Machine Translated by Google

Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation and Program Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan

Unveiling the link between performance and Intellectual Capital disclosure in the context of
Italian Public universities

b to b
Giuseppe Nicolo`a , *, Nicola Raimo , Paolo Tartaglia Polcini , Filippo Vitolla
to
Management and Innovation Systems Department, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italy
b
Department of Management, Finance and Technology, LUM Jean Monnet University, SS 100 Km 18, 7010 Casamassima, BA, Italy

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This work aims to explore the relationship between academic performance and voluntary Intellectual Capital (IC)
Intellectual Capital disclosure in the context of Italian Public Universities. This study applies a content analysis to investigate the extent of
university performance voluntary Intellectual Capital disclosure (ICD) provided through performance reports by a sample of 59 Italian public
Intellectual Capital Disclosure universities. Four multivariate regression models are estimated to examine the associations be-tween academic
Italian Public Universities
performance and the level of ICD and its sub-components, namely Human Capital, Structural Capital and Relational
Capital. The content analysis findings show that Italian public universities place a high value on disclosing human capital
information. The results based on the multivariate analysis confirmed the view that, in the case of higher performance,
Italian Public Universities tend to convey a greater extent of information on both IC and its sub-components. This study
broadens the scope of mainstream ICD literature's actions by bringing new expertise about the interconnections between
university performance and voluntary ICD provided via performance reports. Connecting university performance to ICD
can enhance the practical and theoretical understanding of the role that ICD may exert for universities to signal their
excellence and explain to stakeholders how they create value and achieve superior performance, focusing on their
strategic - IC-based
resources.

1.Introduction
As knowledge-intensive organizations whose main inputs and out-puts are primarily
based on the exploitation of immaterial resources (Pedro, Leitao, & Alves, 2019; Ramírez
˜ `
& Gordillo, 2014), universities can be deemed as the public sector entities which are
featured by the “highest degree of intangibility” (Secundo, Dumay, Schiuma, & Pas-siante,
2016, p. 300). For these reasons, IC represents the universities' cornerstone and the
pivotal factor that triggers value creation from institutional activities (Ramírez & Gordillo,
2014; Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017).
university performance. In the same way, academic ranking and national evaluation
bodies have been gradually implemented to evaluate and compare university performance
and promote merit-based criteria to allocate public funds (Kallio, Kallio, Tienari, & Hyvonen,
¨
2016; Nic-olo, 2020 ; ter Bogt & Scapens, 2012)
In this global “performance movement” (Marra, 2018, p. 175), universities have been
elicited to compete in the global arena to gain external financial resources and attract the
best students and researchers (Garde Sanchez, Rodríguez Bolívar, & Lopez Hernandez,
'
2021). In particular, high-skilled human resources are the most crucial levers that enable
universities to achieve maximum excellence in their missions

In recent years, a context of economic, political, technological and social change has
increasingly called on universities to increase their performance and expand their
accountability models to all stakeholders, taking particular attention to IC resources
( Ramirez, Tejada, & Man-zaneque, 2016 ; Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017; Sanchez, Elena, &
'
Castrillo, 2009).
Accreditation bodies and quality assurance systems for learning and teaching have
been put in place to enhance stakeholder confidence in
`
(Aversano, Nicolo, Manes- Sannino, & Polcini, 2020; Brusca, Cohen, 2019; Ramirez et
`
Rossi, & Nicolo, sites' pivotal al., 2016). As such, universal
attention has been steadily devoted to realizing their IC-based potential – focusing on
talented human resources - as a way to enhance their performance and their overall level
of competitiveness (Pedro et al., 2019; Ramirez et al., 2016; Ramirez, Merino, & Man-
zaneque, 2019). The outcomes of research and teaching activities and the ability to
produce and disseminate knowledge in ecosystems are the

