The disclosure of intellectual capital in Italian universities. What has been done and what should be done
| Pages | 354-372 |
| Date | 10 April 2017 |
| Published date | 10 April 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-09-2016-0088 |
| Author | Daniela Sangiorgi,Benedetta Siboni |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
The disclosure of intellectual
capital in Italian universities
What has been done and what
should be done
Daniela Sangiorgi and Benedetta Siboni
Department of Management, University of Bologna, Forlì, Italy
Abstract
Purpose –Universities are proper knowledge institutions, since knowledge represents both the input and the
output of their activities. Several guidelines have been issued by the European Union and national
governments for the promotion of intellectual capital (IC) disclosure by universities. Thepurpose of this paper
is to investigate the amount and nature of voluntary IC disclosure in Italian universities and to gauge the
opinion of university managers on IC managing and reporting.
Design/methodology/approach –The study applies content analysis and a survey. The content analysis
was applied to a group of voluntary social reports (SRs) issued by Italian universities, while the survey was
submitted to all top managers of Italian universities.
Findings –The research found a significant amount of IC disclosure in SRs. Also, university top managers
demonstrated an awareness of benefits deriving from IC managing and reporting practices, both for
decision-making processes and to respond to stakeholder’s needs.
Originality/value –The current paper contributes to IC literature by providing an assessment of IC
voluntary disclosure practices in Italian universities, analysing reports other than the annual report (which is
the only document media analysed by research so far). Furthermore, while previous research has focussed on
IC disclosure, the current study investigates the motivations for IC managing and provides insights into the
benefits deriving from IC reporting in universities.
Keywords Universities, Disclosure, Italy, Survey, Intellectual capital, Content analysis
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Starting in the late twentieth century, a number of traditional financial reporting critics have
pointed out the importance of disclosing not only financial information but also
non-financial information (Guthrie et al., 2001; Arvidsson, 2011). Accordingly, since 2010 the
International Integrated Reporting Committee has undergone a process aimed at promoting
the integration of social, environmental, financial and governance information in a single
reporting document, named integrated reporting (de Villiers et al., 2014). Moreover, recently
the European Union has shown a strong commitment to increasing the disclosure of
non-financial information by large organisations (European Union, 2014).
Literature produced to date can be grouped into two main areas (Guthrie et al., 2007;
Ricceri, 2008). On the one hand, studies on social, environmental and sustainability
accounting; on the other hand, studies focussed on intellectual capital (IC). According to Lev
(2001), under the current paradigm of the knowledge economy, IC is the main driver of value
creation in organisations. As a result, the measurement and management of IC is becoming
increasingly critical (Ramírez and Gordillo, 2014).
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 18 No. 2, 2017
pp. 354-372
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-09-2016-0088
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
The authors would like to thanks Professors James Guthrie and John Dumay for the precious advice
provided during the development of the current project. Moreover, the authors wish to thank the
participants of the 11th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and
Organisational Learning –ICICKM 2014, 6-7 November, Sydney, Australia for sharing ideas and
their comments.
354
JIC
18,2
Research on IC has experienced a significant growth during last two decades (Serenko and
Bontis, 2013). IC studies have developed in four stages (Guthrie et al., 2012; Edvinsson, 2013;
Dumay, 2016). The first stage occurred from the late 1980s to the late 1990s. It focussed on
raising awareness and garnering agreement on the meaning of IC and the necessity of measuring
and reporting on it. During this stage, guidelines and standards for managing and measuring IC
in organisations were also proposed. The second stage took place in the 2000s. During this stage,
there was a refinement in guidelines pertaining to IC management and reporting in organisations
as well as the formulation of a number of IC classifications. The third stage, which is currently
on-going, has seen research focussing on IC practices inside organisations. However, during the
same period, some studies have been focussed on IC research networks (e.g. Bornemann and
Leitner, 2001; Bornemann, 2006) and on the investigation of IC in industry networks. An example
of the attention paid to the latter is the project named “Cross-Organizational Assessment and
Development of Intellectual Capital”, which is focussed on the development and testing of
services and tools that support the enhancement of the so called “soft”success factors in
small- and medium-sized enterprise collaborations and networks at the European level. In this
project, among the soft success factors, the IC plays a crucial role. Also, some initial studies have
been developed to analyse the IC of nations (e.g. Edvinsson and Stenfelt, 1999; Pasher, 1999;
Bontis, 2004). Finally, the fourth stage will expand the spectrum of IC analysis to the entire
ecosystem through the analysis of the knowledge created among different organisation, as well
as the knowledge spread in countries, cities and communities. During this stage, the development
of IC research will be significantly influenced by an integration with social, environmental,
financial and governance information, as IC is one of the “six capitals”that the International
Integrated Reporting Committee suggested reporting in order to integrate the traditional
financial information of the balance sheets of organisation and supply an integrated report that
would give a better representation of the comprehensive performance of an organisation.
The concept of IC was first analysed with reference to for-profit organisations (Brooking,
1996; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997; Stewart, 1997; Sveiby, 1997), then it was adopted by public,
non-profit organisations and universities (Mouritsen et al., 2004; Kong and Prior, 2008; Ramirez,
2010). The attention of scholars and practitioners to IC was driven, on the one hand, by the
studyof knowledge, whichwas analysed duringthe first half of the 1900sin studies developed,
for example, by Taylor, Simon and Shumpeter (Bontis, 1999), and, on the other hand, it is an
extension of the human resources cost accounting literature developed in the 1960s
(Bontis,2003). Furthermore, based on the development of the knowledge economy framework,
the study of IC has become an autonomous field of research (Bontis, 1998, 1999).
Along this path of development, an emerging mainstream of IC literature could be found with
reference to universities. IC plays a crucial role in universities, which are proper knowledge-based
institutions (Ramírez and Gordillo, 2014). In these organisations, IC is both the result of the
research and development activities and the driver that enables the creation of greater value from
those activities (RICARDIS –European Commission, 2006). According to the Observatory of
European University, the disclosure of IC information should become compulsory for universities
(Observatory of the European University (OEU), 2006). Considering that the current information
provided in universities’annual reports are not sufficient to address stakeholders’needs, several
studies have called on accounting regulators to expand the information provided in the current
university accounting system (Ramirez et al., 2016). “The obligation to present an IC report in the
higher education system would be a crucial step towards new university management, thereby
achieving a double objective: to identify and measure intangibles for management purposes,
and to provide useful information to stakeholders”(Ramírez and Gordillo, 2014, p. 176). In such a
context, regulators, accounting profession bodies and accounting scholars have formulated
guidelines and frameworks to promote the dissemination of practices of managing and reporting
IC by universities. However, the Austrian Government is the only country that has mandatory
required IC reporting by universities to date (UG –Austrian University Act, 2002).
355
Disclosure of
IC in Italian
universities
To continue reading
Request your trial