Int J Discl Gov
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41310-018-0034-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Corporate governance of universities: improving transparency
and accountability
Yolanda Ramı́rez1 • Ángel Tejada1
Revised: 9 February 2018
 Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract There is currently a growing interest in the
improvement of university governance and the disclosure
of information on corporate governance processes as an
essential part of the transparency and accountability of
universities. This paper aims to know the importance given
by Spanish university stakeholders to the disclosure of
information about structure and mechanism of corporate
governance. To meet this objective, we propose a model
for disclosing information on the main aspects of university
governance in Spanish universities. This model will be
validated using a questionnaire sent to members of the
Social Councils of public universities in Spain. Our results
show that Spanish university stakeholders attach great
importance to the disclosure of specific information on
aspects of corporate governance, which would result in
improved transparency and accountability. No previous
research was conducted for Spanish universities. This
brings new expertise regarding the need to carry out a
proactive publication of information on corporate gover-
nance in the Spanish university accounting information
model.
Keywords Corporate governance
Transparency

Accountability
Universities
Spain
& Yolanda Ramı́rez
Yolanda.Ramirez@uclm.es
1
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Plaza de la Universidad,
no 1, Campus Universitario de Albacete, 02071 Albacete,
Spain
Introduction
Corporate governance is deeply embedded within a wider
set of ideas and trends in the public sector: New Public
Management (NPM). NPM evolved during 1980s and
1990s in the OECD countries as a response to perceived
lack of focus on outcomes, efficiency and transparency in
national bureaucracies. The solution suggested by the New
Public Management was to introduce managerial tech-
niques borrowed from private enterprises to the public
sector. These most often included: delegation, decentral-
ization and deregulation, results-based funding and
accountability regarding the extent to which planned
results were achieved, strategic management and planning,
adoption of contract-based relationships and strengthening
of managerial culture (Aucoin 1990; OECD 1997).
New Public Management style reforms had a profound
effect on governance of higher education institutions in
European countries. In an increasing number of countries,
universities have gained high autonomy in managing their
financial and human resources, deciding on course content,
research programmes and size of student enrolment.
Increased autonomy has been coupled with results-based
funding: public funding increasingly depends on achieve-
ment of targets that are expressed as input, output or out-
come indicators (Leitner et al. 2014, p. 11).
Given this scenario, in order to fulfil their mission
higher education institutions need to identify priorities and
target resources accordingly. Universities fail to be effec-
tive and robust if they are unable to determine strategies,
set priorities, select and implement objectives for teaching
and research and in general adjust their structures and
organization to adapt to a changing environment (OECD
2005). Consequently, methods of institutional governance
and management are of key importance. So, the