* Corresponding author.
`
E-mail addresses: gnicolo@unisa.it (G. Nicolo), raimo@lum.it (N. Raimo), ptpolcini@unisa.it (PT Polcini), vitolla@lum.it (F. Vitolla).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101969
Received 22 January 2021; Received in revised form May 4, 2021; Accepted 8 May 2021
Available online 29 May 2021
0149-7189/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Machine Translated by Google
`
G. Nicolo et al.
IC's fundamental components that shape the university's performance.
So, they deserve primary ˜consideration (Bezhani, 2010; Cricelli, Greco,
Grimaldi, & Llanes Duenas, 2018; Ramírez & Gordillo, 2014).
Accordingly, the adoption of new management and reporting sys-tems -
including the value of IC resources - has become fundamental to both
enhance university internal decision-making processes and explain to
stakeholders how they create value (Low, Samkin, & Li, 2015; Manes Rossi
et al., 2018; Ramírez & Gordillo, 2014)
In particular, IC disclosure (ICD) has gained momentum for universities to evidence
patterns of excellence in their research and teaching activities and demonstrate their
commitment to ensure the growth of society's knowledge (Jongbloed, Enders, & Salerno,
2008; Ramirez et al ., 2016). According to Aversano et al. (2020, p. 659), “ICD allows a
shift in attention from financial to non-financial elements related to IC resources that are
deemed strategic drivers of PSOs' performance and whose information is fundamental to
any university stakeholder.”
However, traditional accounting systems fail to display the value of IC properly. Except
for Austria, there is a shortage of obligations or recommendations from policymakers and
regulators, spurring universities to prepare reports on IC performance (Aversano et al.,
2020; Ramírez & Gordillo, 2014; Ramirez et al., 2016). For these reasons, as advocated
by Nicolo, Manes-Rossi, Christiaens, and Aversano (2020, p. 2), the contribution of IC
`
resources to improving the overall performance of universities often remains “undiscussed
and hidden”. Este
furthers the need to increase the levels of voluntary ICD, also using
alternative communication tools to traditional annual reports, to aiding the
understanding of the value of IC and unlocking the links between ICD and
performance (Aversano et al., 2020; Brusca et al. , 2019; Cricelli et al., 2018;
Pedro et al., 2019; Ramirez et al., 2016, 2019).
However, as the pathway to ICD research in the academic setting evolves
quickly (eg Bezhani, 2010; Low et al., 2015; Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo
`
et al., 2020; Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017), there is still much to learn about the
impact that academic performance can exert on ICD practices. Previous
studies mainly focused on assessing the level of ICD conveyed by universities
through different communication tools such as annual reports, social reports
and websites, while the possible connec-tions between ICD and academic
performance are still largely neglected (Brusca et al., 2019) .
To address this gap - drawing upon the stakeholder theory lens - this
study –intends to extend the knowledge of IC in the university sector, digging
to light the relationship between academic performance and voluntary ICD
in the context of Italian Public universities.
To assess the level of voluntary ICD, a manual content analysis on
performance reports drafted by a sample of 59 Italian Public universities for
the year 2017 is conducted. Introduced by the Legislative Decree n.150/2009,
the performance report represents an instrument for improving public sector
entities' management and accountability practices. In particular, it allows to
give an account to all stakeholders on the results achieved during the year
and explain any deviations of the same results from the planned objectives
(Presidenza del Consiglio dei Min-istri (PdC), 2018). Attuned, following the
Legislative Decree n.150/2009, public sector entities – including universities
– have been prompted to devote particular attention to their IC resources by
asso-ciating “objectives to indicators, intangible resources to tangible
indicators and indicators to targets ” in their strategic map (CIVIT, Resolution
no. 89/2010 p. 8) and communicating the IC-based strategy inside and
outside the organization (Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017). Within the strategic
map, “the use of typical intellectual capital indicators fa-cilitates the
understanding, even towards the outside, both of the quality and quantity of
available human capital” (CIVIT, Resolution no. 112/2010, par. 3.4.2 , p. 16).
This makes Italy an ideal context to investigate the links between ICD
performance and performance.
After that, four multivariate regression models are estimated to examine
the association between academic performance and the level of voluntary
ICD and its sub-components (Human Capital Disclosure –
HCD; Structural Capital Disclosure – SCD; and; Relational Capital
2
Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
Disclosure – RCD). The effect of five control variables: board size and board
independence; internet visibility; size; and age, is also tested to provide
further insights about the possible determinants of ICD.
Accordingly, this study attempts to make a two-fold contribution to the
ICD literature in the university realm. Firstly, it broadens the scope of previous
research actions, mainly descriptive in nature and only focused on examining
ICD patterns, by presenting fresh knowledge provided about the
interconnections between academic performance and ICD via performance
reports. Connecting university performance to ICD can enhance the practical
and theoretical understanding of the role that ICD may exert in signaling
university excellence and evidencing how they are correctly developing and
managing IC re-sources to increase academic performance and enhance
the value creation process for the entire ecosystem. Secondly, this study
also provides a glimpse into possible associations between university
performance and the individual components of ICD, like HCD, RCD and
SCD. Previous studies have evidenced different behaviors adopted by
universities in disclosing the different IC components, with a prevalence for
human and internal capital. Accordingly, disentangling the links between
performance and disclosure of individual IC components may enhance un-
understanding of the role that higher or lesser levels of performance can
exert in influencing such disclosure behaviors.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section,
a review of relevant literature is presented. The third section out-lines the
theoretical framework and discusses the hypotheses formulated in light of
the literature. The fourth section explains the research methodology applied,
while the fifth section is devoted to the illustration and discussion of research
findings. Last, the sixth section presents conclusions, implications, limitations
and suggests future ICD research paths in universities.
2. Literature review
Universities are complex organizations mainly devoted to producing,
applying, and disseminating knowledge-based outcomes and outputs
`
(Aversano et al., 2020; Nicolo et al., 2020; Secundo et al., 2016). Their most
relevant resources include their bundle of researchers, lecturers,
administrative staff, governors, students and alumni, together with their
competencies, skills, routines and relationships (Pedro et al., 2019; Ramírez
& Gordillo, 2014). Therefore, intangibles permeate all university-sity
processes and activities (Brusca et al., 2019; de Matos Pedro, Alves, & Leit˜
ao, 2020; Pedro et al., 2019).
When applied in the higher education context, IC can be conceived as
“the amount of non-physical resources, available internally and exter-nally,
for combining the organization's tangible, human and financial resources, in
order to produce value for stakeholders and obtain a sustainable competitive
advantage” (Secundo, Elena-Perez, Martinaitis, & Leitner, 2015, p. 4).
University IC can be grouped into three capitals, namely: 1) Human Capital;
2) Structural Capital; 3) Relational Capital, whose holistic combination allows
universities to create value that goes beyond the organizational boundaries,
embracing the entire ecosystem in which they operate (Aversano et al.,
2020; Brusca et al., 2019; Lombardi, Massaro, Dumay, & Nappo, 2019).
The Human capital comprises the batch of knowledge, experiences,
cognitive abilities, capabilities and skills held by all the human resources (eg
lecturers, researchers, students, PhDs, administrative staff, governors and
managers) involved in university processes.
The Structural Capital represents the institution's explicit knowledge,
mobilized through the internal processes of production and management of
scientific and technical research and codified within organizational routines,
governance principles, information systems, databases, in-novations,
intellectual property, and other technological resources.
The Relational Capital includes the sum of the relationships, part-
nerships, collaborations and networks established between universities and
external stakeholders such as private firms, research centres, local, national
and supra-national governments, non-profit organizations and
Machine Translated by Google
` Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
G. Nicolo et al.
society. It also embeds the external stakeholders' perceptions which mold
universities' image and reputation (Aversano et al., 2020; Brusca et al., 2019;
`
Nicolo et al., 2020; Ramírez & Gordillo, 2014; Ramirez et al., 2016) .
Since the' 90s, the Higher Education sector has been affected by a series
of changes directed by the wake of new Knowledge-Economy, New Public
Management (NPM) and Bologna Process, which - aimed at increasing
university performance and accountability towards stake- holders - have
dramatically affected their mission, philosophy, structure, governance and
accounting systems (Marra, 2018; Dal Molin, Turri, & Agasisti, 2017; Nicolo et
`
al., 2020; Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017).
Following the rise of the new Knowledge-Economy, universities have been
propelled to broaden their scope of actions, taking the pivotal role of catalysts
of knowledge and crucial drivers of the global socio-economic growth,
competitiveness and wealth creation (Vorely & Nelles, 2008 ; Lombardi et al.,
2019). As argued by Welch (2011, p. 4), “higher education is universally
recognized as a key pillar in con-structing the new knowledge economies of
the twenty-first century.”
Accordingly, universities have been increasingly asked to demonstrate their
commitment to knowledge society's growth in keeping with the third mission
paradigms. Attuned, they have been called upon to shape their teaching and
research activities to improve the global economy's innovative and technological
`
capacities (Jongbloed et al., 2008; Nicolo, 2020; Vorely & Nelles, 2008).
Furthermore, NPM policies have promoted a managerialist approach to
university processes (Dal Molin et al., 2017; Marra, 2018; Parker, 2011).
National governments have given universities greater organizational and
financial autonomy, accompanied by strict budgetary constraints.
New performance measurement models to assess academic results have
been introduced (Dal Molin et al., 2017; Kallio et al., 2016; Marra, 2018;
Parker, 2011). Under the NPM paradigm, a culture of performance evaluation
was instilled to enhance public spending and policies' effi-ciency and ensure
public sector entities' to meet better social needs and expectations (Marra,
2007, 2018). It is also a policy instrument to pro-mote change, innovation,
and knowledge development across all public sector dimensions (Marra, 2007).
Accordingly, value for money, marketisation, cost control, efficiency and
effectiveness in service delivery and emphasis on high-quality research and
teaching outcomes have become the backbone of the NPM-based university
context in which the performance evaluation and accountability constitute the
main pillars ( Kallio et al., 2016; Parker, 2011; ter Bogt & Scapens, 2012). At
the same, the route towards the Bologna process - aimed at harmonizing the
different European Higher education systems and improving the quality of
learning and research activities - has promoted higher standards of
comparability, inter-nationality and competitiveness between universities
(Ramirez et al., 2016; Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017). This paid the way for creating
a global market of high-skilled students and researchers (Brusca et al., 2019;
Nicolo, 2020; Ramirez et al., 2016).
`
These changes' combined effect has encouraged universities to achieve
better levels of excellence and performance in all areas. In such a way, it
becomes necessary to develop proper management and reporting systems
that allow universities to mobilize and operationalize their IC potential and
increase transparency and accountability towards stake-holders (Ramírez &
Gordillo, 2014; Ramirez et al., 2016; Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017). The correct
management and reporting of IC-based per-formance have also become
necessary instruments for universities to compete at an international level,
preserve their financial and organizational autonomy and ultimately meet the
needs of the society at large (Cricelli et al., 2018; Ramirez et al., 2016;
Secundo et al., 2015).
However, as Ramirez et al. (2016, p. 179) advocated, “accountability in
the public sector has traditionally been somewhat short-sighted.” Due to their
institutional objectives and the public resources obtained, uni-versities have a
broader accountability obligation than other entities in terms of what is reported
and why (Coy, Fischer, & Gordon, 2001, p. 13).
In particular, in the university context, the accountability concept is
3
linked to the university managers and governors' responsibility to conduct
institutional activities in the society's interest attuned with reporting and
explaining to stakeholders how they have managed governmental resources
to such ends (Coy & Pratt, 1998; Del Sordo, Farneti, Guthrie, Pazzi, & Siboni,
2016).
However, traditional reporting tools mainly focus on financial and budgetary
information while neglecting the value of non-financial re-sources which drive
value creation, such as IC (Ramirez et al., 2016; Manes Rossi et al., 2018;
Salvi, Vitolla , Giakoumelou, Raimo, & Rubino, 2020). This makes universities
unable to realize their IC resources' potential fully and correctly address
stakeholders' information needs (Ramírez & Gordillo, 2014; Sangiorgi & Siboni,
'
2017; Sanchez et al., 2009).
As a result, worldwide, several initiatives and projects – driven by regulatory
bodies, academic institutions and agencies – have been put in place to supply
to the inadequacy of traditional accounting systems and enable universities to
correctly visualize, managing and accounting for their strategic value creation
sources (Bezhani, 2010; Ramirez et al., 2016; Sanchez & Elena, 2006).
'
However, only Austria has made a ground-breaking step in the IC reporting
agenda, when - in 2002 – has released the new University Law (Austrian
University Organization and Studies Act (UG), 2002) inspired by the NPM
paradigms of autonomy, accountability , value for money, performance
orientation, efficiency and effectiveness of processes (Bezhani, 2010;
Habersam, Piber, & Skoog, 2013; Leitner, Schaffhauser-Linzatti, Stowasser,
& Wagner, 2005). According to the UG 2002, Austrian Universities were
mandated to prepare an IC report (Wissenbilanz) since 2007. Based on a
performance-oriented approach, the Austrian IC report allows users to visualize
how universities exploit the potential of their IC resources to 1) enhance the
performance of their core processes (eg education; research; training;
commercialization of research etc.); 2) produces positive impacts on the
ecosystem of stakeholders; and, ultimately, 3) achieve both political and
organizational goals (Habersam et al., 2013; Sanchez & Elena, 2006).
'
However, while this experience confirmed that “the efficient use of IC is
essential for a university's performance” (Leitner et al., 2005, p. 529) and
stakeholders' accountability, Austria still rep-resents the only case IC report is
mandatory. As such, the disclosure of IC information remains a prevalently
voluntary practice.
In this wake, in recent years, a research agenda on ICD in the Higher
Education context is matured, aimed at examining voluntary practices of ICD
through different communication tools.
One research strand focused on traditional annual reports searching for
complementary non-financial information on university IC resources (Bezhani, 2010; Low
`
et al., 2015; Nicolo et al., 2020). Drawing on a sample of 30 UK universities, Bezhani
(2010) observed that universities largely neglect IC information in their annual reports as
a lower awareness of IC relevance exists. He also noted that prevalent attention is
devoted to Research, Human and Relational Capital among IC information disclosed.
Low et al. (2015) conducted a comparative analysis on a sample composed of 90
universities from three different countries New Zealand, Australia and the UK. They found
that New Zealand and Australian universities provided a wider extent of IC information
than UK ones and that Internal and Human Capital were the most IC disclosed categories.
In the same way, using a sample of 60 Italian Public universities, Nicolo et al. (2020)
observed a focus on Human and Internal Capital disclosure and identified board
independence and university size as determinants of the level of ICD.
`
Another strand of research originated from the limited ICD disclo-sure
level detected by scholars via annual reports, and the consequent need to
explore other potential forms of reporting may allow over-coming annual
reports limitations.
Accordingly, Siboni, Nardo, and Sangiorgi (2013) analyzed 44 Italian public
Universities' performance plans, observing a fair focus on IC items with a
prevalence for discussing aspects linked to developing re-lationships with
external partners. Sangiorgi and Siboni (2017) focused on a sample of 17
voluntary Social Reports drafted by Italian
Machine Translated by Google

` Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969

G. Nicolo et al.

universities. They found a medium level of ICD with a predominance of
information on Structural Capital. Likewise, Aversano et al. (2020) found a
medium level of ICD conveyed by Italian Public Universities via three years
Integrated Plans coupled with a focus on Human and Structural Capital.
`
Last, Nicolo (2020) analyzed a sample of Italian Universities' performance
reports, finding a prevalent attitude towards disclosing information on
Human Capital.
An emerging body of literature has devoted attention to the package of
information and communications technologies (ICT) that universities may
exploit to convey IC information to stakeholders in a more accessible,
`
transparent and timelier manner. Therefore, Manes Rossi, Nicolo, and
Tartaglia Polcini (2018)' s study revealed a massive use of websites by
Italian universities to convey information on IC resources, with a particular
attention to Human and Internal Capital. The study also un-covered a
positive association between university internationality and online visibility
and ICD. Along the same lines, Ramirez et al. (2019) investigated a sample
of 50 websites of Spanish universities, detecting a prevalence towards
Human Capital disclosure and a positive influence exerted by both university
size and internationality on the level of online ICD. Furthermore, Ramirez
et al. (2019) have examined both websites and social media of Spanish
public universities, finding that the quality of ICD is low, especially regarding
Relational Capital. They also observed that larger and more internationally
focused Spanish public universities tend to disseminate more IC information.
Last, Brusca et al. (2019) carried out a comparative analysis on a sample
of 128 universities coming from Greece, Italy and Spain. They observed
that the level of ICD provided among the different countries is barely uniform
and that Human and Internal capital information are more disclosed than
those pertaining to Relation Capital. Furthermore, they found a positive
correlation between the overall level of online ICD and Webometrics
ranking.
Therefore, the literature review shows evidence that existing research mainly deals
with investigating the extent and quality of ICD through different reporting forms. Studies
examining the potential de-terminants of ICD mainly focused on universities' general
characteristics linked to dimensional, financial and governance variables and rarely
investigated the potential determinants of the individual ICD components (HCD, SCD,
RCD). Furthermore, except for Brusca et al. (2019), little is known about the impact that
academic performance may exert on both the overall and individual levels of ICD.
Accordingly, this study intends to fill existing gaps, providing a two-
fold contribution to ICD literature.
Firstly, this study presents new knowledge about the possible impact of
academic performance on ICD Italian Public Universities' level via
Performance Reports. In such a way, this study evaluates whether
universities ranked better tend to provide more information on their IC resources. universities, the higher the level of ICD that universities are expected to
Secondly, the study also unveils the links between academic performance
and the disclosure related to IC's components, like Human Capital,
Structural Capital and Relational Capital, using different multivariate
regression models. This second analysis allows us to examine if some IC
categories tend to be privileged in disclosure practices as university
performance drivers.
Therefore, we set two research questions:
1) What is the association between academic performance and ICD?
2) What are the links between academic performance and individual
ICD components?
3. Theoretical background and hypotheses development
Hypotheses development is informed by the lens of stakeholder theory.
Stakeholder theory provides a glimpse into multiple layers which
characterizes the relationships between an organization and the forum of
actors which are interested in and are likely to affect its goals and
performance, namely stakeholders (Garde Sanchez et al., 2021; Manes-
`
Rossi, Nicolo , Tiron Tudor, & Zanellato, 2020; Michelon & Par-bonetti,
2012; Ntim, Soobaroyen, & Broad, 2017).
Compared to the private sector, public sector entities are expected to
be more accountable for their actions with multiple stakeholders, as they
use public financial resources and are subject to massive social and political
pressures to fulfill their duties effectively and efficiently (Jongbloed et al.,
2008; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020; Ntim et al., 2017).
Stakeholders are interested in receiving information spanning from financial
to non-financial universities' performance dimensions (Garde Sanchez et
al., 2021).
Public universities mainly rely on public funds to deliver knowledge-based services
in students' interest and society at large. Furthermore, prompted by recent social,
economic and political changes, they have been increasingly called to provide their
excellence and highlight their performance (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Sangiorgi & Siboni,
2017; Sanchez et al., 2009). Given these arguments, public universities can be considered
'
engaged in a social contract with the community of stake-holders involved and interested
in their activities (eg students, re-searchers, research centres, citizens, enterprises,
governments and other public institutions). Accordingly, they are expected to both make
de-cisions and provide information which explains to stakeholder how they are creating
value and fostering socio and economic development in line with their expectations
(Jongbloed et al., 2008; Ntim et al., 2017; Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo, 2020). To
this end, voluntary information, which spans from financial to non-financial resources
such as IC, is fundamental to meet social and political demands and satisfy the different
`
stakeholders' needs (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo, 2020; Ramírez & Tejada, 2019).
`
IC simultaneously constitutes both the central mission and universities'
performance (Secundo et al., 2016). Universities have a wide spectrum of
objectives and develop different IC-based activities that determine their
performance (Bezhani, 2010). Accordingly, their per-formance largely
depends on correctly managing and developing their knowledge assets –
such as researchers, students, database, information systems, etc. – in
fulfilling their three missions. As such, universities' performance will be
assessed by evaluating the IC components related to three missions: (1)
the ability to produce and transmit knowledge to students; (2) the capability
to apply knowledge to perform research; (3) the capability to promote social
engagement and develop technology transfer and innovation activities,
which creates positive effects in the broader ecosystem (Cricelli et al.,
2018; de Matos Pedro et al., 2020; Secundo et al., 2016).
Considering the scenario of reforms inspired by NPM and the Bologna
Process, information on performance and its drivers has become pivotal to
a wide range of university stakeholders (Brusca et al., 2019; Ramírez &
Gordillo, 2014). In particular, the higher the performance achieved by
provide, which allows these institutions to signal their excellence and to
reduce the information asymmetry gap with their stakeholders about the
role that critical IC-based resources play in driving their performance
(Aversano et al., 2020; Brusca et al., 2019).
Furthermore, in the case of high performance, ICD can facilitate the
presentation of results in terms of teaching results and third mission
activities, enhancing the competitiveness of universities and increasing the
possibility of raising more funds from national governments and private
investors, to the detriment of other lower-performing competitors (Ramírez
& Gordillo, 2014; Ramirez et al., 2016).
Following previous research (Brusca et al., 2019; Wu, Chen, Chen, &
Zhuo, 2012), this study employs academic ranking as a proxy of university
performance.
Academic rankings have become increasingly popular among
policymakers, governments, and institutions, who use them as tools to
compare higher education productivity and performance globally (de Matos
Pedro et al., 2020; Hazelkorn, 2014). They are “a metric that aims to show
the stock and the creation of IC” (Brusca et al., 2019, p. 3), playing a
fundamental role in shaping the academic environment and the performance
measurement of universities (Urdari, Farcas, & Tiron-Tudor, 2017). They
may also be valid instruments that

