The disclosure in the Plans of the Performance of the Italian University. Symbolic intent vs substantial legitimacy approaches

Author/s Alessandra Allini, Adele Caldarelli, Rosanna Spanò
Publishing Year 2017 Issue 2017/1 Language Italian
Pages 23 P. 37-59 File size 694 KB
DOI 10.3280/MACO2017-001003
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

This research focuses on the Performance Plans drawn up by Italian universities, to understand whether the information conveyed in this documents are able to achieve increasing transparency and greater accountability - fulfilling the willingness expressed by recent regulatory attempts - or if, conversely, they constitute a mere symbolic compliance effort. The study embraces the legitimacy framework and relies upon a meaning oriented content analysis of 66 Performance Plans. The main findings show little strategic value underlying Performance Plans, as well as the persistence of certain information gaps on key areas of strategic importance, offering a noteworthy contribution not restricted to the academic debate, but valuable for policy makers and practitioners.

Keywords: University, Performance plane, disclosure, legitimacy.

  1. Adams C.A., Hill W.Y., Roberts C.B. (1998), Corporate social reporting practices in Western Europe: legitimating corporate behaviour?, The British accounting review, 30(1), pp. 1-21.
  2. Anessi Pessina E. (2005), La contabilità economico-patrimoniale nelle aziende pubbliche: dal ‘se’ al ‘come’, Azienda Pubblica, XVIII, 4, pp. 567-589.
  3. Arcari A.M. (2003), Il controllo di gestione negli atenei, Milano, Egea.
  4. Bansal P., Clelland I. (2004), Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment, Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), pp. 93-103. DOI: 10.2307/20159562
  5. Beattie V., McInnes B., Fearnley S. (2004), A methodology for analysing and evaluating narratives in annual reports: a comprehensive descriptive profile and metrics for disclosure quality attributes, Accounting Forum, 28, pp. 205-236.
  6. Biondi L., Francese U., Gulluscio C. (2015), Verso un sistema contabile economico-patrimoniale: prime evidenze empiriche nell’ambito delle università pubbliche italiane, Azienda Pubblica, 3, pp. 247-267.
  7. Borgonovi E. (2004), Principi contabili: anche nell’amministrazione pubblica? Azienda Pubblica, 17, 2, pp. 173-178.
  8. Caldarelli A., Allini A., Spanò R. (2016), La rendicontazione sociale come strumento di legittimazione. Un focus sugli atenei italiani “virtuosi”, in Mio, C. (a cura di) La rendicontazione sociale negli atenei italiani. Valori, modelli, misurazioni, Milano, FrancoAngeli, pp. 362-378.
  9. Caldarelli A., Allini A., Spanò R. (2014), Il bilancio sociale nelle Università tra compliance formale e disclosure sostanziale. Un’analisi empirica nel contesto italiano, Azienda Pubblica, 27, 3, pp. 241-257.
  10. Caldarelli A., Fiondella C., Maffei M., Spanò R., Aria M. (2013), CEO performance evaluation systems: empirical findings from the Italian health service, Public Money & Management, 33(5), pp. 369–376.
  11. Cantele S., Martini M., Campedelli B. (2011), La pianificazione strategica nelle università: alcune evidenze empiriche dall’Italia e una proposta metodologica, Azienda Pubblica 24, 4, pp. 339-359.
  12. Cardarelli A., Maffei M., Spanò R. (2012), I sistemi di valutazione della performance dei Direttori Generali come processo trasformazionale. Un’analisi empirica dei Servizi Sanitari Regionali Italiani, Management Control, 3, pp. 37-62. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2012-003003
  13. Christiaens J., Wielemaker E.D. (2003), Financial accounting reform in Flemish universities: an empirical study of the implementation, Financial Accountability & Management, 19(2), pp. 185-204. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0408.00169
  14. Cho C.H., Patten D.M (2007), The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note, Accounting, Organizations and Society 32, 7, pp. 639-647.
  15. Courtis J.K. (2004), Colour as visual rhetoric in financial reporting, Accounting Forum, 28(3), pp. 265-281.
  16. Day R., Woodward T. (2004), Disclosure of information about employees in the Directors’ report of UK published financial statements: substantive or symbolic?, Accounting Forum, 28(1), pp. 43-59.
  17. D’Alessio L. (2012), Logiche e criteri di armonizzazione nelle recenti normative di riforma della contabilità pubblica, Azienda Pubblica, 25, 1, pp. 23-39.
  18. Deegan C., Rankin M., Tobin J. (2002), An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983-1997: a test of legitimacy theory, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15, 3, pp. 312-343.
  19. Denscombe M. (1998), The good research guide for small-scale social research projects, Maidenhead, UK, Open University Press.
  20. Drover W., Wood M.S., Payne G.T. (2014), The effects of perceived control on venture capitalist investment decisions: A configurational perspective, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38, 4, pp. 833-61.
  21. Garlatti A. (1996), Bilancio e controllo economico nelle università degli studi, Milano, Egea.
  22. Gray R., Kouhy R., Lavers S. (1995), Methodological themes: constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 8(2), pp. 78-101.
  23. Gray R., Owen D., Maunders K. (1991), Accountability, corporate social reporting, and the external social audits, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 4, pp. 1-21.
  24. Gray R., Owen D., Maunders K. (1988), Corporate social reporting: emerging trends in accountability and the social contract, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1, 1, pp. 6-20.
  25. Guthrie J., Olson O., Humphrey C. (1999), Debating developments in New Public Financial Management: the limits of global theorising and some new ways forward, Financial Accountability and Management, 15(3), pp. 209-228.
  26. Kallio K.M., Kallio T.J. (2014), Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities–implications for work motivation, Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), pp. 574-589.
  27. Krippendorff K. (2004), Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
  28. Lapsley I., Mussari R., Paulsson G. (2009), On the adoption of accrual accounting in the public sector: a self-evident and problematic reform, European Accounting Review, 18(4), pp. 719-723.
  29. Lauterbach R., Hass L.H., Schweizer D. (2014), The impact of fund inflows on staging and investment behaviour, International Small Business Journal, 32, 6, pp. 644-66. DOI: 10.1177/0266242613500504
  30. Linsley P., Shrives P. (2006), Risk reporting: A study of risk disclosures in annual reports of UK companies, The British Accounting Review, 38, 4, pp. 387-404.