universities of the twenty-first century are adopting new
approaches aimed at improving management and are fol-
lowing the examples of models from the private sector such
as corporate governance (Flórez 2013; Trakman 2008).
Following this model, universities should be governed by
professionals experienced in establishing corporate policies
and planning strategies and who have the capacity to lead
and manage. This corporate governance structure can
provide an effective tool so that higher education institu-
tions can implement mechanisms of control and account-
ability, create long-term business plans, identify their
mission and strategic vision, develop key performance and
effectiveness indicators, set annual budgets and meet the
interests of stakeholders (Lambert Report 2003). The
implementation of corporate governance mechanisms aims
to improve university management and act as a driver for
competitiveness, since it facilitates control, advisory
functions, management and efficacy in setting strategies
(Lapworth 2004). Also, the implementation of appropriate
organizational structures enables universities to meet new
challenges, respond to growing competition, improve
ranking positions, set limits for expenditure and adopt
attitudes characterized by greater economic and social
commitment to the wider community (European Commis-
sion 2007).
The aim of a model for university governance should be
to make universities function more efficiently, governing
bodies be more accountable, collegiate bodies work on
improving and expanding the range of courses on offer and
for there to be adequate transfer and management of
research results (Trakman 2008).
In our opinion, universities must acquire a model of
governance to strengthen institutional autonomy, but also
with greater transparency towards society and greater
control over the results. Universities should link gover-
nance, autonomy, accountability and evaluation.
Governments wish to assure that the actions of publicly
funded universities are consistent with the social values of
efficiency, equity and academic quality (Dill 2001, p. 22).
Therefore, from our point of view, autonomy and
accountability are two sides of the same coin. What is
needed in this sensitive area, then, is a suitably sensitive
buffer mechanism which can reconcile the Government’s
legitimate need for accountability and the universities’ vital
need for maximum autonomy consonant with that
accountability (Berdahl 1990). When we talk about
autonomy, we mean organizational autonomy, financial
and management, independent management of personal
and academic structure. An instrument to carry out an
effective accountability is evaluation, a proper system of
assessment, must be fair and differentiator to ensure ful-
filment of the objectives of the University. Therefore, if we
want to guarantee the autonomy, we have to ensure proper
Y. Ramı́rez, Á. Tejada
accountability. It is essential that the university reports
impacts and the results achieved, taking into account the
context variables, the process in which it operates and the
more commonly accepted international standards. In this
situation, the proper presentation of institutional commu-
nication becomes currently one of the main mechanisms of
statement of accounts for higher education institutions.
A key element to recognize the mechanisms of gover-
nance of a university is the information the university itself
discloses in this regard. Universities work in a wide range
of different environments, and this information may be
divulged in a dispersed and irregular manner.
Therefore, there is currently a growing interest in the
improvement of university governance and the disclosure
of information about corporate governance processes as an
essential part of the transparency and accountability of
universities.
Transparency and accountability in universities must be
regarded as priority objectives. In our opinion, disclosure
of information on processes of university corporate gov-
ernance allows these objectives to be met.
In this context, we should highlight the influence of
countries such as the UK (the Nolan Report and Dearing
Reports) and Australia (the Australian National Audit
Office Report—ANAO) in the development of these
mechanisms of governance. Public universities in these
countries have utilized annual management codes and
reports to disclose specific information on university
governance.
Our study makes two contributions. On the one hand,
based on previous research, we design and propose a model
to analyse and assess the disclosure of information on
corporate governance by universities. On the other, we
conduct an empirical study to identify the importance
stakeholders attach to the disclosure of this information by
Spanish universities. In our opinion, disclosure of infor-
mation on corporate governance facilitates a response to
the demands for greater transparency and the need for
accountability on the use of resources at universities.
The paper is structured as follows: in ‘‘Corporate gov-
ernance in higher education institutions’’ section, we
briefly describe the concept of corporate governance in
higher education institutions and models of university
governance. ‘‘Corporate governance in Spanish universi-
ties’’ section explores governance in Spanish university. In
‘‘Research Methodology’’ section we define the scope of
the empirical study conducted and the results obtained. The
final conclusions are drawn in ‘‘Conclusions’’ section.