4
Machine Translated by Google
` Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
G. Nicolo et al.
Universities can use to encourage more students and researchers worldwide and improve
academic standing (Brusca et al., 2019; Garde Sanchez et al., 2021; Urdari et al., 2017).
In this sense, university rankings provide an index of the higher education system's
quality and allow stakeholders to evaluate universities' reputation and their level of
competitive advantage in areas such as student attraction and continued government
financial support (Garde Sanchez et al., 2021 ).
From an empirical perspective, while Garde Sanchez et al. (2021) found a positive
relationship between university ranking position and Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR) disclosure, the relationship be-tween university performance and ICD is still under-
investigated. Cri-celli et al. (2018) investigated 31 Colombian public universities' sample
to assess the relationship between IC and their overall performance.
They found that the top-class universities in terms of performance were also those with
higher IC levels, while the last-class universities in terms of performance suffered from a
lack of several IC resources. by Matos Pedro et al. (2020) investigated a sample of 738
students and 587 lecturers/researchers from seven Portuguese public universities,
detecting a positive relationship between structural, relational capital and university
performance. Last, Brusca et al. (2019) found a positive correlation between the IC web
disclosure level of a sample of universities from Mediterranean countries and Webometrics
ranking.
Therefore, based on the above discussion, a positive association be-tween academic
performance and both the overall and the individual levels of ICD is expected.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. There is a positive relationship between university performance and the level of ICD.
H1a. There is a positive relationship between university performance and the level of HCD.
H1b. There is a positive relationship between university performance and the level of SCD.
H1c. There is a positive relationship between university performance and the level of RCD.
4. Research methodology
4.1. Research context and sampling process
The research focused on the Italian context. Italy represents a rele-vant actor in the
global pursuit of the NPM agenda, as its public sector has been involved in a long season
of reforms that have significantly affected the University system (Marra, 2018). Since
1989, a journey towards the increase in universities' organizational and financial autonomy
is matured by adopting several reforms by the central government that have attempted
to modify the higher education sector's bureaucratic structure. A performance-focused
culture has been gradually instilled, driven by objectives and strategies, together with the
implementation of business-like governance structures. Particular emphasis has been
devoted to developing internal quality assurance processes and external accreditation
systems of university sites and courses (Law n.240/2010; Legislative Decree n.19/2012).
Attuned, merit-based funding systems which link the provision of public financial resources
to the performance achieved in terms of research and teaching results have been
increasingly adopted under the aegis of the Italian National Agency for the Evaluation of
the University and Research Systems (ANVUR) (Marra, 2018; Nicolo, 2020). This makes
the Italian university system ideal for conducting ICD research and exploring possible
connections with performance.
` n
Given these premises, the sampling process started by considering all the Italian
Public Universities' entities (67) by the Italian Law. However, the four high schools and
the three High Education Centers were excluded due to their peculiar organizational
structures, educational offers and vocation, making them incomparable. Moreover, due to
the
5
lack of data, another university was deleted from the sample.
This skimming led to the definition of the final sample consisting of
59 Italian Public Universities.
4.2. Dependent variables: development of ICD indexes
Once we identified the sample, a content analysis was conducted on university
performance reports prepared for the year 2017 to determine to what extent selected
Italian Public universities provide voluntary information on IC. 2017 was the most recent
year that allows to retrieve the largest number of performance reports and capture the
highest number of observations (59 universities).
Content analysis is a research method of “coding the text (or content) of a piece of
writing into various groups or categories depending on the selected criteria. Following
coding, quantitative scales are derived to allow further analysis” (Michelon & Parbonetti,
2012, p.
489). It was selected as it is the most popular research method in ICD studies, allowing
researchers to derive patterns and disclosure trends from publicly available data in a
reliable, objective, and systematic manner (Low et al., 2015; Manes Rossi et al., 2018;
Ramirez et al., 2019).
To limit the level of abstraction and enhance the study's reliability and consistency, a
categorization scheme – adapted from the main-stream ICD literature in the university
context – was used as a basis for the content analysis. In doing so; first, the disclosure
checklists adopted by several studies investigating ICD in universities were referred to as
a starting point (Aversano et al., 2020; Low et al., 2015; Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo,
2020; Nicolo et al. ., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2019). Second, a pilot study was conducted
` `
with a sample of 5 performance reports to test the suitability of the different frameworks
and identify the items deemed to be more relevant to deal with the reporting tool's
peculiarities (per-formance report), and context (Italian Public University sector) analyzed.
This process led to the identification of a final list of 29 items, grouped in three
traditional IC categories – Human Capital (8 items), Structural Capital (10 items) and
Relational Capital (11 items) – as shown in Table 1.
Four unweighted disclosure indexes have been developed based on the disclosure
checklist to quantify and operationalize the information collected via content analysis,
representing this study's dependent variables. To this aim, performance reports have
been manually content analyzed by following a dichotomous approach. According to this
approach, a score of one was assigned if the IC item was disclosed on the document, and
a score of zero was attributed otherwise. This approach allows minimizing potential biases
arising from the arbitrary assignment of different weights to the different items included in
the checklist as it attributes the same relevance to all of them (Aversano et al., 2020;
Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo et al., 2020; al., 2020).
`
In keeping with this procedure, a set of disclosure indexes, one capturing the overall
level of ICD, and three examining the level of disclosure of individual IC categories, have
been estimated as follows:
ÿmi=1 gave
ICDI =
m
Where d = 1 if the item was disclosed and 0 otherwise; m = maximum
number of items a university may disclose (29 items).
ÿn i=1 gave
HCDI =
Where d = 1 if the item was disclosed and 0 otherwise; n = maximum
number of items a university may disclose in the human capital sub-category (8 items).
ÿk gave
i=
SCDI =
1k
Machine Translated by Google

`
G. Nicolo et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969

Table 1 HCDI = ÿ0 + ÿ1 (University performance) + ÿ2 (Internet visibility) + ÿ3

Intellectual Capital disclosure checklist. (Board size) + ÿ4 (Board independence) + ÿ5 (University Size) + ÿ6 (Uni-(2)
Human Capital Structural Capital Relational Capital versity Age) + ÿi;
1 PhD students' 1 University culture 1 Students information
information SCDI = ÿ0 + ÿ1 (University performance) + ÿ2 (Internet visibility) + ÿ3
2 PhD students' courses 2 Management 2 Graduate students (Board size) + ÿ4 (Board independence) + ÿ5 (University Size) + ÿ6 (Uni-(3)
information information
philosophy versity Age) + ÿi;
3 Research fellows 3 Regional research 3 Students satisfaction
information projects RCDI = ÿ0 + ÿ1 (University performance) + ÿ2 (Internet visibility) + ÿ3
4 Teaching staff 4 National research 4 International
(Board size) + ÿ4 (Board independence) + ÿ5 (University Size) + ÿ6 (Uni-
information projects programs for students' mobility
versity Age) + ÿi, (4)
5 Administrative staff 5 Infrastructure 5 International students
information facilities
Where, ICDI, HCDI, SCDI and RCDI represent the dependent variables.
6 Recruitment and 6 Infrastructural ICT 6 Post-graduation, higher
turnover and policies for research education and University performance represents the main independent variable and has
specialization been measured using the CENSIS (Social investment study center - Centro
programs
7 Infrastructural ICT
Studi Investimenti Sociali) ranking composite indicators.
7 Training programs for 7 University third mission - spin-off
administrative staff for education The CENSIS ranking attributes a comprehensive score to each Italian university
performance, based on the evaluation of the quality of several university
8 Training programs for 8 Intellectual property as 8 University third mission - activities and structures involved in the three missions, such as: overall
researchers and patent rights start-up
services provided to students; scholarships and other interventions for
professors
students; teaching and research facilities and equipment, communication and
9 Intellectual property as 9 University third mission – research
publications consortia and digital services; and, level of internationalization.
cluster The final score, attributed by CENSIS to each university, ranges from a
10 European and 11 University third mission – social minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100 and is the average score of the results
International engagement and community
obtained by each university for each kind of aspect evaluated.
research projects involvement
12 University third mission –
This ranking was selected because it addresses explicitly Italian Public
partnerships and universities and provides publicly available data, which allows a comprehensive
collaboration evaluation of universities performance, taking into account several crucial
aspects.
Adapted from Aversano et al. (2020); Low et al. (2015); Manes Rossi et al. (2018); In addition, five control variables that are likely to affect the proposed
` `
Ramirez et al. (2019); Nicolo (2020); Nicolo et al. (2020).
relationships were added to strengthen the regression models' accuracy and
goodness and provide further insights.
Where d = 1 if the item was disclosed and 0 otherwise; k = Internet visibility was calculated as the logarithm of the search results in
maximum number of items a university may disclose in the structural “google.com” in which the university appeared in the last year (Manes Rossi
capital sub-category (10 items). et al., 2018). The recent widespread of digital web-based technologies has
ÿl i=1 gave conferred a higher degree of visibility to universities, increasing, in turn, the
RCDI = degree of scrutiny of stakeholders and their re-quests for a higher level of
l
transparency and accountability. From the standpoint of stakeholder theory,
Where d = 1 if the item was disclosed and 0 otherwise; the higher the Internet visibility and the attention received from stakeholders,
l = maximum number of items a university may disclose in the relational the higher the level of disclosure that universities are expected to provide to
capital sub-category (11 items). mitigate their pressures and meet their expectations (Manes Rossi et al.,
Several measures have been adopted to ensure the reliability and validity 2018). Board size was proxied by the number of university board members
of the coding process. Firstly, after defining the final list of items, two coders (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2019). From the
`
analyzed a sample of 5 performance reports separately. This step allows perspective of stakeholder theory, larger governing boards, due to the presence
coders to familiarize themselves with reports and define a set of specified of a heightened stock of skills and competencies, are deemed capable of
coding rules. Secondly, another exercise on a sample of other five performance representing and managing the interests of the several stakeholder groups
reports was repeated by coders to clarify any gray areas and minimize involved in universities' activities by promoting the dissemina-tion of a higher
discrepancies. level of disclosure on IC resources (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Ntim et al.,
Thirdly, after these exercises, a sample of 10 performance reports was 2017). However, some scholars noted how coordination and communication
analyzed by the coders. Krippendorff's alpha was estimated using an SPSS problems might arise beyond a certain numerical threshold, resulting in slower
macro which gave a degree of agreement above the minimum threshold of decision-making processes and lower disclosure levels (Cerbioni & Parbonetti,
acceptance of 0.8 (Krippendorff, 2004). Afterwards, the coders continued the 2007; Nicolo et al., 2020). Board independence was calculated as the
`
analysis of the remaining documents. proportion of independent/external members out of the total board members
(Cerbioni & Parbonetti, 2007; Nicolo et al., 2020; Ntim et al., 2017).
Independent board members are external referees with significant expertise
4.3. Empirical models specification and independent variables `
and professional reputationsto defend; they are not involved in internal
management activities (García-S´ anchez, Raimo, & Vitolla, 2020; Raimo,
Four multivariate regression models were employed to test the hypotheses
Ricciardelli, Rubino, & Vitolla, 2020; Vitolla, Raimo, Marrone, & Rubino, 2020).
and assess the extent to which university performance affects the level of
Accordingly, they are in a better position to exert more robust control over
comprehensive ICD (ICDI) and its sub-components: Human Capital (HCDI); managerial and board decisions, ensuring equity in decision-making processes
Structural Capital (SCDI) and Relational Capital (RCDI).
and stimulating, in turn, higher levels of ICD (Cerbioni & Parbonetti, 2007; Li,
The following equation reflects the regression models proposed by this
Pike, & Haniffa, 2008; Nicolo et al., 2020). University size was proxied by the
study:
natural logarithm of students' number (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Ramirez et
`
ICDI = ÿ0 + ÿ1 (University performance) + ÿ2 (Internet visibility) + ÿ3 al., 2019). Larger
(Board size) + ÿ4 (Board independence) + ÿ5 (University Size) + ÿ6 (Uni-(1)
versity Age) + ÿi;

