1-Ahmed Riahi - Serials Publications

IJMRT • Volume 6 • Number 1 • January-June 2012: 37-50
I J M R T
© Serials Publications
THE ICR IN UNIVERSITY: A CASE STUDY
Raffaele Trequattrini, Giuseppe Russo & Rosa Lombardi*
Abstract: The area of social reporting has undergone a transformation in recent years due to a
growing need to represent both the social-economic value of public and private organisations and the
intangible assets of private companies. Accordingly, this paper aims to analyse a number of conceptual
social reporting frameworks from the perspective of public governance with a particular focus on
universities. By identifying the best practices in both national and international contexts, we propose
a new model based on the Austrian Intellectual Capital Report. Furthermore, we analyse the IES
UNICAS model from the University of Cassino. This model focuses on socially responsible governance
and is inspired by the Austrian report. The model is appropriate for analysing the aims, intellectual
capital, performance processes and social-economical impacts of a given organisation.
Keywords: public governance, report, intellectual capital, accountability, university, key indicator.
Acknowledgment: This paper is the joint work of the three Authors: paragraphs 1 and 3 are by
Raffaele Trequattrini, paragraph 2 is by Giuseppe Russo and paragraphs 4 is by Rosa Lombardi.
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the governance (Airoldi, Forestieri, 1998; Bianchi, 1996; Colley Jr, Doyle, Logan,
Stettinius, 2005; Donna, 2001; Lacchini, 2002; Molteni, 1997; Trequattrini, 1999; Zanelli, 1997)
of public and private organisations has undergone remarkable changes due to new demands for
exhaustive reporting to create and control value in the long term. In response to this movement,
universities (Ackoff, 1960; Bertini, 1990; Ferrero, 1980; Masini, 1970; Sciarelli, 1985; Zanda,
2009) have begun to use innovative accountability tools (Kaptein, 2007; Pezzani, 2003; Romolini,
2007; Solomon, 2010; Steccolini, 2004) to measure their activity in terms of social-economic
development and to evaluate the worth of intangible assets (Stewart, 1999) and thereby improve
management practices.
In general, economic-financial reporting (Lacchini, 1994) must rely on voluntary self-reported
data, especially with reference to an organisation’s intellectual capital (D’Egidio, 2001; Fabbrini,
Ricciardi, 2007; Fogheri, Bondanelli, 2009; Lev, 2003; Mouritsen, Larsen, Bukh, Johansen,
2002; Nardo, Veltri, 2007; Zambon, Marzo, 2007). However, a recent publication (Farneti, 1993)
appears to omit measurements of human capital, structural capital and relational capital.
In today’s knowledge economy (Foray, 2006; Rifkin, 2001; Martín-de-Castro, DelgadoVerde, López-Sáez, Navas-López, 2011; Rullani, 2004; Trequattrini, 2008), traditional university
governance systems often fail to address the newest educational, research and institutional
challenges (Catalano, 2009). Such systems also fail to appropriately capture resource management.
* University of Cassino, Via S. Angelo, Loc. Folcara, 03043 Cassino (FR), Italy.
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
38
IJMRT
Recent national systemic reforms have led universities to focus on the core principles of
autonomy and responsibility. We note references to economics-based accounting (Cugini, 2007;
Miolo Vitali, Marelli, 2000; Miolo Vitali, 2001), fiscal responsibility (Borgonovi, 2005; Puddu,
2001), and new assessments of undertaken commitments, resulting outputs, and social effects
(Mussari, Monfardini, 2010).
Appropriate monitoring of public governance (Benz, Frey, 2007; Carnegie, Track, 2010),
social balance (Cassone, Zaccardella, 2009; Hinna, 2004) and intellectual capital (Chiucchi,
2004; Cravera, Maglione, Ruggieri, 2001; Fabbrini, Ricciardi, 2007) allow universities to create
significant links with internal and external shareholders (Freeman, 1984) and to optimise the
management of intangible assets.
This paper aims to identify the importance of social reporting and intellectual capital in the
public sector, with a special focus on Italian universities. The University of Cassino aims to
select a reporting framework that will adequately represent its social-economic activities, as
well as its intangible assets and performance metrics.