Corporate governance of universities: improving transparency and accountability
Corporate governance in higher education
institutions
The successful university organizations reform their gov-
ernance functions, that is, their governing body and their
management methods, to adapt them to the changing
demands and the structural changes of the wider (Brunner
2011).
In the opinion of Flórez et al. (2014) efficient university
governance is needed for two major reasons: (1) the
increasing need to find alternatives to public funding and
(2) the social pressure on public universities to create
organizational systems which ensure greater effectiveness,
efficiency, economic viability and better transfer of
knowledge to society (companies and community), which
provide a framework for accountability, which are more
transparent and which can compete at international level
with other universities in search of greater excellence.
Governance in higher education refers to the way in
which institutions are organized and operate internally
(Harvey 2004). Governance explains the hierarchy and
organization of the decision-making process (Gayle et al.
2011; Lambert 2003) and the way in which collective
control is exercised on the achievement of institutional
objectives (Mora and Vieira 2007). It is an organizational
method which improves decision-making as it defines the
means to reach consensus, resolve conflicts and legitimize
actions (Meléndez et al. 2010). Additionally, the new
approaches to university governance presented by the
European Union aim to modernize universities so as to
build a knowledge society able to improve performance
and competitiveness and eliminate national barriers, thus
ensuring universities are independent and responsible,
combining capacities and competencies for the labour
market, reducing shortfalls in financing and improving the
effectiveness of education and research (European Com-
mission 2006).
So, the governance in higher education refers to the way
in which institutions are organized and operate internally
and their relationships with external entities with a view to
securing the objectives of higher education as a realm of
enquiry and critique. It includes informal mechanisms such
as traditions, implicit beliefs, mental models, patterns of
behaviour, values internalized by the culture of commu-
nities, organizations and groups that act, but also formal
structures as, the hierarchy, the processes, the written rules
and devices of coercion, control and accountability. A
greater preponderance of formal responsibility for all that
happens in a university is being vested in a governing body,
board or council. Increasingly, this comprises elected,
appointed and ex officio members, many of them in non-
executive roles and all expected to shoulder a corporate
responsibility, rather than only representing the interests of
particular constituencies, such as staff, students and fund-
ing bodies (Dixon and Coy 2007, p. 267).
Table 1 shows different definitions of governance in the
field of public education.
Finally, note that the university governance mechanisms
can be organized according to multiple criteria. A number
of authors propose a model of collegial, or shared, gover-
nance in which academic participation is key and different
actors have a role (the productive sector, teaching staff,
students, etc.). This shared model comprises a board of
directors formed by members of the academic departments
which govern the institution but, at the same time, agents
from private organizations also participate (Gómez 2004;
Mora and Vieira 2007). This model is common in conti-
nental Europe and Scandinavia. Another type of university
governance, known as the corporate model, is more man-
agerial, where a team, sometimes formed by professionals,
is responsible for management, staffing decisions, budget
preparation and definition of educational policies (Brunner
2011). This form of university governance was primarily
developed in English-speaking countries but then extended
to universities in other countries, including Japan. How-
ever, from another perspective, most universities are
democratically governed institutions, which means that
power tends mainly to be in the hands of the academic
community (Castro and Ion 2011).
In this line, Minksová and Pabian (2011) state that there
exist various forms of organizing and managing universi-
ties. They are: (1) the academic oligarchy model, consid-
ered as an academic community based on a collegial
structure; (2) the state bureaucracy model, characterized by
the implementation of national policies. Its organization is
mainly based around professionalized management, lead-
ing to growing bureaucracy (the Napoleonic or southern
Europe model; (3) the representative democracy model,
which refers to a model where all university stakeholders
are democratically represented in the governing body, and
finally; (4) the entrepreneurial model (the common model
in English-speaking countries), which follows the logic of
market availability and the organization is that of corporate
governance.
Corporate governance in Spanish universities
The modernization of the higher education system in Spain
is currently focused on adapting universities to changing
times, in which their role is more competitive and quality
and excellence are part of an economy based on knowledge
and innovation. This growing demand highlights the need
to implement improved management and control in the
governance structures of public universities. The concept
 Y. Ramı́rez, Á. Tejada