  31. Macchioni R., Allini A., Manes Rossi F. (2014), Do Corporate Governance Characteristics Affect Non-Financial Risk Disclosure in Government-owned Companies? The Italian Experience, Financial Reporting, 1, pp. 5-31. DOI: 10.3280/FR2014-001001
  32. Magness V. (2006), Strategic posture, financial performance, and environmental disclosure: an empirical test of legitimacy theory, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19, 4, pp. 540-563. DOI: 10.3280/FR2014-001001
  33. Mandanici F. (2011), Il controllo strategico nell’azienda università, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  34. Marchi L. (2015), Editoriale. Nuove prospettive di ricerca sulle tematiche di Management Control, Management Control, 3, pp. 5-8. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2015-003001
  35. Martí C. (2013), Performance budgeting and accrual budgeting. A study of the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zeland, Public Performance & Management Review, 37(1), pp. 33-58.
  36. Merkl-Davies D., Brennan N., Vourvachis P. (2011), Text analysis methodologies in corporate narrative reporting research, 23rd CSEAR International Colloquium, St Andrews, United Kingdom.
  37. Milne M.J., Adler P.J. (1999), Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12, 2, pp. 237-256.
  38. Mio C. (2013), Towards a sustainable University. The Ca’ Foscari experience, Palgrave.
  39. Mio C., Borgato B. (2012), Performance Measurement nelle Istituzioni Universitarie: verso una prospettiva di sostenibilità, Rirea editore.
  40. Moll J., Hoque Z. (2011), Budgeting for legitimacy: the case of Australian Universtiy, Accounting Organization and Society, 36, pp. 86-101.
  41. Mussari R., D’Alessio L., Sostero U. (2015), Brevi considerazioni sui mutamenti in atto nei sistemi di contabilità finanziaria, Azienda Pubblica, 3, pp. 227-246.
  42. Mussari R., Sostero U. (2014), Il processo di cambiamento del sistema contabile nelle università: aspettative, difficoltà e contraddizioni, Azienda Pubblica, 27, 2, pp. 121-143.
  43. Ogden S., Clarke J. (2005), Customer disclosures, impression management and the construction of legitimacy: corporate reports in the UK privatised water industry, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(3), pp. 313-345. DOI: 10.1108/09513570510600729
  44. O’Keefe P., Conway S. (2008), Impression management and legitimacy in an NGO environment. Working Paper, Working paper Series No 2/2008, University of Tasmania, Australia.
  45. Olson O., Guthrie J., Humphrey C. (1998), Global Warning! Debating International Developments in New Public Financial Management, Oslo, Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
  46. Paolini A., Soverchia. M. (2014), Public Italian universities towards accrual accounting and management control, Information Systems, Management, Organization and Control, Springer International Publishing, pp. 29-45. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07905-9_3
  47. Paolini A., Soverchia M. (2015), La programmazione delle università italiane si rinnova: riflessioni e primi riscontri empirici, Azienda Pubblica, 3, pp. 287-308.
  48. Parker L.D. (2013), Contemporary university strategizing: the financial imperative, Financial Accountability and Management, 29(1), pp. 1-25.
  49. Parker L.D. (1991), External social accountability: adventures in a maleficent world, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 4, pp. 23-34.
  50. Pollack J.M., Rutherford M.W., Nagy B.G. (2012), Preparedness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of new venture funding in televised business pitches, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36, 5, pp. 915-39.
  51. Rebora G., Turri M. (2009), Governance in Higher Education: an analysis of the Italian experience. In Huisman J. (ed), International Perspectives on the Governance of Higher Education. Alternative Frameworks for Coordination, Abingdon, Routledge, pp. 13-31.
  52. Riccaboni A., Galgani C. (2010), Board e membri esterni nella governance interna delle università italiane: nuovi trend e questioni emergenti, Azienda Pubblica, 23, 3, pp. 331-368.
  53. Ricci P., Parnoffi M. (2013), Il sistema universitario italiano alla luce delle recenti riforme. Questioni di governance, di finanziamento e di performance nella prospettiva della rendicontazione sociale, in Cassone A., Sacconi L. (a cura di), Autonomia e responsabilità dell’università. Governance e accountability, Milano, Giuffré, pp. 113-147.
  54. Salvatore C. (2012), Il nuovo sistema contabile e di bilancio delle università. Caratteristiche e criticità, Torino, Giappichelli.
  55. Sargiacomo M. (2002), Budgeting behavioiurs negli atenei pubblici italiani: risultanze di una ricerca sulla caratteristiche del good budgeting, Azienda Pubblica, 15(4-5), pp. 371-398.
  56. Shepherd D.A., Zacharakis A., Baron R.A. (2003), VCs’ decision processes: Evidence suggesting more experience may not always be better, Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 3, pp. 381-401.
  57. Suchman M.C. (1995), Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches, Academy of Management Review, XX, 3, pp. 571-610. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331
  58. Smith M., Taffler R. (2000), The chairman’s statement – a content analysis of discretionality narrative disclosures, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13, 5, pp. 624-647.
  59. Ter Bogt H.J., Scapens R.W. (2012), Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems, European Accounting Review, pp. 21(3), 451-497. DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2012.668323
  60. Tinker T., Lehman C., Neimark M. (1991), Falling down the hole in the middle of the road: political quietism in corporate social reporting, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 4, 2, pp. 28-54.
  61. Vourvachis P., Woodward T. (2015), Content analysis in social and environmental reporting research: trends and challenges, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 16(2), pp. 166-195. DOI: 10.1108/JAAR-04-2013-0027
  62. Weber R.P. (1990), Basic content analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
  63. Zambon S., Saccon C. (1993), Accounting change in Italy: Fresh start or Gattopardo’s revolution?, The European Accounting Review, 2, 1, pp. 245-284.
  64. Zierdt G.L. (2009), Responsibility-centred budgeting: an emerging trend in higher education budget reform, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(4), pp. 345-353.
  65. Zimmerman M.A., Zeitz G.J. (2002), Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy, Academy of Management Review, 27, 3, pp. 414-31.

