Legitimating efforts in Performance Plans. Evidences on the thoroughness of disclosure in the Italian Higher Education setting

Anteprima

he aim of this paper is to understand what factors affect the thoroughness of the information provided by Italian Universities in their Performance Plans. The recent reforms that characterized the Italian Higher Education led a full revision of the administrative apparatus. It not only encompassed a switch from cash accounting to accrual accounting, but suddenly gained wider strategic relevance, as attention is also devoted to the coherence between planning activities and reporting outcomes in order to ensure transparency and broader accountability. Hence, drawing on the legitimacy theory, we conducted a panel analysis with fixed effects on data gathered through a meaning-oriented content analysis of 132 Plans. The findings show that, early transition to accrual accounting, the adoption of management accounting tools and geographical position influence the thoroughness of disclosure towards specific accountability and legitimacy wishes. The findings offer noteworthy contributions not limited to the academic debate, but valuable for policy makers and practitioners.

 Keywords: Italian Universities, Performance Plans, disclosure, legitimacy, thoroughness

MC2019.1 Spanò SIDREA

Bibliografia
  1. Agasisti T. Catalano G., Erbacci A. (2017), How Resistance to Change Affects the Implementation of Accrual Accounting in Italian Public Universities: A Comparative Case Study. International Journal of Public Administration, in press.
  2. Agyemang G., Broadbent J. (2015), Management control systems and research management in universities: An empirical and conceptual exploration. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28, 7, pp. 1018-1046. Doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-11-2013-1531.
  3. Allen M.W., Caillouet R.H. (1994), Legitimation endeavours: impression management strategies used by an organization in crisis, Communication Monographs, 61(1) pp. 44-62. Doi.org/10.1080/03637759409376322
  4. Allini A., Caldarelli A., Spanò R. (2017), La disclosure nei Piani della Performance delle università italiane. Intenti simbolici verso approcci sostanziali di legittimazione. Management Control, 1, 1, pp. 37-59. Doi: 10.3280/MACO2017-001003.
  5. Arcari A.M. (2003), Il controllo di gestione negli atenei, Milano, Egea.
  6. Arnaboldi M., Azzone G. (2004), Benchmarking university activities: an Italian case study. Financial Accountability & Management, 20, 2, pp. 205-220. Doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.2004.00193.x
  7. Ashforth B.E., Gibbs B.W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization science, 1, 2, pp. 177-194. Doi: 10.1287/orsc.1.2.177.
  8. Aversano N., Rossi F.M., Polcini P.T. (2017). I sistemi di misurazione della performance nelle università: considerazioni critiche sul sistema italiano. Management Control, 1, 1, pp. 15-36. Doi: 10.3280/MACO2017-001002.
  9. 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. Doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2004.07.001.
  10. 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.
  11. Borgonovi E. (2004), Principi contabili: anche nell’amministrazione pubblica?, Azienda Pubblica, 17, 2, pp. 173-178.
  12. Broadbent J., Laughlin R. (2009), Performance management systems: A conceptual model. Management Accounting Research, 20, 4, pp. 283-295. Doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.004.
  13. Broadbent J., Laughlin R. (2013), Accounting control and controlling accounting: Interdisciplinary and critical perspectives. Emerald Group Publishing.
  14. Brown N., Deegan C. (1998), The public disclosure of environmental performance information – a dual test of media agency setting theory and legitimacy theory, Accounting and Business Research, 29, 1, pp. 21-41. Doi: 00014788.1998.9729564.
  15. Buhr, N. (2002), A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13, pp. 17-38.
  16. 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. Doi: 10.1080/09540962.2013.817129.
  17. Caldarelli 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, 2, 3, pp. 37–62. Doi: 10.3280/MACO2012-003003.
  18. 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.
  19. Carbone C., Elefanti M., D’Este C. (2008). Il processo di integrazione delle funzioni assistenziali, didattiche e di ricerca nelle AOU: il caso dell’azienda e dell’università di Parma. In L’aziendalizzazione della sanità in Italia: rapporto OASI 2008, pp. 1000-1020, Egea.
