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
Giuseppe Nicolò a, *, Nicola Raimo b, Paolo Tartaglia Polcini a, Filippo Vitolla b
a
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, S.S. 100 Km 18, 7010 Casamassima, BA, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

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
University performance extent of voluntary Intellectual Capital disclosure (ICD) provided through performance reports by a sample of 59
Intellectual Capital Disclosure
Italian public universities. Four multivariate regression models are estimated to examine the associations be­
Italian Public Universities
tween academic 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 confirm 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 signalling 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 organisations whose main inputs and out­
puts are primarily based on the exploitation of immaterial resources
(Pedro, Leitão, & 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).
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; Sánchez, Elena, & Castrillo,
2009).
Accreditation bodies and quality assurance systems for learning and
teaching have been put in place to enhance stakeholder confidence in
university performance. In the same way, academic ranking and na­
tional evaluation bodies have been gradually implemented to evaluate
and compare university performance and promote merit-based criteria
to allocate public funds (Kallio, Kallio, Tienari, & Hyvönen, 2016; Nic­
olò, 2020; ter Bogt & Scapens, 2012)
In this global “performance movement” (Marra, 2018, p. 175), uni­
versities 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, & López Hernandez, 2021). In
particular, high-skilled human resources are the most crucial levers that
enable universities to achieve maximum excellence in their missions
(Aversano, Nicolò, Sannino, & Polcini, 2020; Brusca, Cohen,
Manes-Rossi, & Nicolò, 2019; Ramirez et al., 2016). As such, univer­
sities’ pivotal attention has been steadily devoted to realising 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. Nicolò), raimo@lum.it (N. Raimo), ptpolcini@unisa.it (P.T. Polcini), vitolla@lum.it (F. Vitolla).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101969
Received 22 January 2021; Received in revised form 4 May 2021; Accepted 8 May 2021
Available online 29 May 2021
0149-7189/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Nicolò et al.
IC’s fundamental components that shape the university’s performance.
So, they deserve primary consideration (Bezhani, 2010; Cricelli, Greco,
Grimaldi, & Llanes Dueñas, 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 univer­
sities 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 permits 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, spurting univer­
sities to prepare reports on IC performance (Aversano et al., 2020;
Ramírez & Gordillo, 2014; Ramirez et al., 2016). For these reasons, as
advocated by Nicolò, Manes-Rossi, Christiaens, and Aversano (2020, p.
2), the contribution of IC resources to improving the overall perfor­
mance of universities often remains “undiscussed and hidden”. This
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 unlock 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).
Nevertheless, as the pathway to ICD research in the academic setting
evolves quickly (e.g. Bezhani, 2010; Low et al., 2015; Manes Rossi et al.,
2018; Nicolò 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 prac­
tices. 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 in­
dicators 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 organisation (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 performance ICD 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
about the interconnections between academic performance and ICD
provided via performance reports. Connecting university performance
to ICD can enhance the practical and theoretical understanding of the
role that ICD may exert in signalling university excellence and
evidencing how they are correctly developing and managing IC re­
sources to increase academic performance and enhance the value crea­
tion 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 behaviours adopted by universities in
disclosing the different IC components, with a prevalence for human and
internal capital. Accordingly, disentangling the links between perfor­
mance and disclosure of individual IC components may enhance un­
derstanding of the role that higher or lesser levels of performance can
exert in influencing such disclosure behaviours.
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. In the next sec­
tion, 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 illustra­
tion 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 organisations mainly devoted to producing,
applying, and disseminating knowledge-based outcomes and outputs
(Aversano et al., 2020; Nicolò 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 univer­
sity processes and activities (Brusca et al., 2019; de Matos Pedro, Alves,
& Leitão, 2020; Pedro et al., 2019).
When applied in the higher education context, IC can be conceived as
“the amount of not-physical resources, available internally and exter­
nally, for combining the organisation’s tangible, human and financial
resources, in order to produce value for stakeholders and obtain a sus­
tainable 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 organisational 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
(e.g. lecturers, researchers, students, PhDs, administrative staff, gover­
nors and managers) involved in university processes.
The Structural Capital represents the institution’s explicit knowledge,
mobilised through the internal processes of production and management
of scientific and technical research and codified within organisational
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 like private firms, research centres, local,
national and supra-national governments, non-profit organisations and
G. Nicolò et al.
society. It also embeds the external stakeholders’ perceptions which
mould universities’ image and reputation (Aversano et al., 2020; Brusca
et al., 2019; Nicolò et al., 2020; Ramírez & Gordillo, 2014; Ramirez
et al., 2016).
Since the’ 90 s, the Higher Education sector has been affected by a
series of changes steered 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; Nicolò 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 acknowledged 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; Nicolò,
2020; Vorely & Nelles, 2008).
Moreover, 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 organisational