Table 1 Definition of university governance

Definition Author

Governance in the field of public higher education is understood to be how universities make decisions, distribute Meléndez et al.
authority, create consensus, resolve conflicts and obtain legitimacy through their objectives and mission (2010)
University governance is defined as the concept of macro-level, shared, participatory governance where decision-making Kezar and Eckel
should engage the whole community, business and industry so as to resolve social problems, taking into account the (2004)
challenge of competitiveness
Governance is the way universities are organized and operate internally—from the perspective of their government and Brunner (2011)
management—and their relations with external organizations and actors with an aim to meeting the objectives of higher
education
University governance is related to decision-making structures, processes and objectives. The processes of regulation and Kehm (2011)
coordination are key elements in resolving social problems. This model brings together various types of coordination—
hierarchies, markets, networks and communities

of corporate government should serve as a key driver for
establishing new organizational methods to ensure public
universities regularly improve the effectiveness and effi-
ciency of their management systems.
From our point of view, we understand that reforms in
the university system are important, not without difficulties
linked to the current circumstances, but this forces us, even
more, to develop an ambitious and future key.
Our universities must be characterized by some attri-
butes and values that enable them to meet the challenges of
a global market. Globalization of the political economy,
and the attendant reductions in government funding, liai-
sons with business and industry, and marketing of educa-
tional and business services, has been changing the nature
of academic labour (Slaughter and Leslie 1997). Society
requires us quality training focused on values and fosters
critical thinking and ethical behaviour. But also demands a
commitment to innovation, knowledge transfer to society
and that the university is a key tool for social, cultural and
economic. Undoubtedly, all directly affect the governance
model of the university. Universities have been caught up
in the international surge in interest in governance of
organizations (Coaldrake et al. 2003).
University governance processes have been changing in
Europe since the 1980s: ‘‘new methods of governance,
setting of priorities and objectives, self-assessment using
key performance indicators, a focus on internal and
external efficiency, attention to the demands and expecta-
tion of stakeholders from outside the university commu-
nity, income from academic productivity, generation of
surpluses, contribution to regional and local development,
etc.’’ (Brunner 2011, p. 149).
Also, the new model of university governance, widely
implemented in Europe and suggested as the way forward
for universities in Spain, requires, among other things, a
change in the structures and processes of government and
management, giving universities greater autonomy in both
the organization of the governing bodies and in the deci-
sion-making processes. In this sense, university governance
falls within the context of institutional autonomy (OECD
2003).
The European University Association in its report titled
‘‘University Autonomy in Europe. Exploratory Study’’
states that the most successful universities are those orga-
nized with a Board that has a majority of external members
who elect the rector, greater funding and grants and more
autonomy in academic matters, human resources, the
courses they offer and selection of students (Estermann and
Nokkala 2009, p. 17). Indeed Spain occupies ‘‘medium
low’’ positions in rankings by level of organizational,
financial, academic and staffing autonomy. For example,
Spain is ranked 19th (of 29 countries) in organizational
autonomy, positioning itself in the ‘‘medium low group’’
(Estermann et al. 2011, pp. 53–64).
Governance in today’s leading universities is heading
towards a stakeholder model,1 reinforcing the authority of
governors, increasing the participation of external agents,
changing the designation processes of one-person bodies
and professionalizing the executive function (Samoilovich
2008). This model requires a redesign of the system of
university government. As suggested by Fielden (2008),
these reforms tend towards: (1) legislation to increase
autonomy, (2) the state being responsible for control and
management functions and the university for social
responsibility, (3) creation of agencies which control
finances and monitor functions, (4) funding models giving
greater freedoms and encouraging development of new
incomes, (5) quality control agencies, (6) development of
new forms of accountability, (7) the Board as a governing
body reporting to the Minister, (8) the state designing the
1
See Brunner (2011) who provides a basic typology of higher
education governance regimes—bureaucratic, collegial, stakeholder
and entrepreneurial.
Corporate governance of universities: improving transparency and accountability
election process of the Board, the Chair of the Board and
the Rector and (9) expectations of managerial competence
by the Board and the Rector.
The university system in Spain is currently based on the
Napoleonic model. The structure is characterized by the
notable participation of teaching staff, non-teaching staff
and students who all form part of the main decision-making
bodies at all levels (including academic, economic and
administrative). The collegial and one-person bodies are
collective in character. Established representatives of
society are present in the social councils, and the Rector is
the executor of the governing bodies’ decisions and is the
external representation of the institution (Vallés 1996;
Castro and Ion 2011).
According to Castro and Tomás (2010), the government
structure of Spanish universities is a result of a collegial
concept of academia since it is based on levels, and power
is concentrated in the hands of the teaching staff. Indeed,
various aspects of the model of university governance in
Spain identify it with a bureaucratic model: representa-
tional elections, non-professional management and the
transitory nature of executive positions. The Spanish uni-
versity system has traditionally been characterized by
being a model of governance based on university autonomy
(Flórez 2013). Public universities in Spain have also been
transformed by the reforms made in their regulations. In
essence, these changes have led to the implementation of
mechanisms of accountability related to tasks of gover-
nance (Girotto et al. 2013).
Research methodology
The main objective of empirical study is to know the
importance given by Spanish university stakeholders to the
disclosure of information about structure and mechanism
of corporate governance. To this end, in September 2013
an online questionnaire was sent to every member of the
Social Councils of Spanish public universities. It was
thought that these participants would provide a good
example of the attitude of university stakeholders since
they represent the different social groups connected with
universities.
Methodology, data collection and definition
of variables
After analysing the composition of the Social Councils of
the Spanish universities, the members were categorized
into seven groups: (1) university governors (president,
vice-chancellor, general secretary and manager), (2)
teaching and research staff, (3) administration and services
staff, (4) students, (5) representatives of business
organizations, (6) representatives of union organizations
and (7) representatives of the public administrations (the
regional government, the regional parliament, the town
council, the federation of municipalities and provinces,
etc.).
We identified a total population of 1164 members of the
Social Councils of Spanish universities. Data were col-
lected via an online questionnaire. An email was sent to the
members of the Social Councils of Spanish public uni-
versities, requesting they take part in our research. The
questionnaire was accompanied with a detailed covering
letter explaining the purpose of the research. The ques-
tionnaire consists of five-point Likert scale questions.
Those surveyed were asked to rate on a five-point Likert
scale the importance they gave to the presentation of
information about different corporate governance aspects
in universities (in the scale 1 was ‘‘not at all important’’ and
5 ‘‘very important’’).
Replies were received from 327 members, resulting in a
response rate of 28.09%. The size of the sample was
considered sufficient, since in a binomial population the
estimation error would be 4.87% for a reliability level of
95%.
A summarization of the study’s methodology is high-
lighted in Table 2.
Based on indicators used in the corporate sector and
parameters used in public universities in the UK and
Australia, which are pioneers in the field, we propose a
model for the disclosure of information on the main aspects
of corporate governance in universities. Specifically,
within the corporate sector, we have used as a reference the
indicators from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
(2011), related to organization profiles and corporate
governance structure and the indicators of good corporate
governance practice proposed by Ho (2005). Furthermore,
we have taken into account the parameters used by a
number of public universities in the UK and Australia
which include measures of corporate governance in their
annual reports as well as the indicators of university cor-
porate governance proposed by Flórez et al. (2014). On this
basis, we present a model for the disclosure of information
on corporate governance for public universities in Spain,
comprising five sections: (1) institutional information on
corporate governance, (2) information on university
autonomy related to corporate governance, (3) financial
information on corporate governance, (4) information on
transparency and leadership in corporate governance, and
(5) information on the structure and organization of cor-
porate governance mechanisms (see Table 3).
The proposed model will be validated in our empirical
study.
A descriptive analysis of the replies was conducted
according to the characteristics of each of the questions.
 Y. Ramı́rez, Á. Tejada

Table 2 Technical details of the study

Analysed collective Users of accounting information from the Spanish public universities
Universe (population) Integral members of the Social Councils of the Spanish public universities (1164)
Sample size 327
Technical information collection Online survey
Observation period September–December 2013
Computer software SPSS v. 19