  20. Carbone C., Tozzi V., Salvatore D., Lega F. (2007). Ospedali e università: illusioni, delusioni e realtà di un rapporto difficile. In L’aziendalizzazione della sanità in Italia: rapporto OASI 2007, pp. 1000-1028, Egea.
  21. Carlin T., Guthrie J. (2003). Accrual output based budgeting systems in Australia. The rhetoric-reality gap. Public Management Review, 5, 2, pp. 145-162. Doi: 10.1080/1461667032000066372.
  22. 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. Doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2006.09.009.
  23. 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.
  24. Connolly C., Hyndman N. (2006). The actual implementation of accruals accounting: caveats from a case within the UK public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19, 2, pp. 272-290. Doi: 10.1108/09513570610656123.
  25. Coy D., Pratt M. (1998). An insight into accountability and politics in universities: a case study. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11, 5, pp. 540-561. Doi: 10.1108/09513579810239846.
  26. Cugini A., Favotto F. (2004). Economic Measures in Universities: The Activity-Based Costing Methodology in an Italian Public School of Economics and Business. In Workshop on the Process of Reform of the University Across Europe, Siena, Italy, pp. 24-6.
  27. D’Alessio L. (2012), Logiche e criteri di armonizzazione nelle recenti normative di riforma della contabilità pubblica, Azienda Pubblica, 25, 1, pp. 23-39.
  28. 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, pp. 256-269. Doi: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1107737.
  29. 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. Doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2004.04.003.
  30. 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 & Accountability Journal, 15, 3, pp. 312-343. Doi: 10.1108/09513570210435861.
  31. Deegan C., Gordon B. (1996), A study of environmental disclosure practices of Australian corporations, Accounting and Business Research, 26, 3, pp. 187-199. Doi: 00014788.1996.9729510.
  32. Deegan C., Rankin M. (1996), Do Australian companies report environmental new objectively? An analysis of environmental disclosures by firms prosecuted successfully by the Environmental Protection Authority, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9, 2, pp. 50-67. Doi: 09513579610116358.
  33. 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. Doi: 09513570210435861.
  34. Deegan C., Rankin M., Voght, P. (2000), Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence, Accounting Forum, 24, 1, pp. 101-130.
  35. Denscombe M. (1998), The good research guide for small-scale social research projects, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
  36. Dowling J., Pfeffer J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behaviour. Pacific sociological review, 18, 1, pp. 122-136. Doi: 10.2307/1388226.
  37. 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. Doi: 10.1111/etap.12012.
  38. Elsbach K.D. (1994), Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: the construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 1, pp. 57-88. Doi: 10.2307/2393494.
  39. Elsbach K.D., Sutton R.L. (1992), Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: a marriage of institutional and impression management theories, Academy of Management Journal, 35, 4, pp. 699-738. Doi.org/10.5465/256313.
  40. Fiondella C., Macchioni R., Maffei M., Spanò, R. (2016). Successful Changes in Management Accounting Systems: a Case Study on Healthcare. Accounting Forum, 40, 3. Doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2016.05.004.
  41. Gigli S., Tieghi M. (2017). La riforma del sistema informativo-contabile degli atenei italiani. Una proposta di analisi del nuovo modello di bilancio. Management Control, 1, 1, pp. 61-91. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2017-001004.
  42. Gray R., Haslam J. (1990). External reporting by UK universities: an exploratory study of accounting change. Financial Accountability & Management, 6, 1, pp. 51-72. Doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.1990.tb00327.x.
  43. Gray R., Kouhy R., Lavers S. (1995), Methodological themes: constructing a research database of social and environmental reporting by UK companies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 8, 2, pp. 78-101. Doi: 09513579510086812.
  44. 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. Doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000004617.
  45. Guthrie J., Neumann R. (2007). Economic and non-financial performance indicators in universities: the establishment of a performance-driven system for Australian higher education. Public Management Review, 9, 2, 231-252. Doi: 14719030701340390.