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 harmonising the different European Higher
education systems and improving the quality of learning and research
activities - has promoted higher standards of comparability, interna­
tionality 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;
Nicolò, 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 mobilise and operationalise 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 organ­
isational 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
Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
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 realise their IC resources’ po­
tential fully and correctly address stakeholders’ information needs
(Ramírez & Gordillo, 2014; Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017; Sánchez 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 visualise, managing and accounting for
their strategic value creation sources (Bezhani, 2010; Ramirez et al.,
2016; Sánchez & 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 Organisation 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) from 2007. Based on a
performance-oriented approach, the Austrian IC report allows users to
visualise how university exploit the potential of their IC resources to 1)
enhance the performance of their core processes (e.g. education;
research; training; commercialising of research etc.); 2) produce positive
impacts on the ecosystem of stakeholders; and, ultimately, 3) achieve
both political and organisational goals (Habersam et al., 2013; Sánchez
& 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; Nicolò 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 lowing
awareness of IC relevance exists. He also noted that prevalent attention
is devoted to Research, Human and Relational Capital among IC infor­
mation 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 uni­
versities, Nicolò 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) analysed 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
G. Nicolò 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, Nicolò (2020) analysed 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 acces­
sible, transparent and timelier manner. Therefore, Manes Rossi, Nicolò,
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 univer­
sities 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. Moreover, they found a positive corre­
lation 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 compo­
nents (HCD, SCD, RCD). Moreover, 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 if universities
ranked better tend to provide more information on their IC resources.
Secondly, the study also unveils the links between academic perfor­
mance and the disclosure related to IC’s components, like Human Cap­
ital, 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 prac­
tices 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 characterise the relationships between an organisation 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, Nicolò, Tiron Tudor, & Zanellato, 2020; Michelon & Par­
bonetti, 2012; Ntim, Soobaroyen, & Broad, 2017).
4
Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
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 fulfil 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. Moreover,
prompted by recent social, economic and political changes, they have
been increasingly called to prove their excellence and highlight their
performance (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Sangiorgi & Siboni, 2017;
Sánchez 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 (e.g. 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; Nicolò, 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; Nicolò, 2020;
Ramírez & Tejada, 2019).
IC simultaneously constitutes both the central mission and univer­
sities’ 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 universities, the higher the level of ICD that universities are
expected to 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).
Moreover, in the case of high performance, ICD can facilitate the pre­
sentation of results in terms of teaching results and third mission ac­
tivities, 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 uni­
versity performance.
Academic rankings have become increasingly widespread 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
G. Nicolò et al.
universities can use to entice 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 pro­
vide 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. de Matos
Pedro et al. (2020) investigated a sample of 738 students and 587 lec­
turers/researchers from seven Portuguese public universities, detecting
a positive relationship between structural, relational capital and uni­
versity performance. Last, Brusca et al. (2019) found a positive corre­
lation 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’ organisational and financial au­
tonomy is matured by adopting several reforms by the central govern­
ment that have attempted to modify the higher education sector’s
bureaucratic structure. A performance-focused culture has been gradu­
ally 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; Nicolò, 2020). This makes the Italian
university system ideal for conducting ICD research and exploring
possible connections with performance.
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 Centres were
excluded due to their peculiar organisational structures, educational
offers and vocation, making them incomparable. Moreover, due to the
5
Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
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 “codifying 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 permit 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 categorisation 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; Nicolò, 2020; Nicolò 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)
analysed.
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 operationalise the information
collected via content analysis, representing this study’s dependent var­
iables. To this aim, performance reports have been manually content
analysed 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 minimising 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; Nicolò et 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:
∑m
ICDI = i=1
di
m
Where d = 1 if the item was disclosed and 0 otherwise;
m = maximum number of items a university may disclose (29 items).
∑n
di
HCDI = i=1
n
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).
∑k
di
SCDI = i=1
k
G. Nicolò et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969

