Unanticipated events (Joyner 2007; Hodge and Greve 2005: p.110) during operations can have unexpected consequences for the public sector. Even though its private partner is responsible for delivering services, there is potential for negative media attention (Karlsen 2002; Chung, Hensher and Rose 2010) to be misdirected to the public partner by ill-informed service users or journalists when things go wrong. Government may need to be proactive in order to protect its reputation through awareness raising initiatives or other means of direct action. Government's reputation can also be damaged if governance, probity and compliance frameworks are not properly adhered to by its employees. See Table 6.17 for identified sub-issues and case study examples.
Table 6.17 Sub-issues Arising From Reputation Damage.
Sub-issues | Generic case study findings |
- Governance, probity and compliance - Confidentiality - Un-anticipated / un-intended events | - Government may choose to intervene in operational matters. They may do so to avert negative media attention directed mistakenly towards the public sector for issues or mistakes that the private partner is legally accountable for resolving - The government's reputation can be tarnished if PPP benefits are not fully realised and / or the deliverables fail to meet service user expectations - Sensitive financial and commercial information relating to PPPs such as cost structures, profit margins and intellectual property tend to be protected by 'commercial in confidence' arrangements. This can lead to criticism by public commentators |