  46. 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 & Management, 15, 3, pp. 209-228. Doi: 10.1111/1468-0408.00082.
  47. Hood C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 2-3, pp. 93-109. Doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(93)E0001-W.
  48. Jacobsen R., Saultz A. (2016). Will Performance Management Restore Citizens’ Faith in Public Education?. Public Performance & Management Review, 39, 2, pp. 476-497. Doi: 10.1080/15309576.2015.1108790.
  49. 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.
  50. Krippendorff K. (2004), Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
  51. Lapsley I., Miller P. (2004). Foreword: Transforming Universities: The Uncertain, Erratic Path. Financial Accountability & Management, 20, 2, pp. 103-106. Doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0408.2004.00188.x.
  52. 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. Doi: 10.1080/09638180903334960.
  53. Lindblom C.K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. In Critical perspectives on accounting conference, New York (Vol. 120).
  54. 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. Doi: 10.1016/j.bar.2006.05.002.
  55. 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, 1/2014, pp. 5-31.
  56. Magness V. (2006), Strategic posture, financial performance, and environmental disclosure: an empirical test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19, 4, pp. 540-563. Doi: 10.1108/09513570610679128.
  57. Mandanici F. (2011), Il controllo strategico nell’azienda università, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
  58. Marchi L. (2012), Editoriale – Integrazione pubblico-privato su metodologie e strumenti di controllo gestionale, Management Control, 1, 2, pp. 5-8.
  59. 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. Doi: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576370102.
  60. Mazzara L., Sangiorgi D., Siboni B. (2010). Lo sviluppo sostenibile in ottica strategica: un’analisi delle pratiche negli enti locali. Azienda Pubblica, 3, pp. 417-443.
  61. Melo A.I., Sarrico C.S., Radnor Z. (2010). The influence of performance management systems on key actors in universities: the case of an English university. Public Management Review, 12, 2, 233-254. Doi: 10.1080/14719031003616479.
  62. Merkl-Davies D., Brennan N., Vourvachis P. (2011), Text analysis methodologies in corporate narrative reporting research. 23rd CSEAR International Colloquium. St Andrews, United Kingdom.
  63. Milne M.J., Adler P.J. (1999), Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 12, 2, pp. 237-256. Doi: 10.1108/09513579910270138.
  64. Milne M.J., Patten D.M. (2002), Securing organizational legitimacy: an experimental decision case examining the impact of environmental disclosures, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15, 3, pp. 372-405. Doi: 09513570210435889.
  65. Mobus J.L. (2005), Mandatory environmental disclosures in a legitimacy theory context, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18, 4, pp. 492-517. Doi: 09513570510609333
  66. Moggi S. (2016), Il sustainability reporting nelle università. Modelli, processi e motivazioni che inducono al cambiamento, Maggioli Editore, Rimini.
  67. Moggi S., Leardini C., Campedelli B. (2015) Social and Environmental Reporting in the Italian Higher Education System: Evidence from Two Best Practices. In: Leal Filho W., Brandli L., Kuznetsova O., Paço A. (eds) Integrative Approaches to Sustainable Development at University Level. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham
  68. Moll J., Hoque Z. (2011), Budgeting for legitimacy: the case of Australian Universtiy. Accounting, Organization and Society, 36, pp. 86-101. Doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2011.02.006
  69. 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.
  70. 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.
  71. O’Donovan G. (2002), Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15, 3, pp. 344-371. Doi: 09513570210435870.
  72. O’Dwyer B. (2002), Managerial perceptions of corporate social disclosure: an Irish story, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 15, 3, pp. 406-436. Doi: 09513570210435898.
  73. 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.
  74. Ogden S., Clarke J. (2005), Customer disclosures, impression management and the construction of legitimacy: corporate reports in the UK privatised water industry. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18, 3, pp. 313-345. Doi: 10.1108/09513570510600729.