Table 1 HCDI = β0 + β1 (University performance) + β2 (Internet visibility) + β3

Intellectual Capital disclosure checklist. (Board size) + β4 (Board independence) + β5 (University Size) + β6 (Uni­
Human Capital Structural Capital Relational Capital versity Age) + εi; (2)
1 PhD students’ 1 University culture 1 Students information SCDI = β0 + β1 (University performance) + β2 (Internet visibility) + β3
information
(Board size) + β4 (Board independence) + β5 (University Size) + β6 (Uni­
2 PhD students’ courses 2 Management 2 Graduate students
information philosophy information
versity Age) + εi; (3)
3 Research fellows 3 Regional research 3 Students satisfaction
information projects
RCDI = β0 + β1 (University performance) + β2 (Internet visibility) + β3
4 Teaching staff 4 National research 4 International (Board size) + β4 (Board independence) + β5 (University Size) + β6 (Uni­
information projects programmes for students’ versity Age) + εi, (4)
mobility
5 Administrative staff 5 Infrastructural 5 International students Where, ICDI, HCDI, SCDI and RCDI represent the dependent
information facilities variables.
6 Recruitment and 6 Infrastructural ICT 6 Post-graduation, high
University performance represents the main independent variable
turnover and policies for research education and
specialisation and has been measured using the CENSIS (Social investment study
programmes centre - Centro Studi Investimenti Sociali) ranking composite indicators.
7 Training programmes 7 Infrastructural ICT 7 University third mission - The CENSIS ranking attributes a comprehensive score to each Italian
for administrative for education spin-off university performance, based on the evaluation of the quality of several
staff
8 Training programmes 8 Intellectual property 8 University third mission -
university activities and structures involved in the three missions, such
for researchers and as patent rights start-up as: overall services provided to students; scholarships and other in­
professors terventions for students; teaching and research facilities and equipment,
9 Intellectual property 9 University third mission – communication and digital services; and, level of internationalisation.
as publications research consortia and
The final score, attributed by CENSIS to each university, ranges from a
cluster
10 European and 11 University third mission minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100 and is the average score of the
International – social engagement and results obtained by each university for each kind of aspect evaluated.
research projects community involvement This ranking was selected because it addresses explicitly Italian Public
12 University third mission universities and provides publicly available data, which allows a
– partnerships and
comprehensive evaluation of universities performance, taking into ac­
collaboration
count 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 re­
Ramirez et al. (2019); Nicolò (2020); Nicolò et al. (2020). lationships proposed 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; Internet visibility was calculated as the logarithm of the search results
k = maximum number of items a university may disclose in the in “google.com” in which the university appeared in the last year (Manes
structural capital sub-category (10 items). Rossi et al., 2018). The recent widespread of digital web-based tech­
∑l nologies has conferred a higher degree of visibility to universities,
di
RCDI = i=1 increasing, in turn, the degree of scrutiny of stakeholders and their re­
l
quests for a higher level of transparency and accountability. From the
Where d = 1 if the item was disclosed and 0 otherwise; standpoint of stakeholder theory, the higher the Internet visibility and
l = maximum number of items a university may disclose in the the attention received from stakeholders, the higher the level of
relational capital sub-category (11 items). disclosure that universities are expected to provide to mitigate their
Several measures have been adopted to ensure the reliability and pressures and meet their expectations (Manes Rossi et al., 2018). Board
validity of the coding process. Firstly, after defining the final list of size was proxied by the number of university board members (Manes
items, two coders analysed a sample of 5 performance reports sepa­ Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolò et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2019). From the
rately. This step allows coders to familiarise themselves with reports and perspective of stakeholder theory, larger governing boards, due to the
define a set of specified coding rules. Secondly, another exercise on a presence of a heightened stock of skills and competencies, are deemed
sample of other five performance reports was repeated by coders to abler to represent and manage the interests of the several stakeholder
clarify any grey areas and minimise discrepancies. groups involved in universities’ activities by promoting the dissemina­
Thirdly, after these exercises, a sample of 10 performance reports tion of a higher level of disclosure on IC resources (Manes Rossi et al.,
was analysed by the coders. Krippendorff’s alpha was estimated using an 2018; Ntim et al., 2017). However, some scholars noted how coordi­
SPSS macro which given a degree of agreement above the minimum nation and communication problems might arise beyond a certain nu­
threshold of acceptance of 0.8 (Krippendorff, 2004). Afterwards, the merical threshold, resulting in slower decision-making processes and
coders continued the analysis of the remaining documents. lower disclosure levels (Cerbioni & Parbonetti, 2007; Nicolò et al.,
2020). Board independence was calculated as the proportion of inde­
pendent/external members out of the total board members (Cerbioni &
4.3. Empirical models specification and independent variables Parbonetti, 2007; Nicolò et al., 2020; Ntim et al., 2017). Independent
board members are external referees with significant expertise and
Four multivariate regression models were employed to test the hy­ professional reputations to defend; they are not involved in internal
potheses and assess the extent to which university performance affect management activities (García-Sánchez, Raimo, & Vitolla, 2020; Raimo,
the level of comprehensive ICD (ICDI) and its sub-components: Human Ricciardelli, Rubino, & Vitolla, 2020; Vitolla, Raimo, Marrone, &
Capital (HCDI); Structural Capital (SCDI) and Relational Capital (RCDI). Rubino, 2020). Accordingly, they are in a better position to exert more
The following equation reflects the regression models proposed by robust control over managerial and board decisions, ensuring equity in
this study: decision-making processes and stimulating, in turn, higher levels of ICD
ICDI = β0 + β1 (University performance) + β2 (Internet visibility) + β3 (Cerbioni & Parbonetti, 2007; Li, Pike, & Haniffa, 2008; Nicolò et al.,
(Board size) + β4 (Board independence) + β5 (University Size) + β6 (Uni­ 2020). University size was proxied by the natural logarithm of students’
versity Age) + εi; (1) number (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Ramirez et al., 2019). Larger