Table 3 Model for information on corporate governance in public universities in Spain. Source: compiled by authors
I. Institutional information
I. 1. Mission and vision
I. 2. Strategic plan (strategic objectives and goals to be achieved and degree of achievement)
I. 3. Codes of good governance
I. 4. Management reports
I. 5. Institutional organigram
II. Information on university autonomy
II. 1. Aspects of university autonomy in financing
II. 2. Aspects of university autonomy in management
II. 3. Aspects of university autonomy in the definition of programs
II. 4. Aspects of university autonomy in the recruitment of teaching staff
II. 5. Aspects of university autonomy regarding student selection and assessment
III. Financial information
III. 1. Budget report
III. 2. Investment report
III. 3. Report on assigned public funding based on results (linked to performance indicators)
IV. Information on transparency and leadership
IV. 1. Remuneration of the executive directors
IV. 2. Degree of consanguinity of executive directors
IV. 3. Number of meetings of the governing body of the university
IV. 4. Agreements adopted or minutes of meeting
IV. 5. The university’s world ranking
IV. 6. The university’s national ranking
IV. 7. Prizes awarded to the university
V. Information on structure and organization
V. 1. Composition of the university governing body
V. 2. Functions and responsibilities of the executive directors or governing body of the university
V. 3. Number and composition of committees or councils in place at the university
V. 4. Number of female members of the governing body of the university
V. 5. Information on whether any members of the governing body belong to any interest group such as (a) business representatives, (b) teacher
representatives, (c) student representatives, (d) union representatives, (e) graduate representatives

Analysis of the results
Firstly, the members of the Social Councils of Spanish
universities were asked to indicate whether the current
annual reports were a source of information to them for
tasks, activities and decisions in which they participate
directly. They were also asked whether the annual reports
were a source of information to them in order to judge how
universities were being governed and managed and how
the universities’ affairs were being conducted. The object
of these questions was to differentiate usage of annual
reports for decision-making purposes and for public
Corporate governance of universities: improving transparency and accountability
accountability purposes. Data about the usefulness of
annual reports for decisions are summarized in Table 4;
and data for judging the governance, management and
performance of universities are summarized in Table 5.
The data arrayed in Table 4 infer that annual reports
vary in their importance to university stakeholders as a
source of information for decision-making but as one
would expect, for most they are less important than or only
as important as other sources. Also, note that 15% of
respondents expressed that annual reports do not provide
relevant information to decisions.
As can be seen in Table 5, 39% of respondents believe
annual reports to be at least a useful source of information
in making accountability judgements about governance and
management of the university, and 61% the contrary.
All these results lead us to assert that to improve the
information contained in the current university annual
reports, it is necessary to make accounting regulators aware
of the need to extend the information provided in the
current accounting statements.
Then, in order to justify the need to include information
concerning corporate governance aspects in the university
accounting model, the members of Social Council were
asked whether this information increases the relevance of
the current financial statements.
A high percentage, 91.7%, of those surveyed in our
study showed great interest in Spanish public universities
presenting information on corporate governance aspects.
They felt that publishing this information would make the
content of the current university accounting information
system more relevant. By user groups it was found that
practically all the users—public administrations (91.4%),
students (99%), business organizations (89.2%), teaching
and research staff (95.5%) and university governors
(86.3%), administration and services staff (86.7%) and
union organizations (92.5%) consider that the presentation
of information on universities’ corporate governance
increases the relevance of the university accounting infor-
mation. Furthermore, 93.8% of university stakeholders
stated that disclosure of information on corporate
Table 4 Decision usefulness of annual reports
Expression of usefulness
The prime source from which I obtain information that is useful for decisions
One of number of equally important sources of official information that is useful for decisions
Supplementary source of information for decisions; other sources more important
Provides background information as a context to decisions
Information not at all relevant to decisions
Total
governance increases transparency and improves the
accountability of universities.
Finally, the third block of the questionnaire includes a
set of questions related to the importance Spanish univer-
sity stakeholders give to the presentation of information on
corporate governance. A list of 25 items relating to cor-
porate governance aspects is included so as to ascertain to
what degree it is relevant to publish this information.
Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 show the frequencies obtained
in the empirical study (mean, median, standard deviation,
and percentile 25 and 75) for the different items related to
corporate governance (grouped into five categories: insti-
tutional information, information on university autonomy,
financial information, information on transparency and
leadership, information on structure and organization).
First, it is worth noting that, broadly speaking, a high
score was obtained for the different items in the five sec-
tions of the model for information on corporate gover-
nance, which reflects strong support for the need of
universities to provide information on corporate
governance.
In order to identify the items on corporate governance
about which university stakeholders consider it relevant or
very relevant to publish information, we set as a require-
ment that the items had to reach a mean value or a median
equal or higher than 4 points in combination with a mini-
mum 25 of 4 points and a minimum 75 percentile of 5
points. In short, the intention is that most of the distribution
of values is concentrated in high scores close to 5 points.
Specifically, the analysis of the data obtained from the
various statistics (mean, median, mode, range, typical
deviation, 25 and 75 percentiles) led to classifying the
following corporate governance items as essential to
universities:
• Institutional information strategic plan (strategic objec-
tives and goals to be achieved and degree of achieve-
ment) and codes of good governance.
• Information on university autonomy aspects of univer-
sity autonomy in financing, autonomy in management
N = 327 (%)
7
36
23
19
15
100
 Y. Ramı́rez, Á. Tejada