6
Machine Translated by Google

`
G. Nicolo et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969

Universities are subject to higher social and political pressures to account for their
performance due to their public mission and the higher number of stakeholders they are
responsible to (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo et al., 2020; Ramirez et al. ., 2019).
`
Accordingly, the larger the university, the higher the number of stakeholders who ask for
more information about value creation processes and IC resources (Manes Rossi et al.,
2018; Nicolo et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2019). Last, age was calculated as the natural
`
logarithm of the number of years since the university foundation year (Manes Rossi et al.,
2018; Ramirez et al., 2019). According to Ismail and Bakar (2011), older universities,
which have been instituted for many years, tend to disclose more information than new
universities because of their greater knowledge of processes, consolidated routines and
the solid relationships established with the stakeholders. Furthermore, well-established
universities may tend to convey a higher amount of ICD to signal stakeholders their good
per-formance, improve their reputation and increase the likelihood of gaining financial
resources from national governments and external actors engaged in third mission
activities.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
Table 2 shows the results of the descriptive statistics for both dependent, independent
and control variables, showing the minimum, maximum and mean values and the
standard deviation.
The results summarized in Table 2 highlight that the extent of ICDI spans
from a score of 0.03 to 0.83 with an average value of 0.44 and a standard
deviation of 0.19. Accordingly, on average, each sampled Italian Public
university discloses almost 13 IC items out of 29 via per-formance reports.
Human Capital is the most-disclosed category (0.53), while Structural Capital
is the least-disclosed category (0.32).
These results are consistent with previous studies (Aversano et al.,
2020;Low et al., 2015; Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Ramirez et al., 2019;
Ramírez & Tejada, 2019) who observed a prevalence for disclosing in
-formation on Human Capital. Human Capital, including researchers,
lecturers, administrative staff, governors, students and alumni, represents
the mainstay of university IC and the carrier engine that shapes their value
creation processes and drives their performance. The larger part of
universities' investments is focused on recruiting, developing and training
research and human resources. As such, Human Capital disclosure is
fundamental to discharge accountability about the pivotal resources involved
in universities' value creation processes (Aversano et al., 2020; Nicolo, 2020;
` '
Sanchez & Elena, 2006). In keeping with the Italian system of financial
resources allocation (FFO) to public universities, the disclosure of information
of Human Capital assumes crucial relevance to facilitate the presentation of
research and teaching results driven by human resources and streamline
the task of national evaluation. tion agencies; this, in turn, increases the
possibility to gain more financial resources (Aversano et al., 2020; Manes
Rossi et al., 2018;
Ramirez et al., 2016). Also, in the light of the emerging of the third mission,
universities are increasingly investing in nurturing and valuing their Human
Capital as a strategic source of innovation, diversification and
internationalization of teaching and research activities. This makes Human
Capital disclosure pivotal to support third mission strategies, promote an
international image of universities and enhance stakeholders' engagement
in terms of technology transfer, collaborations and partnerships with private
firms (Aversano et al., 2020; Lom-bardi et al., 2019).
About independent and control variables, University performance shows
an average value of 83.71 with a minimum of 69.2 and a maximum of 99.4.
Internet visibility produces a minimum of 9.67 and a maximum of 16.21 with
a mean value of 13.08. As regards governance variables – according to the
Law n. 240/2010 – the board is composed of a maximum of 11 members
with a minimum of 7 and an average of about 10 members. The minimum
independence degree is of 11% of the board with a maximum of 55% and
an average of 25%. Last, size values range from a minimum of 6.86 to a
maximum of 11.51 with an average value of 9.80 while age spans from 2.89
to 6.96 with a mean value of 4.77 (Table 2).
Table 3 presents the Pearson correlation matrix for the dependent and
independent variables. Except for the relationships between dependent
variables - separately tested in different regression models - all of the
correlation values are lower than the critical threshold of 0.8, indicating no
severe multicollinearity problems (Li et al., 2008; Manes Rossi et al., 2018) .
A strong positive and significant correlation between dependent variables
(ICDI; HCDI; SCDI; and RCDI) and university performance (p <
0.01) is detected. Also, a positive and significant association between board
independence and both SCDI and RCDI is observed (p < 0.05).
Furthermore, age is positively correlated with: ICDI; HCDI; university per-
formance; and, Internet visibility at the 0.05 level; and with size at the 0.01
level. Last, a positive and significant correlation between size and both
Internet visibility (p < 0.01) and board size (p < 0.01) is found.
5.2. Multivariate analysis
Tables 4–7 illustrate the results of the multivariate regression models
estimated to test the hypotheses.
All the models displayed significant goodness-of-fit test statistics as they
are all statistically significant at 1% level and present an adequate explanatory
power.
The assumptions underlying the regression models have been tested for
multicollinearity (variance influence factor (VIF); heteroscedasticity (Breusch–
Pagan test); and errors normality issues (OLS Model Normality test). All the
VIFs were tested well below the critical threshold of 10 , thus indicating no
multicollinearity problems. Breusch-Pagan's hetero-scedasticity test provided
p-values that were not significant, thus elim-inating heteroscedasticity
problems. Furthermore, the test results for the normality of residuals
evidenced that the errors were distributed normally.

Table 2 All the models highlight a positive and statistically significant association
Descriptive statistics for dependent, independent and control variables. between university performance and both the overall and the in-dividual
levels of ICD, confirming the hypotheses.
Variables N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
deviation This result is consistent with previous studies (Brusca et al., 2019; Cricelli
et al., 2018) and confirms that Italian public universities that achieve higher
ICDI 59 0.03 0.83 0.44 0.19
HCDI 59 0 1 0.53 0.23 performance, as reported by the CENSIS ranking, tend to provide more
SCDI 59 0 0.8 0.32 0.21 information about IC and its sub -components through performance reports.
RCDI 59 0 1 0.48 0.23 Therefore, according to the stakeholder theory, the result evidence that ICD
university 59 69.2 99.4 83.71 7.21
plays a pivotal role in unveiling stakeholders how a university is exploiting IC
performance
59 9.67 16.21 13.08 1.53
resources to fulfill the three missions and gain positive performance. It also
Internet visibility
Board Size 59 7.00 11.00 10.08 1.16 sheds lights on Italian universities' willingness to demonstrate to stakeholders
Board Independence 59 0.11 59 0.55 0.25 0.07 that they are acting by respecting the social contract with the society and the
Size 6.86 11.51 9.80 0.91 socio-economic territory in which they are rooted. In doing so, through higher
Age 59 2.89 6.96 4.77 1.38
levels of ICD, universities can prove how they realize their IC potential to
Notes: the values have been rounded to the second decimal place.

7
Machine Translated by Google

`
G. Nicolo et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969

Table 3
Correlation analysis.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. ICDI 1
2.HCDI .750** 1
3. SCDI .838** .404**
4. RCDI .919** .570** 1 .681** 1
5. University Performance 6. .504** .516** ÿ .403** .397** 1
Internet visibility 7. Board .114 .008 .206 .086 .221 1
size 8. Board .171 ÿ .083 .218 .241 .045 .184 1
Independence 9. Size .246 .048 .264* .273* .155 .051 .110 1
.078 .004 .056 .117 .159 .642** .414** .030 1
10. Age .256* .329* .238 .118 .313* .274* .087 ÿ .139 .406** 1

Notes: *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4
OLS regression model results and tests. Dependent variable: ICDI.

coefficient Standard Error T-statistic p-value Sign. VIF

Const ÿ 0.774296 0.315135 ÿ 2,457 0.0174 **

0.0112859 0.00348599 3,237 0.0021 *** 1,188

university performance
Internet visibility 0.00418189 0.0175616 0.2381 0.8127 1,770
Board size 0.0293328 0.0185642 1,580 0.1202 1,247
0.545358 0.243326 2,241 0.0293 ** 1,086
Board independence
Size ÿ 0.0354141 0.0335970 ÿ 1,054 0.2967 2,255
Age 0.0268450 0.0199353 1,347 0.1839 1,368
Model specification:
Mean dependent variable 0.440094 dependent variable 0.191601
Sum of squared residuals 1.422773 Regression std. error 0.165412
R-Squared 0.331788 Adjusted R-Squared P- 0.254687
F(6, 54) 6.094699 value(F) 0.000069

Notes:
**
The asterisks indicate statistical significance at the following levels: * 10 %; Test: Normality OLS model 5%; *** 1%.
Test:

T Statistic: Chi-squared(2) = 0.590806; p-value = 0.744232 (Errors are normally distributed).