  75. Olson O., Guthrie J., Humphrey C. (1998), Global Warning! Debating International Developments in New Public Financial Management, Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
  76. Paolini A., Soverchia M. (2017). I sistemi informativi per il controllo e la valutazione delle performance nelle università italiane. Management Control, 1(1), 5-14. Doi: 10.3280/MACO2017-001001.
  77. Paolini A., Soverchia M., (2015), La programmazione delle università italiane si rinnova: riflessioni e primi riscontri empirici. Azienda Pubblica, 3, pp. 287-308.
  78. 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.
  79. Parker L.D. (1991), External social accountability: adventures in a maleficent world, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 4, pp. 23-34.
  80. Parker L.D. (2013), Contemporary university strategizing: the financial imperative. Financial Accountability & Management, 29, 1, pp. 1-25. Doi: 10.1111/faam.12000.
  81. Patten D. (1992), Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: a note on legitimacy theory, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 5, pp. 471-475. Doi:0361-3682(92)90042-Q
  82. Patten D. (1995), Variability in social disclosure: a legitimacy-based analysis, Advances in Public Interest Accounting, 6, pp. 273-285.
  83. Patten D. (2002), The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: a research note, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, pp.763- 773. Doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00028-4.
  84. Pendlebury M., Algaber N. (1997), Accounting for the cost of central support services in UK universities: A note. Financial Accountability & Management, 13, 3, pp. 281-288. Doi: 10.1111/1468-0408.00038.
  85. 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. Doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00531.x.
  86. 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.
  87. 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.
  88. Salvatore C., Del Gesso C. (2017). La sfida e il futuro della contabilità economico-patrimoniale nelle università statali: evidenze dall’esperienza italiana. Azienda Pubblica, 1, pp. 73-91.
  89. Seeber M., Lepori B., Montauti M., Enders J., De Boer H., Weyer E., Bleiklie I., Hope K., Michelsen S., Mathisen G.N., Frølich, N., Scordato L., Stensaker B., Waagene E., Dragsic Z., Kretek P., Krücken G., Magalhães A., Ribeiro F.M., Sousa S., Veiga A., Santiago R., Matini G., Reale E. (2015). European universities as complete organizations? Understanding identity, hierarchy and rationality in public organizations. Public Management Review, 17, 10, pp. 1444-1474. Doi: 10.1080/14719037.2014.943268
  90. 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. Doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00099-X.
  91. 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. Doi: 10.1108/09513570010353738.
  92. Steccolini I. (2004). Is the annual report an accountability medium? An empirical investigation into Italian local governments. Financial Accountability & Management, 20, 3, pp. 327-350. Doi: 10.1111/j.0267-4424.2004.00389.x.
  93. Suchman M.C. (1995), Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches, Academy of Management Review, 20, 3, pp. 571-610. Doi: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331
  94. 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.
  95. Tieghi M., Padovani E., Orelli, R. L. (2018). Accounting Reform in Italian Universities: Internal Response to Accounting Change. Management Control, 1, 1, pp. 117-138. DOI: 10.3280/MACO2018-001006.
  96. 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 & Accountability Journal, 4, 2, pp. 28-54. Doi: 10.1108/09513579110000504.
  97. Tregidga H., Milne M., Lehman, G. (2012). Analyzing the quality, meaning and accountability of organizational reporting and communication: Directions for future research, Accounting Forum, 36, 3, pp. 223-230. Doi: j.accfor.2012.07.001.
  98. Tregidga H., Milne M., Kearins K. (2014). (Re) presenting ‘sustainable organizations’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39, 6, pp. 477-494.
  99. Townley B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization studies, 18, 2, pp. 261-285. Doi: 10.1177/017084069701800204.
  100. 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.
  101. Walden W.D., Schwartz B.N. (1997), Environmental disclosures and public policy pressure, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 16, pp. 125-154. Doi: S0278-4254(96)00015-4.
  102. Weber R.P. (1990), Basic content analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
  103. 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. Doi: 13600800903191971.
  104. 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. Doi: 10.5465/AMR.2002.7389921.