6
G. Nicolò et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969

universities are subject to higher social and political pressures to ac­ Ramirez et al., 2016). Also, in the light of the emerging of the third
count for their performance due to their public mission and the higher mission, universities are increasingly investing in nurturing and valor­
number of stakeholders they are responsible to (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; ising their Human Capital as a strategic source of innovation, diversifi­
Nicolò et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2019). Accordingly, the larger the cation and internationalisation of teaching and research activities. This
university, the higher the number of stakeholders who ask for more makes Human Capital disclosure pivotal to support third mission stra­
information about value creation processes and IC resources (Manes tegies, promote an international image of universities and enhance
Rossi et al., 2018; Nicolò et al., 2020; Ramirez et al., 2019). Last, age was stakeholders’ engagement in terms of technology transfer, collabora­
calculated as the natural logarithm of the number of years since the tions and partnerships with private firms (Aversano et al., 2020; Lom­
university foundation year (Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Ramirez et al., bardi et al., 2019).
2019). According to Ismail and Bakar (2011), older universities, which About independent and control variables, University performance
have been instituted for many years, tend to disclose more information shows an average value of 83.71 with a minimum of 69.2 and a
than new universities because of their greater knowledge of processes, maximum of 99.4. Internet visibility produces a minimum of 9.67 and a
consolidated routines and the solid relationships established with the maximum of 16.21 with a mean value of 13.08. As regards governance
stakeholders. Moreover, well-established universities may tend to variables – according to the Law n. 240/2010 – the board is composed of
convey a higher amount of ICD to signal stakeholders their good per­ a maximum of 11 members with a minimum of 7 and an average of
formance, improve their reputation and increase the likelihood of about 10 members. The minimum independence degree is of 11 % of the
gaining financial resources from national governments and external board with a maximum of 55 % and an average of 25 %. Last, size values
actors engaged in third mission activities. 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
5. Results and discussion 4.77 (Table 2).
Table 3 presents the Pearson correlation matrix for the dependent
5.1. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis and independent variables. Except for the relationships between
dependent variables - separately tested in different regression models -
Table 2 shows the results of the descriptive statistics for both all of the correlation values are lower than the critical threshold of 0.8,
dependent, independent and control variables, showing the minimum, indicating no severe multicollinearity problems (Li et al., 2008; Manes
maximum and mean values and the standard deviation. Rossi et al., 2018).
The results summarised in Table 2 highlight that the extent of ICDI A strong positive and significant correlation between dependent
spans from a score of 0.03 to 0.83 with an average value of 0.44 and a variables (ICDI; HCDI; SCDI; and RCDI) and university performance (p <
standard deviation of 0.19. Accordingly, on average, each sampled 0.01) is detected. Also, a positive and significant association between
Italian Public university discloses almost 13 IC items out of 29 via per­ board independence and both SCDI and RCDI is observed (p < 0.05).
formance reports. Human Capital is the most-disclosed category (0.53), Moreover, age is positively correlated with: ICDI; HCDI; university per­