Breusch-Pagan Test: T Statistic: LM = 1.31121; p-value = P(Chi-squared(6) > 1.31121) = 0.971036 (Not heteroskedasticity); Variance Influence Factors
Test= Maximum value Size 2.255 (Not Collinearity).

Table 5
OLS regression model results and tests. Dependent variable: HCDI.

coefficient Standard Error T-statistic p-value Sign. VIF

Const ÿ 0.403039 0.380957 ÿ 1,058 0.2950

0.0152025 0.00401441 3,787 0.0004 *** 1,188
university performance
Internet visibility ÿ 0.0199561 0.0253542 ÿ 0.7871 0.4348 1,770
Board size ÿ 0.0160984 0.0298305 ÿ 0.5397 0.5917 1,247
Board independence 0.0885882 0.292750 0.3026 0.7634 1,086
Size ÿ 0.0137900 0.0470846 ÿ 0.2929 0.7708 2,255
0.0414854 0.0230791 1,798 0.0781 * 1,368
Age
Model specification:
Mean dependent variable 0.531780 dependent variable 0.230481
Sum of squared residuals 2.043872 Regression std. error 0.198255
R-Squared 0.336629 Adjusted R-Squared P- 0.260086
F(6, 54) 3.578316 value(F) 0.004825

Notes:
**
The asterisks indicate statistical significance at the following levels: * 10 %; Test: Normality OLS model 5%; *** 1%.
Test:

T Statistic: Chi-squared(2) = 2.99692; p-value = 0.223474 (Errors are normally distributed).

Breusch-Pagan Test: T Statistic: LM = 3.88489; p-value = P(Chi-squared(6) > 3.88489) = 0.69225 (Not heteroskedasticity); Variance Influence Factors
Test= Maximum value Size 2.255 (Not Collinearity).

achieve a superior level of performance in terms of high-quality education
and research as well as to deliver services in “ways, volumes and forms
that are relevant to the productive process and to shaping the knowledge
society” (Jongbloed et al., 2008, p. 306).
The greater propensity of higher-performing universities to provide more
information on IC can also be ascribed to the need to signal their excellence
and enhance their academic reputation and image (Aversano et al., 2020;
Brusca et al., 2019). In such a way, they increase the possibilities to recruit
the best students and researchers worldwide,
interested in enrolling in and collaborating with universities endowed with
the best IC resources in terms of prestigious scholars (Human Capital) and
modern and efficient research facilities (Structural Capital)
`
(Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2016). In the
same way, in the wake of the increased relevance assumed by new funding
allocation systems, higher-performing universities are more encouraged in
providing voluntary information about IC to differentiate them from lower
performing competitors and secure more funds (Aversano et al., 2020 ;
Brusca et al., 2019; Ramirez et al., 2016).

8
Machine Translated by Google

`
G. Nicolo et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969

Table 6
OLS regression model results and tests. Dependent variable: SCDI.
coefficient Standard Error T-statistic p-value Sign. VIF

Const ÿ 0.843464 0.331332 ÿ 2,546 0.0139 **

0.00833608 0.00445963 1,869 0.0672 * 1,188

university performance
0.0344085 0.0174566 1,971 0.0540 * 1,770
Internet visibility
Board size 0.0476830 0.0155370 3,069 0.0034 *** 1,247
0.696356 0.305842 2,277 0.0269 ** 1,086
Board independence
Size ÿ 0.0827884 0.0269417 ÿ 3,073 0.0034 *** 2,255
Age 0.0356694 0.0226336 1,576 0.1211 1,368
Model specification:
Mean dependent variable 0.320339 dependent variable 0.210729
Sum of squared residuals 1.757526 Regression std. error 0.183844
R-Squared 0.317623 Adjusted R-Squared P- 0.238887
F(6, 54) 7.254340 value(F) 0.000012

Notes:
**
The asterisks indicate statistical significance at the following levels: * 10%; 5%; *** 1%.
Test:
Normality OLS model Test: T Statistic: Chi-squared(2) = 0.205898; p-value = 0.902173 (Errors are normally distributed).
Breusch-Pagan Test: T Statistic: LM = 6.223549; p-value = P(Chi-squared(6) > 6.223549) = 0.398620 (Not heteroskedasticity); Variance Influence Factors
Test= Maximum value Size 2.255 (Not Collinearity).

Table 7
OLS regression model results and tests. Dependent variable: RCDI.
coefficient Standard Error T-statistic p-value Sign. VIF

Const ÿ 1.01182 0.403188 ÿ 2,510 0.0152 **

0.0117180 0.00411402 2,848 0.0063 *** 1,188

university performance
Internet visibility ÿ 0.00541440 0.0212317 ÿ 0.2550 0.7997 1,770
Board size 0.0443175 0.0228848 1937 0.0582 * 1,247
0.7157480 0.316909 2,259 0.0281 ** 1,086
Board independence
Size ÿ 0.00736596 0.0437176 ÿ 0.1685 0.8669 2,255
Age 0.00621750 0.0252375 0.2464 0.8064 1,368
Model specification:
Mean dependent variable 0.483821 dependent variable 0.237207
Sum of squared residuals 2.458141 Regression std. error 0.217421
R-Squared 0.246774 Adjusted R-Squared P- 0.159863
F(6, 54) 3.877283 value(F) 0.002844

Notes:
**
The asterisks indicate statistical significance at the following levels: * 10%; Test: Normality OLS model 5%; *** 1%.
Test:

T Statistic: Chi-squared(2) = 0.0194121; p-value = 0.990341 (Errors are normally distributed).

Breusch-Pagan Test: T Statistic: LM = 1.70999; p-value = P(Chi-squared(6) > 1.70999) = 0.944348 (Not heteroskedasticity); Variance Influence Factors
Test= Maximum value Size 2.255 (Not Collinearity).

Accordingly, a greater extent of voluntary ICD enables universities to
provide that they are efficiently allocating public funds to managing and
developing their crucial IC resources-based in the final aim of improving
their performance.
Furthermore, as regards control variables, board independence ex-
hibits a positive and significant influence on ICDI, SCDI and RCDI. This
`
result is in line with previous studies (Nicolo et al., 2020; Ntim et al., 2017)
and provides arguments supporting the role of independent/external
members as accountability mechanisms that enable universities to recognize
the interests of the different stakeholders at stake. In particular, being less
aligned with internal universities' man-agement, independent members are
in a better position to exercise their decision control and protect the interests
of the different stakeholders, encouraging more significant levels of ICD
(Cerbioni & Parbonetti, 2007; Li et al. al., 2008; Nicolo et al., 2020; Ntim et
`
al., 2017). Also, a positive association between board size and both
structural (P-value <0.01) and relational capital (P-value <0.1) disclosure is
detected.
Unlike previous research (Ntim et al., 2017; Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolo et al., 2020),
`
this result confirms the stakeholder theory's arguments. Accordingly, due to the presence
of a superior bundle of skills, experiences and competences, larger boards are better able
to stimulate higher levels of voluntary disclosure that explain to stakeholders the contribute
that IC components (structural and relational capital) provide to the internal process of
value creation and the external process of
socio-economic value generation of universities.
Results also show a positive influence exerted by Internet visibility on
SCD (P-value <0.1). According to the stakeholder theory, increasing Internet
visibility spurs universities in revealing a higher level of in-formation on
their internal structure to satisfy stakeholders' information needs and
reduces information asymmetry on the endowment and development of
those IC elements such as vision, culture, research projects and
infrastructures which represent the “backbone that sup-ports the IC within
organizations” (Cricelli et al., 2018, p. 75). Also, in contrast with previous
`
studies (Nicolo et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2019; Ramírez & Tejada, 2019),
the variable control size exerts a negative and significant association on
SCD (P-value <0.01). A possible rationale underpinning this result is that
larger universities - being more socially and politically visible - tend to
convey a less amount of SCD to avoid possible adverse effects in terms of
reputation or image, which can occur when information on negative
performance is scrutinized by a broader range of stakeholders (Manes-
Rossi et al., 2020).
Last, in keeping with Ramírez and Tejada's (2019) results, age exerts a
positive and significant effect only on HCDI. This evidences that well-
established universities tend to convey a higher amount of Human Capital
disclosure to explain to stakeholders how they have consolidated their
value creation processes and achieved higher performance by relying upon
their most critical resources, mainly identifiable in re-searchers, lecturers,
administrative staff, students and alumni.

