FROM PUBLIC VALUE TO CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: THE INSTITUTIONAL INFLUENCE OF INTEGRATED PUBLIC PLANNING ON BOARDS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

Background and Objective: This study explores how public integrated planning instruments, specifically the Italian Integrated Plan of Activities and Organisation (PIAO), act as institutional variables that influence corporate governance and strategic planning in private firms. Focusing on the highly regulated agricultural sector in Lombardy, it investigates how public policies bridge the gap between public sustainability architectures and private ESG reporting frameworks to foster a sustainable transition. Methodology: The research utilizes a qualitative three-phase methodology. First, a documentary analysis of the 2026–2028 Lombardy Regional PIAO evaluates its conceptual convergence with GRI and ESRS standards. Second, the study assesses the indirect linkages embedded within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and regional funding schemes. Finally, case studies of prominent Lombardy agricultural enterprises (Herita Marzotto Wine Estates S.p.A. and Terra Moretti S.p.A.) trace how public policy mechanisms translate into firm-level governance and reporting practices. Findings: The findings reveal that while the regional PIAO does not explicitly reference GRI/ESRS standards, nor do corporate reports directly mention the PIAO, a substantial implicit conceptual convergence exists regarding ESG dimensions. Public planning instruments and CAP funding criteria function as levers of "indirect governance". Environmental conditionalities and sustainability-oriented eligibility requirements within regional calls generate isomorphic pressures, steering corporate board responsibilities, control systems, and strategic positioning toward institutional expectations. Contributions: Theoretically, the paper integrates Public Value Governance with Institutional Theory and the Italian business administration tradition, framing public planning as an open-system environmental variable for private firms. Methodologically, it proposes a comparative approach to align fragmented sustainability languages. Practically, it highlights the managerial benefit of companies interpreting public planning strategically, and provides policy recommendations to enhance direct interoperability between public metrics and corporate ESG frameworks.