD's 2026 review of state ownership finds that fewer than half of countries have a single, government-wide policy for what the state wants from the companies it owns. Ownership is spread across ministries, agencies and hundreds of town halls; the registers do not talk to each other; the accounts are filed one PDF at a time, where nobody reads them side by side.
So the questions a minister, a board or a citizen would ask go unanswered. Which of these companies are strategic, and which are inherited? Which pay their way, and which does the budget quietly carry? Where is governance working, and where is it not? Without a comprehensive picture, every answer is an anecdote, and reform is argued with suspicion instead of evidence.
What we built
The state's portfolio as a map any citizen can read, with the evidence a reform needs one tap away.
- Every enterprise on the map, by region and by owner: central and local, with its legal form, its sector, its role (public service, commercial, strategic) and its status (active, in liquidation, insolvent, dormant).
- Ten years of accounts behind each: employees, revenue, net result, assets and debt, year by year, from the filed statements, so a trend shows rather than one year's headline.
- The portfolio in aggregate: how many enterprises, employing how many, earning what, how many at a loss, filtered by owner, status and sector. The aggregate report the OECD asks of every owner, as a screen rather than an annual PDF.
- Comparison, built in: any two enterprises side by side, any county against another, and one country's portfolio against another's wherever the definitions match.
- The gaps left visible. Where an entity has not filed, the map says so instead of filling in. A disclosure gap is a finding, not a blank.
Example 1 — Romania
Romania's Ministry of Finance monitors 1,715 public enterprises: 334 owned by the centre, 1,381 by counties and towns. We joined its list to each company's filed statements since 2016: 256,750 employees, RON 96 billion in turnover, and a loss-making share of 35.8% among the 1,619 that file. Every enterprise sits on the map under its county. Tap one for its ten-year profile; open the portfolio for the whole.
Example 2 — Moldova
Moldova's Public Property Agency keeps dossiers on 1,145 state and municipal enterprises, 436 central and 709 local. Only 99 have filed full accounts; the net result is known for nearly all. So the map shows what is known, a loss-making share of 34.1%, and says plainly where the accounts are missing. The disclosure gap becomes visible enterprise by enterprise, which is where an ownership reform starts.
What a government gets
A decision tool. The owner's view across the whole portfolio: keep, restructure or sell, argued from the numbers. The facts an ownership review, a competitive-neutrality assessment or an accession chapter starts from.
A public asset. The same map for the journalist and the taxpayer, so good governance is shown rather than claimed, and a hard decision arrives with its reasons.
A new country in weeks. A country is a data pack: its register, its filed accounts and its boundaries, organised to the same schema, comparable with the others wherever the definitions match.
Own a portfolio nobody can see whole?