9
Machine Translated by Google
`
G. Nicolo et al.
6. Conclusion
This study extends on and adds to the upward body of literature that
recognizes voluntary ICD as a key mechanism to ensure broader accountability
and transparency in the university context where IC reporting is prevalently
not mandatory.
While IC has been widely considered the cornerstone of universities' value
creation processes and performance, little is known about the interplay
between university performance and voluntary ICD.
Accordingly, this study broadens the scope of mainstream ICD lit-erature's
actions by casting the spotlight on the potential relationship between academic
performance and voluntary ICD in the context of Italian public universities.
Alongside NPM and Bologna process, the Italian higher education system has
come through a long process of re-form - promoted by the central government
- that has laid down accountability and performance evaluation at the forefront
of university processes. However, the effectiveness of performance-based
governance mechanisms implemented in the Italian university context has
been questioned at length within the behavioral public administration literature
due to the persistence of an inextricable bureaucratic culture, the imposition of
top-down evaluation practices - based on quantitative rather than qualitative
indicators - and the coordination shortcomings in decentralized evaluation
units (James, Olsen, Moynihan, & Van Ryzin, 2020; Marra, 2020; Rebora &
Turri, 2011). Following the NPM wave, public sector organizations were more
presented as “as a set of perfor-mance metrics than as the provider of
something useful” (Mouritsen, Thorbjornsen, Bukh, & Johansen, 2004, p.
381), paving the way for cognitive biases that generated a climate of “fear and
risk aversion” among public administrators and managers, and in turn, a
compliance attitude towards performance measurement systems (Marra,
2020, p.
16). Therefore, this makes Italy a relevant case study to investigate in-
terconnections between voluntary ICD patterns focused on non-financial
information and academic performance. IC proponents contend that IC
measurement and reporting systems may represent a valid attempt to
overcome the stagnation of the quantitative performance measurement metrics
imposed by the NPM in the public sector under a top-down approach (Almqvist
& Skoog, 2007; Mouritsen et al., 2004). The IC framework brings forward a
more holistic and comprehensive view of public sector entities' value creations
processes, shifting the focus from quantitative and financial to qualitative and
non-financial performance indicators (Almqvist & Skoog, 2007; Mouritsen et
al., 2004). It enables organizations to reduce the burden of high formal
procedures and rigid performance evaluation practices that limit the
effectiveness of managerial accountability and cause frustrations among
managers and administrators, as it focuses on understanding processes and
activity underpinning organizational value creation and promotes a more
flexible and participatory approach to management control and measurement
systems (Almqvist & Skoog, 2007; Mouritsen et al., 2004; Nicolo, 2020).
`
Therefore, this study collected ICD data from performance reports of a
sample of 59 Italian Public universities for the year 2017. After that, using four
multivariate regression models, this study provided empirical evidence on the
positive role exerted by academic performance, measured by the CENSIS
ranking, on both the overall and the individual levels of voluntary ICD, like
SCD, HCD and RCD.
Drawing on the stakeholder theory standpoint, this study makes a
theoretical contribution to ICD research agenda. According to Low et al. (2015,
p. 106), when talking about universities, “intellectual capital resources are
often performance drivers; hence there is a causal rela-tionship between
those resources and value creation” (p. 106). So that, our results evidence
that – in the case of higher performance – Italian public Universities are more
prone to convey voluntary information on IC to reveal stakeholders how they
are efficiently using public funds to invest in the management and development
of their strategic assets and achieve more remarkable performance in their
three missions. This result confirms what was observed by Brusca et al. (2019)
in the context
10
Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
of three Mediterranean countries. Therefore, in the global competitive arena stemming
from NPM and Bologna process wave, universities achieving higher performance tend to
use ICD as a tool to signal their excellence and improve their image, enhancing, in turn,
their chances to attract the best students and researchers worldwide .
Standing at the intersection between different literature streams, including voluntary
ICD and performance, the study's findings provide some practical implications for
policymakers, standard setters, and academics.
Policymakers and standard setters might consider this evidence a stimulus
to introduce mandatory ICD requirements for public universities or develop
adequate guidelines that fully support disclosure practices that enable
universities to fully explain to stakeholders the link between IC and academic
performance. In this sense, IC reporting may assume a leading role in driving
a new transformation of the public sector entities by instilling an innovative
“language, a management control system and a communication device about
how the public sector institution works to create value” (Mouritsen et al., 2004,
p. 389).
However, to avoid the risk of an additional formal procedure or bureaucratic
compliance exercise that could undermine the potential of evaluation IC-based
in improving organizational learning and accountability to stakeholders, a
behavioral evaluation policy approach is necessary ( Marra, 2020). To this
end, an open dialogue between poli-cymakers, institutions, public managers
and evaluators, horizontal co-ordination of evaluation mechanisms and ethical
culture of performance evaluation systems' usefulness is fundamental (Marra,
2020). Accordingly, from this perspective, IC reporting may be considered a
solution to promote collective learning, knowledge sharing, and collaboration
among university managers and employees, disregarding persistent vertical
bureaucratic structures favoring a more participatory – network-style
management structures. It should not be intended as an additional performance
evaluation tool but as a vehicle for continuous improvement of university
strategic planning, internal productivity of human resources and external
reporting.
Furthermore, in rationalizing the question over the impact that higher
academic performance on voluntary ICD practices, this study may also serve
as a basis for policymakers to improve the effectiveness of National funding
allocation systems, considering the possibility to introduce non-financial
indicators that strengthen the links between IC and performance achieved by
universities within the three missions.
Last, academics may use or adapt the framework employed in this research
to replicate the study in other regions geographically and gain further insights
into the impact of academic performance on voluntary ICD practices.
The research, however, is not without limitations, which, however,
may pioneer future research.
First, the analysis only covers a single year. Future studies may consider
performing a longitudinal analysis of voluntary ICD through performance over
more than one years and conducting comparisons with other reporting tools
such as annual reports and websites. Second, this research focuses on a
limited number of control variables justified by the sample's size. Accordingly,
future research may test other variables, also looking at cultural differences
existing within different national or supra-national regions. Third, the present
study relies upon an un-weighted disclosure index to examine the level of
voluntary ICD.
Scholars who intend to replicate the study may also attempt to analyze the
quality of ICD to gain additional insights. Last, our study has been conducted
on university performance reports. Future research may explore online
communication channels to assess university ICD levels and the possible
associations with performance in keeping with the ongoing public sector's
digitalization process.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests
or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Machine Translated by Google
` Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
G. Nicolo et al.
the work reported in this paper.
References
Almqvist, R., & Skoog, M. (2007). Colliding discourses? New public management from an intellectual capital
perspective. Intellectual capital revisited: Paradoxes in the knowledge intensive organization
(pp. 100–123).
`
Aversano, N., Nicolo, G., Sannino, G., & Polcini, P.T. (2020). The Integrated Plan in Italian public
universities: New patterns in intellectual capital disclosure. Meditari Accountancy Research, 28(4),
655–679.
Bezhani, I. (2010). “Intellectual capital reporting at UK universities”. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), 179–
207.
`
Brusca, I., Cohen, S., Manes-Rossi, F., & Nicolo, G. (2019). Intellectual capital disclosure and academic
rankings in European universities. Meditari Accountancy Research, 28 (1), 51–71.
Cerbioni, F., & Parbonetti, A. (2007). Exploring the effects of corporate governance on intellectual capital
disclosure: An analysis of European biotechnology companies.
European Accounting Review, 16(4), 791–826.
CIVIT. (2010a). DELIBERATE n. 89/2010 – “Indirizzi in matters of parameters and models of reference of
the System of measurement and valutazione of the performance” (articoli 13, comma 6, lett. d) and
30, of the legislative decree 27 October 2009, n. 150).
`
CIVIT. (2010b). DELIBERATE n. 112/2010 – “Struttura e modalita di redazione del Piano della performance”
(article 10, comma 1, letter a), of the legislative decree 27 October 2009, n. 150).
Coy, D., & Pratt, M. (1998). An insight into accountability and politics in universities: A case study. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(5), 540–561.
Coy, D., Fischer, M., & Gordon, T. (2001). Public accountability: A new paradigm for college and university
annual reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12(1),˜ 1–31.
Cricelli, L., Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., & Llanes Duenas, LP (2018). Intellectual capital and university
performance in emerging countries: Evidence from Colombian public universities. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 19(1), 71–95.
Dal Molin, M., Turri, M., & Agasisti, T. (2017). New public management reforms in the Italian universities:
Managerial tools, accountability mechanisms or simply compliance? International Journal of
Public Administration, 40(3), 256–269. de˜ Matos Pedro, E., Alves, H., & Leitao, J. (2020). In
search of intangible connections: Intellectual capital, performance and quality of life in higher education
institutions.
Higher Education, 1–18.
Del Sordo, C., Farneti, F., Guthrie, J., Pazzi, S., & Siboni, B. (2016). Social reports in Italian universities:
Disclosures and preparers' perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research, 24(1), 91–110.
'
García-Sanchez, I.M., Raimo, N., & Vitolla, F. (2020). CEO power and integrated reporting. Meditari
Accountancy Research. future.
'
Garde Sanchez, R., Rodríguez Bolívar, MP, & Lopez Hernandez, AM (2021). Which are the main factors
influencing corporate social responsibility information disclosures on universities' websites.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 524.
Habersam, M., Piber, M., & Skoog, M. (2013). Knowledge balance sheets in Austrian universities: The
implementation, use, and re-shaping of measurement and management practices. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 24(4-5), 319–337.
Hazelkorn, E. (2014). Reflections on a decade of global rankings: What we've learned and outstanding
issues. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 12–28.
Ismail, S., & Bakar, NBA (2011). Reporting practices of Malaysian public universities: The extent of
accountability disclosure. African Journal of Business Management, 5 (15), 6366–6376.
James, O., Olsen, A., Moynihan, D., & Van Ryzin, G. (2020). Behavioral public
performance: How people make sense of government metrics (elements in public and nonprofit
administration). Cambridge University Press.
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections,
interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.
¨
Kallio, K.M., Kallio, T.J., Tienari, J., & Hyvonen, T. (2016). Ethos at stake: Performance management and
academic work in universities. Human Relations, 69(3), 685–709.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Leitner, K.-H., Schaffhauser-Linzatti, M., Stowasser, R., & Wagner, K. (2005). Data envelopment
analysis as method for evaluating intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 528–
543.
Li, J., Pike, R., & Haniffa, R. (2008). Intellectual capital disclosure and corporate
governance structure in UK firms. Accounting and Business Research, 38(2), 137–159.
Lombardi, R., Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Nappo, F. (2019). Entrepreneurial universities and strategy: The case of the
University of Bari. Management Decision, 57(12), 3387–3405.
Low, M., Samkin, G., & Li, Y. (2015). Voluntary reporting of intellectual capital:
Comparing the quality of disclosures from New Zealand, Australian and United Kingdom universities.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(4), 779–808.
`
Manes Rossi, F., Nicolo, G., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). New trends in intellectual capital reporting:
Exploring online intellectual capital disclosure in Italian universities. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 19(4), 814–835.
`
Manes-Rossi, F., Nicolo, G., Tiron Tudor, A., & Zanellato, G. (2020). Drivers of integrated reporting by state-
owned enterprises in Europe: A longitudinal analysis. Meditari Accountancy Research. future.
Marra, M. (2007). How does evaluation foster accountability for performance? Tracing accountability lines
and evaluation impact within the World Bank and the Italian local health-care providers. In ML
Bemelmans-Videc, J. Lonsdale, & B. Perrin
eleven
(Eds.), Making accountability work dilemmas for evaluation and for audit. New Brunswick
(USA): Transaction Publishers.
Marra, M. (2018). The ambiguities of performance-based governance reforms in Italy: Reviving the fortunes
of evaluation and performance measurement. Evaluation and Program Planning, 69, 173–182.
Marra, M. (2020). A behavioral design to reform Italy's evaluation policy. American
Journal of Evaluation, 1–22. future.
Michelon, G., & Parbonetti, A. (2012). The effect of corporate governance on
sustainability disclosure. Journal of Management and Governance, 16(3), 477–509.
Mouritsen, J., Thorbjornsen, S., Bukh, P.N.D., & Johansen, M.R. (2004). Intellectual capital and new public
management: Reintroducing the enterprise. Learning Organization, 11(4/5), 380–392.
`
Nicolo, G. (2020). The rise of intellectual capital disclosure from private to public sector: The case of Italian
Public Universities. FrancoAngeli: Collana Accounting & Business Studies.
`
Nicolo, G., Manes-Rossi, F., Christiaens, J., & Aversano, N. (2020). Accountability through intellectual
capital disclosure in Italian Universities. Journal of Management and Governance, 24(4), 1055–1087.
Ntim, C.G., Soobaroyen, T., & Broad, M.J. (2017). Governance structures, voluntary
disclosures and public accountability: The case of UK higher education institutions.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(1), 65–118.
Parker, L. (2011). University corporatization: Driving redefinition. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 22(4),
˜ 434–450.
Pedro, E., Leitao, J., & Alves, H. (2019). The intellectual capital of higher education institutions:
Operationalizing measurement through a strategic prospective lens.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(3), 355–381.
Presidency of the Consiglio dei Ministri – Dipartimento della Funzione Pubblica Ufficio per la valutazione della
performance. (2018). Line guide for the Annual Report of its performance. n. 3, name.
Raimo, N., Ricciardelli, A., Rubino, M., & Vitolla, F. (2020). Factors affecting human capital disclosure in
an integrated reporting perspective. Measuring Business Excellence, 24(4), 575–592.
Ramirez, Y., Merino, E., & Manzaneque, M. (2019). Examining the intellectual capital web reporting by
Spanish Universities. Online Information Review, 43(5), 775–798.
Ramirez, Y., Tejada, A., & Manzaneque, M. (2016). The value of disclosing intellectual capital in Spanish
Universities: A new challenge of our days. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 29(2), 176–
198.
Ramírez, Y., & Gordillo, S. (2014). Recognition and measurement of intellectual capital in Spanish Universities.
Journal of Intellectual Capital,
' 15(1), 173–188.
Ramírez, Y., & Tejada, A. (2019). Digital transparency and public accountability in Spanish
universities in online media. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(5), 701–732.
Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2011). Critical factors in the use of evaluation in Italian
universities. Higher Education, 61(5), 531–544.
Salvi, A., Vitolla, F., Giakoumelou, A., Raimo, N., & Rubino, M. (2020). Intellectual capital disclosure in
integrated reports: The effect on firm value. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160,
Article 120228.
S´ anchez, MP, & Elena, S. (2006). Intellectual capital in universities: Improving
transparency and internal management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(4), 529–548.
S'anchez, P., Elena, S., & Castrillo, R. (2009). Intellectual capital dynamics in universities: A reporting model.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(2), 307–324.
Sangiorgi, D., & Siboni, B. (2017). The disclosure of intellectual capital in Italian
universities: What has been done and what should be done. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 18(2), 354–
372.
Secundo, G., Dumay, J., Schiuma, G., & Passiante, G. (2016). Managing intellectual capital through a
collective intelligence approach: An integrated framework for universities. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 17(2), 298–319.
Secundo, G., Elena-Perez, S., Martinaitis, Z., & Leitner, K. (2015). An intellectual capital maturity model
(ICMM) to improve strategic management in European Universities.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 419–442.
Siboni, B., Nardo, M.T., & Sangiorgi, D. (2013). Italian state university contemporary performance plans: an intellectual
capital focus? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(3), 414–430.
ter Bogt, H.J., & Scapens, R.W. (2012). Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to
more quantitative measurement systems. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 451–497.
Urdari, C., Farcas, TV, & Tiron-Tudor, A. (2017). Assessing the legitimacy of HEIs' contributions to society:
The perspective of international rankings. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, 8(2), 191–215.
Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Marrone, A., & Rubino, M. (2020). The role of board of directors in intellectual capital
disclosure after the advent of integrated reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 27(5), 2188–2200.
Vorely, T., & Nelles, J. (2008). (Re)conceptualizing the academy: Institutional development of and
beyond the third mission. Journal of Higher Education Management and Policy, 20(3), 119–
135.
Welch, A. (2011). Higher education in Southeast Asia: Blurring borders, changing balance.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Wu, HY, Chen, JK, Chen, IS, & Zhuo, HH (2012). Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by
a hybrid MCDMmodel. Measurement, 45(5), 856–880.
Giuseppe Nicolo`, PhD Europaeus in Public Sector Accounting, is a Research Fellow in the Department of
Management and Innovation Systems at the University of Salerno (Italy) where he is also lecturer of Financial
Accounting. His research is mainly focused on non-financial disclosure including, Intellectual Capital,
Integrated Reporting, risk management and social and environmental issues. He is also involved in Intellectual
Capital measure-ment research. Giuseppe is corresponding member of the Italian Society of Ragioneria and
Economia Aziendale (SIDREA).
Machine Translated by Google
`
G. Nicolo et al.
Nicola Raimo is a Research Fellow in the Department of Management, Finance and Technology
at LUM University, Italy. His main research interests are: Corporate Social Responsibility; Non-
financial disclosure; Integrated Reporting; Intellectual capital; Digi-talisation. He is author of
several published articles and serves as reviewer for a number of international journals. He is
also a member of Italian Academic Association of Business Administration (SIDREA).
Paolo Tartaglia Polcini is Full Professor of Accounting at Salerno University where he teaches
accounting and Management Accounting. His research interests are performance measurement
in the university, Fair value, Business combination, intellectual capital and international accounting
standards in both the private and public sectors.
12
Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
Filippo Vitolla is Full Professor of Business Administration at LUM University, Italy.
Degree in Business Administration (with full marks and honor) and PhD in Management from
University of Bari. He teaches Managerial Accounting in the Undergraduate Courses and
Corporate Performance Measurement in Master Courses. He is also a Senior Professor at LUM
School of Management, where he teaches Business Strategy and Managerial Accounting in
Executive Programs. He is a member of Faculty of LUM University International PhD in
Economics and Management of Sustainability and Innovation, where he teaches Strategy and
Theory of the Firm. He is a member of Italian Academic Association of Business Administration
(AIDEA and SIDREA) and Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA). He is the
author of many books, books chapters and articles/papers in national and international academic
journals.