  • On intellectual capital management as an evaluation criterion for university managers: a case study Stefania Veltri, Pina Puntillo, in Journal of Management and Governance /2020 pp.135
    DOI: 10.1007/s10997-019-09461-5
  • Governance and Performance Management in Public Universities Natalia Aversano, Giuseppe Nicolò, Giuseppe Sannino, Paolo Tartaglia Polcini, pp.109 (ISBN:978-3-030-85697-7)
  • L'accounting change nel settore pubblico: primi spunti per una riflessione integrata Adele Caldarelli, Rosanna Spanò, Luca Ferri, Raffaela Casciello, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2020 pp.11
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-001002
  • Legitimating efforts in Performance Plans. Evidences on the thoroughness of disclosure in the Italian Higher Education setting Alessandra Allini, Adele Caldarelli, Rosanna Spanò, Annamaria Zampella, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2019 pp.143
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2019-001007
  • Integrated Performance Plans in Higher Education as means of accounting change. Insights into the Italian context Alessandra Allini, Rosanna Spanò, Annamaria Zampella, Fiorenza Meucci, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2020 pp.87
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-001005
  • La disclosure nei piani anticorruzione degli enti locali in Italia Francesca Manes Rossi, Luca Ferri, Annamaria Zampella, Adele Caldarelli, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 3/2021 pp.153
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2021-003008
  • Il risk management approach nelle Università italiane: prime riflessioni su vincoli e opportunità Manuela Lucchese, Giuseppe Sannino, Paolo Tartaglia Polcini, in MANAGEMENT CONTROL 1/2020 pp.111
    DOI: 10.3280/MACO2020-001006

Alessandra Allini, Adele Caldarelli, Rosanna Spanò, La disclosure nei Piani della Performance delle università italiane. Intenti simbolici verso approcci sostanziali di legittimazione in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 1/2017, pp 37-59, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2017-001003