while Structural Capital is the least-disclosed category (0.32). formance; and, Internet visibility at the 0.05 level; and with size at the 0.01
These results are consistent with previous studies (Aversano et al., level. Last, a positive and significant correlation between size and both
2020;Low et al., 2015; Manes Rossi et al., 2018; Ramirez et al., 2019; Internet visibility (p < 0.01) and board size (p < 0.01) is found.
Ramírez & Tejada, 2019) who observed a prevalence for disclosing in­
formation on Human Capital. Human Capital, including researchers, 5.2. Multivariate analysis
lecturers, administrative staff, governors, students and alumni, repre­
sents the mainstay of university IC and the carrier engine that shape Tables 4–7 illustrate the results of the multivariate regression models
their value creation processes and drives their performance. The larger estimated to test the hypotheses.
part of universities’ investments is focused on recruiting, developing and All the models displayed significant goodness-of-fit test statistics as
training research and human resources. As such, Human Capital they are all statistically significant at 1% level and present an adequate
disclosure is fundamental to discharge accountability about the pivotal explanatory power.
resources involved in universities’ value creation processes (Aversano The assumptions underlying the regression models have been tested
et al., 2020; Nicolò, 2020; Sánchez & Elena, 2006). In keeping with the for multicollinearity (variance influence factor (VIF); heteroscedasticity
Italian system of financial resources allocation (FFO) to public univer­ (Breusch–Pagan test); and errors normality issues (OLS Model Normality
sities, the disclosure of information of Human Capital assumes crucial test). All the VIFs were attested well below the critical threshold of 10,
relevance to facilitate the presentation of research and teaching results thus indicating no multicollinearity problems. Breusch-Pagan’s hetero­
driven by human resources and streamline the task of national evalua­ scedasticity test provided p-values that were not significant, thus elim­
tion agencies; this, in turn, increases the possibility to gain more inating heteroscedasticity problems. Moreover, the test results for the
financial resources (Aversano et al., 2020; Manes Rossi et al., 2018; normality of residuals evidenced that the errors were distributed
normally.
Table 2 All the models highlight a positive and statistically significant asso­
Descriptive statistics for dependent, independent and control variables. ciation between university performance and both the overall and the in­
Variables N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
dividual levels of ICD, confirming the hypotheses.
Deviation This result is consistent with previous studies (Brusca et al., 2019;
Cricelli et al., 2018) and confirms that Italian public universities that
ICDI 59 0.03 0.83 0.44 0.19
HCDI 59 0 1 0.53 0.23 achieve higher performance, as reported by the CENSIS ranking, tend to
SCDI 59 0 0.8 0.32 0.21 provide more information about IC and its sub-components through
RCDI 59 0 1 0.48 0.23 performance reports. Therefore, according to the stakeholder theory, the
University 59 69.2 99.4 83.71 7.21 result evidence that ICD plays a pivotal role in unveiling stakeholders
performance
Internet visibility 59 9.67 16.21 13.08 1.53
how a university is exploiting IC resources to fulfil the three missions
Board Size 59 7.00 11.00 10.08 1.16 and gain positive performance. It also sheds lights on Italian univer­
Board Independence 59 0.11 0.55 0.25 0.07 sities’ willingness to demonstrate to stakeholders that they are acting by
Size 59 6.86 11.51 9.80 0.91 respecting the social contract with the society and the socio-economic
Age 59 2.89 6.96 4.77 1.38
territory in which they are rooted. In doing so, through higher levels
Notes: the values have been rounded to the second decimal place. of ICD, universities can prove how they realise their IC potential to