Table 5 Accountability usage of annual reports

Expression of role in accountability N = 327
(%)

The prime source of information about how university is being governed and managed; helps greatly to judge conduct of 4
university’s affairs
A useful source of information about how university is being governed and managed; helps to judge conduct of university’s affairs 35
Interested in judging governance, management and conduct of affairs, but annual reports are at best only of minor use in such 61
matters; other information sources more relevant and timely
Total 100

Table 6 Frequency analysis in the institutional information section Table 9 Frequency analysis in the information on transparency and
leadership section
Items Mean Median Standard deviation Percentile
Items Mean Median Standard deviation Percentile
25 75
25 75
I. 1 3.89 4 0.452 3 5
I. 2 4.60 5 0.321 4 5 IV. 1 4.58 5 0.365 4 5
I. 3 4.58 5 0.365 4 5 IV. 2 4.05 4 0.449 3 5
I. 4 4.01 4 0.547 3 5 IV. 3 4.12 4 0.552 4 4
I. 5 3.66 4 0.672 3 4 IV. 4 3.63 4 0.433 3 4
IV. 5 3.66 4 0.672 3 4
Five-point scale: (1 = not at all important; 5 = very important)
IV. 6 4.37 4 0.327 4 5
IV. 7 4.44 5 0.413 4 5
Five-point scale: (1 = not at all important; 5 = very important)
Table 7 Frequency analysis in the information on university auton-
omy section
Items Mean Median Standard deviation Percentile
Table 10 Frequency analysis in the information on structure and
25 75 organization section
II. 1 4.60 5 0.438 4 5 Items Mean Median Standard deviation Percentile
II. 2 4.44 5 0.285 4 5 25 75
II. 3 4.02 4 0.437 3 5
II. 4 3.99 4 0.452 3 5 V. 1 4.39 4 0.285 4 5
II. 5 4.39 5 0.369 4 5 V. 2 4.60 5 0.438 4 5
V. 3 3.64 4 0.413 3 5
Five-point scale: (1 = not at all important; 5 = very important)
V. 4 3.72 4 0.472 3 4
V. 5 3.66 4 0.672 3 4
Five-point scale: (1 = not at all important; 5 = very important)