7
G. Nicolò 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** 1
4. RCDI .919** .570** .681** 1
5. University Performance .504** .516** .403** .397** 1
6. Internet visibility .114 − .008 .206 .086 .221 1
7. Board size .171 − .083 .218 .241 .045 .184 1
8. Board Independence .246 .048 .264* .273* .155 .051 .110 1
9. Size .078 .004 .056 .117 .159 .642** .414** .030 1
10. Age .256* .329* .238 .118 .313* .274* .087 − .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 − 0.774296 0.315135 − 2.457 0.0174 **

University performance 0.0112859 0.00348599 3.237 0.0021 *** 1.188
Internet visibility 0.00418189 0.0175616 0.2381 0.8127 1.770
Board size 0.0293328 0.0185642 1.580 0.1202 1.247
Board independence 0.545358 0.243326 2.241 0.0293 ** 1.086
Size − 0.0354141 0.0335970 − 1.054 0.2967 2.255
Age 0.0268450 0.0199353 1.347 0.1839 1.368
Model specification:
Mean dependent variable 0.440094 Std. dependent variable 0.191601
Sum of squared residuals 1.422773 Regression std. error 0.165412
R-Squared 0.331788 Adjusted R-Squared 0.254687
F(6, 54) 6.094699 P-value(F) 0.000069

Notes:
The asterisks indicate statistical significance at the following levels: * 10 %; ** 5%; *** 1%.
Test:
Normality OLS model 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 − 0.403039 0.380957 − 1.058 0.2950

University performance 0.0152025 0.00401441 3.787 0.0004 *** 1.188
Internet visibility − 0.0199561 0.0253542 − 0.7871 0.4348 1.770
Board size − 0.0160984 0.0298305 − 0.5397 0.5917 1.247
Board independence 0.0885882 0.292750 0.3026 0.7634 1.086
Size − 0.0137900 0.0470846 − 0.2929 0.7708 2.255
Age 0.0414854 0.0230791 1.798 0.0781 * 1.368
Model specification:
Mean dependent variable 0.531780 Std. dependent variable 0.230481
Sum of squared residuals 2.043872 Regression std. error 0.198255
R-Squared 0.336629 Adjusted R-Squared 0.260086
F(6, 54) 3.578316 P-value(F) 0.004825

Notes:
The asterisks indicate statistical significance at the following levels: * 10 %; ** 5%; *** 1%.
Test:
Normality OLS model 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 edu­
cation 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 pos­
sibilities 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; Nicolò 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 performance competitors and secure more funds
(Aversano et al., 2020; Brusca et al., 2019; Ramirez et al., 2016).

8
G. Nicolò 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 − 0.843464 0.331332 − 2.546 0.0139 **

University performance 0.00833608 0.00445963 1.869 0.0672 * 1.188
Internet visibility 0.0344085 0.0174566 1.971 0.0540 * 1.770
Board size 0.0476830 0.0155370 3.069 0.0034 *** 1.247
Board independence 0.696356 0.305842 2.277 0.0269 ** 1.086
Size − 0.0827884 0.0269417 − 3.073 0.0034 *** 2.255
Age 0.0356694 0.0226336 1.576 0.1211 1.368
Model specification:
Mean dependent variable 0.320339 Std. dependent variable 0.210729
Sum of squared residuals 1.757526 Regression std. error 0.183844
R-Squared 0.317623 Adjusted R-Squared 0.238887
F(6, 54) 7.254340 P-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 − 1.01182 0.403188 − 2.510 0.0152 **

University performance 0.0117180 0.00411402 2.848 0.0063 *** 1.188
Internet visibility − 0.00541440 0.0212317 − 0.2550 0.7997 1.770
Board size 0.0443175 0.0228848 1.937 0.0582 * 1.247
Board independence 0.7157480 0.316909 2.259 0.0281 ** 1.086
Size − 0.00736596 0.0437176 − 0.1685 0.8669 2.255
Age 0.00621750 0.0252375 0.2464 0.8064 1.368
Model specification:
Mean dependent variable 0.483821 Std. dependent variable 0.237207
Sum of squared residuals 2.458141 Regression std. error 0.217421
R-Squared 0.246774 Adjusted R-Squared 0.159863
F(6, 54) 3.877283 P-value(F) 0.002844