Table 8 Frequency analysis in the financial information section

and autonomy regarding student selection and
Items Mean Median Standard deviation Percentile assessment.
25 75 • Financial information report on assigned public fund-
ing based on results (linked to performance indicators).
III. 1 3.66 4 0.672 3 4
• Information on transparency and leadership remuner-
III. 2 4.01 4 0.647 3 5
ation of the executive directors and the university’s
III. 3 4.44 5 0.413 4 5
national ranking.
Five-point scale: (1 = not at all important; 5 = very important) • Information on structure and organization composition
of the university governing body and functions and
responsibilities of the executive directors or governing
body of the university.
Corporate governance of universities: improving transparency and accountability
According to the results obtained from the analysis of
the different statistics, it may be concluded that the Spanish
public universities stakeholders feel that it is relevant to
publish information concerning corporate governance
aspects. So, it should be noted that a strong emphasis on the
need for universities to submit information on corporate
governance has been proved.
Conclusions
Society is increasingly demanding that public universities
in Spain provide greater transparency and competitiveness,
improved efficiency and effectiveness in search of greater
economic viability and accountability regarding the actions
of the governing bodies. In this context, in recent years
there has been a shift in universities towards structures and
mechanisms of corporate governance so as to achieve
greater transparency in university management and more
efficient performance.
Based on indicators used in the corporate sector and
parameters used in public universities in the UK and
Australia, we propose a model for the disclosure of infor-
mation on the main aspects of corporate governance in
universities. Also by means of a questionnaire survey, this
paper ascertains and analyses the views of Spanish uni-
versity stakeholders in relation to the disclosure of infor-
mation about structure and mechanisms of corporate
governance as a priority of accountability and trans-
parency. Once the different opinions were recorded and
analysed, we were in the position of confirming the need
for universities to offer information on mechanisms of
corporate governance in their accounting information
model.
The disclosure of information on corporate governance
by universities responds to demands for greater trans-
parency and the need to be accountable for resources used.
The results obtained in this empirical study show that
university stakeholders believe it is fundamental that
Spanish public universities publish information on corpo-
rate governance. Indeed, a high percentage of respon-
dents—93.8%—consider that this publication would
increase the transparency and improve the accountability of
universities.
Specifically, the university stakeholders considered
essential the disclosure of the following corporate gover-
nance aspects: strategic plan (strategic objectives and goals
to be achieved and degree of achievement) and codes of
good governance (institutional information); aspects of
university autonomy in financing, autonomy in manage-
ment and autonomy regarding student selection and
assessment (information on university autonomy); report
on assigned public funding based on results (financial
information); remuneration of the executive directors and
the university’s national ranking (information on trans-
parency and leadership); composition of the university
governing body and functions and responsibilities of the
executive directors or governing body of the university
(information on structure and organization).
In our opinion, and based on the results of the empirical
study carried out, is absolutely necessary for universities to
disclose information on corporate governance, which will
be a healthy exercise of transparency and accountability
from these institutions.
The paper is the first to provide empirical evidence on
the importance given by different Spanish public univer-
sities to the need to carry out a proactive publication of
information on corporate governance. Also, this paper has
provided the basis for our proposal of corporate governance
model for Spanish universities.
Despite the contributions of this empirical study, the
authors recognize several limitations that suggest future
lines of analysis. This study is exploratory and is limited by
sample size, location and temporal specificity. So, one of
the main limitations refers to the sample under study and
the structure of the survey. The response rate for the survey
was limited. The findings may be more substantive and
conclusive if the sample was larger. Also, the fact that only
members of the Social Councils in Spanish universities
were analysed means that there are other groups of users
that have not yet been analysed (e.g. investors and sup-
pliers of resources, media). Hence, it would be interesting
in the future to expand the sample to a broader community
of representation. Also, this study is based on the percep-
tions of Spanish university stakeholders. Different results
might have been obtained if another countries and cultures
have been selected. Some other lines of future research
suggested by the results obtained in this study are:
(a) identifying and assessing the degree of adoption of the
aspects of corporate governance in the Spanish public
universities; (b) analysing corporate governance mecha-
nisms in public universities considering the possible
influence of the administrative culture in which each
institution operates; (c) examining the relationship between
corporate governance and financial performance among
public universities; and (d) examining the relationship
between intellectual capital and corporate governance in
universities.
References
Aucoin, P. 1990. Administrative reform in public management:
Paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums. Governance
3(2): 115–137.

Berdahl, R. 1990. Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in
British universities. Studies in Higher Education 15(2): 169–180.
Brunner, J.J. 2011. Gobernanza universitaria: Tipologı́a, dinámicas y
tendencias. Revista de Educación 355: 137–159.
Castro, D., and G. Ion. 2011. Dilemas en el gobierno de las
universidades españolas: Autonomı́a, estructura, participación y
desconcentración. Revista de Educación 355: 161–183.
Castro, D., and M. Tomás. 2010. El gobierno y la gestión de la
universidad: Estudio de los órganos unipersonales. Estudios
sobre Educación 19: 165–184.
Coaldrake, P., Stedman, L., and Little, P. 2003. Issues in Australian
university governance. Available from: http://www.chancellery.
qut.edu.au/vc/governancefinal.pdf.
Dearing, R. 1997. Informe de la Comisión Nacional de Investigación
sobre la Educación Superior, London: Centro de Publicaciones.
Available from: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe .
Dill, D.D. 2001. The regulation of public research universities:
Changes in academic competition and implications for university
autonomy and accountability. Higher Education Policy 14(1):
21–35.
Dixon, K., and D. Coy. 2007. University governance: Governing
bodies as providers and user of annual reports. Higher Education
54: 267–291.
Estermann, T., and T. Nokkala. 2009. University autonomy in Europe.
Exploratory study. Brussels: European University Association.
Estermann, T., T. Nokkala, and M. Steinel. 2011. University
autonomy in Europe II. The Scorecard Brussels: European
University Association.
European Commission. 2006. Cumplir la agenda de la modernización
para las universidades: educación, investigación e innovación.
Available from: http://www.eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUr
iServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0208:FIN:ES:PDF.
European Commission. 2007. Efficiency and equity in European
Education and training system Available from: http://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0208:
FIN:ES.PDF.
Fielden, J. 2008. Global trends in university governance. The World
Bank, Education Working Paper Series Number 9.
Flórez, J.M. 2013. El gobierno corporativo en el sector público: Un
estudio de las universiddes públicas españolas. Cuadernos de
Administración 29(50): 142–152.
Flórez, J.M., M.V. López, and A. López. 2014. Corporate governance,
analysis of the top 100 universities in the Shanghai ranking.
Revista de Educación 364: 170–196.
Gayle, D.J., Tewarie, B., and White, J.A.Q. 2011. Governance in the
twenty-first-century university: Approaches to effective leader-
ship and strategic management: ASHE-ERIC. Higher Education
Report, San Francisco (California): Jossey-Bas.
Girotto, M., H.J. Mundet, and A.X. Linás. 2013. Estrategia en la
universidad: >cuestión de calidad, gerencialismo y relaciones
polı́tico-financieras? Revista de Educación 361: 95–116.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). 2011. Guı́a para la elaboración de
memorias de sostenibilidad. Available from: https://www.
globalreporting.org/rsourcelibrary/Spanish-Reporting-Guide
lines.pdf.
Gómez, V.M. 2004. Gobierno y gobernabilidad en las universidades
públicas. Available from: http://www.bdigital.unal.edu.co/1392/.
Harvey, L. 2004. Analytic quality glossary, quality reserach interna-
tional. Available from: http://www.qualityresearchinternational.
com/glosarry/.
Ho, C.K. 2005. Corporate governance and corporate competitiveness:
An international analysis. Corporate Governance: An Interna-
tional Review 13(2): 211–253.
Kehm, B. 2011. La gobernanza en la enseñanza superior. Barcelona:
Octaedro.
Y. Ramı́rez, Á. Tejada
Kezar, A.J., and P.D. Eckel. 2004. Meeting today’s governance
challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a
future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education
74(5): 371–399.
Lambert, R. 2003. Lambert review of business—University collab-
oration final report. Available from: http://www.hm-treasuty.
gov.uk/d/lambert_review_final_450.pdf.
Lapworth, S. 2004. Arresting decline in shared governance: Towards
a flexible model for academic participation. Higher Education
Quarterly 58(4): 299–314.
Leitner, K.H., Elena, S., Fazlagic, J., Kalemis, K., Marinaitis, Z.,
Secundo, G., Sicilia, M.A., and Zaksa, K. 2014. A strategic
approach for intellectual capital management in European
universities. Guidelines for Implementation, UEFISCDI Blue-
print Series.
Meléndez, M.A., P.C. Solı́s, and J.I. Gómez. 2010. Gobernanza y
gestión de la universidad pública. Revista de Ciencias Sociales
16(2): 210–225.
Minksová, L., and P. Pabian. 2011. Approaching students in higher
education governance: Introduction to the special issue. Tertiary
Education and Management 17(3): 183–189.
Mora, J.G., and Viera, M.J. 2007. Governance and organisational
change in higher education: Barriers and drivers for
entrepreneurialism. Available from: http://www.univnova.org/
documentos/noenred/156.pdf.
Nolan. 1995. Normas de la conducta para la vida pública. Available
from: http://www.inap.org.mx/portal/images/RAP/normas%
20de%20conducta%20para%20%20la%20vida%20publica.pdf.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
1997. In search of results: Performance management practices in
ten OECD countries, Paris: Public Management Committee,
OECD.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
2003. Educational policy analysis. Available from: http://www.
oecd.org/document/14/0,3746.em2649_39263231_17735886_1_
1_1_1,00.html.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
2005. Directrices sobre el gobierno corporativo de empresas
públicas. Available from: http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/
oecd_soe_en.pdf.
Samoilovich, D. 2008. Senderos de innovación. Respondiendo al
gobierno d elas universidades públicas en América Latina.
Tendencias de la educación superior en América Latina y el
Caribe. In Tendencias de la Educación Superior en América
Latina y el Caribe, eds. A. L. Gazzola and A. Didriksson,
319–379. Caracas: IESALC-UNESCO.
Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics,
policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Trakman, L. 2008. Modelling university governance. Higher Educa-
tion Quarterly 62(1/2): 63–83.
Vallés, J.M. 1996. Gobierno universitario: Entre la autogestión
estamental y la responsabilidad social. Gestión y Análisis de
Polı́ticas Públicas 5–6: 59–67.
Yolanda Ramı́rez Yolanda Ramı́rez is an assistant professor in the
Department of Accounting at the University of Castilla-La Mancha,
Spain. She has taught on the Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration since 1999. She completed her doctorate in Intellec-
tual Capital Management at the University of Castilla-La Mancha,
Spain. Her current research interests include intellectual capital,
knowledge management, non-profit management and quality man-
agement. Her research work is focused on methods and techniques for
building models of measuring and management intellectual capital in
Corporate governance of universities: improving transparency and accountability

the universities. Her work has been published in several international
academic journals and conference proceedings.
Ángel Tejada Ángel Tejada is Full Professor in Accounting at
University of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). He is Dean of the Faculty
of Economics and Business Administration of Albacete (Spain). His
current field of research and interest is focused on the development of
management systems in public and private organizations, the
implementation of environmental management systems and intellec-
tual capital reporting. He is member of several research groups related
to the economic and financial analysis of local public entities. Many
book chapters and publications in international journals and confer-
ence proceedings document his research activities.