Notes:
The asterisks indicate statistical significance at the following levels: * 10 %; ** 5%; *** 1%.
Test:
Normality OLS model 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
prove that they are efficiently allocating public funds to managing and
developing their crucial resources IC-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 (Nicolò et al., 2020; Ntim et al.,
2017) and provides arguments supporting the role of inde­
pendent/external members as accountability mechanisms that enable
universities to recognise 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., 2008; Nicolò 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;
Nicolò et al., 2020), this result confirms the stakeholder theory’s argu­
ments. 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 reduce 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 organisations” (Cricelli et al., 2018, p. 75). Also, in
contrast with previous studies (Nicolò 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 scrutinised 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
G. Nicolò et al.
6. Conclusion
This study extends on and adds to the upward body of literature that
recognises 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 behavioural 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
decentralised evaluation units (James, Olsen, Moynihan, & Van Ryzin,
2020; Marra, 2020; Rebora & Turri, 2011). Following the NPM wave,
public sector organisations 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
organisations to reduce the burden of high formal procedures and rigid
performance evaluation practices that limit the effectiveness of mana­
gerial accountability and cause frustrations among managers and ad­
ministrators, as it focuses on understanding processes and activity
underpinning organisational value creation and promotes a more flex­
ible and participatory approach to management control and measure­
ment systems (Almqvist & Skoog, 2007; Mouritsen et al., 2004; Nicolò,
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 unveil 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 univer­
sities 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 organisational learning and account­
ability to stakeholders, a behavioural 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). Accord­
ingly, 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 favouring 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 rationalising 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 geographical regions 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 vari­
ables, also looking at cultural differences existing within different na­
tional 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 analyse
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 digitalisation 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
G. Nicolò 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., Nicolò, 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., & Nicolò, 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). DELIBERA n. 89/2010 – “Indirizzi in materia di parametri e modelli di
riferimento del Sistema di misurazione e valutazione della performance” (articoli 13,
comma 6, lett. d) e 30, del decreto legislativo 27 ottobre 2009, n. 150).
CIVIT. (2010b). DELIBERA n. 112/2010 – “Struttura e modalità di redazione del Piano della
performance” (articolo 10, comma 1, lettera a), del decreto legislativo 27 ottobre 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 Dueñas, L. P. (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., & Leitão, 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-Sánchez, I. M., Raimo, N., & Vitolla, F. (2020). CEO power and integrated
reporting. Meditari Accountancy Research. forthcoming.
Garde Sanchez, R., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., & López Hernandez, A. M. (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, N. B. A. (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., & Hyvönen, 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., Nicolò, 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., Nicolò, G., Tiron Tudor, A., & Zanellato, G. (2020). Drivers of integrated
reporting by state-owned enterprises in Europe: A longitudinal analysis. Meditari
Accountancy Research. forthcoming.
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 M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, J. Lonsdale, & B. Perrin
11
Evaluation and Program Planning 88 (2021) 101969
(Eds.), Making accountability work dilemmas for evaluation and for audit. New
Brunswick (U.S.A.): 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. forthcoming.
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.
Nicolò, G. (2020). The rise of intellectual capital disclosure from private to public sector: The
case of Italian Public Universities. FrancoAngeli: Collana Accounting & Business
Studies.
Nicolò, 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 corporatisation: Driving redefinition. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 22(4), 434–450.
Pedro, E., Leitão, J., & Alves, H. (2019). The intellectual capital of higher education
institutions: Operationalising measurement through a strategic prospective lens.
Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(3), 355–381.
Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri – Dipartimento della Funzione Pubblica Ufficio per
la valutazione della performance. (2018). Linee guida per la Relazione annuale sulla
performance. n. 3, novembre.
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, Á. (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.
Sánchez, M. P., & Elena, S. (2006). Intellectual capital in universities: Improving
transparency and internal management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(4), 529–548.
Sánchez, 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, T. V., & 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) conceptualising 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, H. Y., Chen, J. K., Chen, I. S., & Zhuo, H. H. (2012). Ranking universities based on
performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDMmodel. Measurement, 45(5), 856–880.
Giuseppe Nicolò, 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).
G. Nicolò 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 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 honour) 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 Ac­
counting in Executive Programs. He is a member of Faculty of LUM University Interna­
tional 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 author of many books, books chapters and articles/papers in
national and international academic journals.