We broadly follow the Austrian model for universities and research institutions and
specifically the Intellectual Capital Reporting law enacted in 1999 by the Austrian Research
Centre (Leitner, Warden, 2004).
The University of Cassino undertook a project known as IES UNICAS. This effort involved
an analysis of financial and non-financial indicators proposed by the literature to optimise the
internal and external management of intangible resources and processes related to teaching and
research. It also assesses knowledge transfer and its economic-social impact on the local
community.
FROM SOCIAL BALANCE TO INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL REPORTING: THE
AUSTRIAN EXPERIENCE
Authentic value creation (Bang, Cleemann, Bramming, 2010; Lipparini, 2003; Turco, 2004;
Vicari, 1992) requires that public organisations adopt tools and indicators that allow for the
transparent measurement, management, control and reporting of their activity.
According to Moore (Moore, 1995), most value strategies require three factors: perceived
legitimacy, the support of public activities (Ansoff, Pastore, Piantoni, 1984; Donaldson, Preston,
1995; Freeman, Rusconi, Dorigatti, 2007; Mitchell, Agle, Wood, 1997; Sciarelli, 2007;
Trequattrini, 1999) and the creation of social-economic value.
A public focus on social and economic impacts requires that an organisation choose functional
governance tools that account for social capital (Cima, Bruno, 2002; Dipartimento della Funzione
Pubblica, 2006; Putnam, 2000).
A performance-oriented approach may be most appropriate for measuring a university’s
services and optimising the management of strategic intangible resources (Bruni, 1997a; Catturi,
2000; Fabbrini, Ricciardi, 2007; Formez, 2006; Frey, 1997; Gabrovec Mei, 1993; Hall, 1992;
Miolo Vitali, 1987; Paris, 2003; Vermiglio, 2000; Viviani, 1999).
This management approach has driven universities to use social accounting (Hess, 2007;
Hinna, 2002; Matacena, 1984; Rusconi, 1998) or social assessment (Hinna, 2004) to meet
reporting requirements, also known as ‘RSP’ (Manni, 1994).
The ICR in University: A Case Study
39
A university may be motivated by several factors: a requirement to communicate with their
internal and external shareholders (Hinna, Monteduro, 2003); new cultural, social, or economic
developments that impact the institution; a prior failure to adequately account for intangible
assets that are of strategic relevance; and ongoing emphasis on CSR and RSP (Dahlsrud, 2007;
Kanji, Gopal, 2010; Viviani, 1999).
Universities may also be motivated by competition and a desire to be recognised for highquality CSR practices (Hinna, 2004). In general, however, the university must first be aware of
a need for improved social responsibility in order to successfully implement new protocols.
Annual reporting allows universities to compare their objectives to results. They may also
identify new objectives (Cerchione, 2000) consistent with given controls and new programmes
(D’Alessio, 2008).
Two competing methodologies (Catalano, 2004) exist: minimalist (document-oriented) and
maximalist (process-oriented). A university can choose to focus on stakeholder requirements (a
minimalist approach) or on programming and managerial advancement (maximalist).
Today, intellectual capital is core to the social accountability efforts undertaken by universities
(Comuzzi, Marasca, Olivotto, 2009; Edvinsson, Malone, 1997; Itami, 1988; Marchi, Marasca,
2010; Sveiby, 1997). According to Stewart (1999), the following concepts are key:
- Human capital (Arduini, 2001; Cipollone, Sesisto, 2010; Epifani, 2003; Flamholtz,
1989; Fontana, 1986; Lev, Schwartz, 1971; Roos, Roos, Dragonetti, Edvisson, 1997;
Scifo, 1974; Zanda, Lacchini, Oricchio, 1993), including the competencies, skills,
experience, and knowledge possessed by an organisation’s members;
- Structural capital (Bonani, 2000; Brugger, 1989; Lizza, 2005), including knowledge
that is structured as patents, databases, regulations, formalised and non-formalised
procedures, and information technology;
- Relational capital (Costabile, 2001; Lattanzi, 2000; Pirovani, Gilodi, 2003; Zanda,
Lacchini, 1991), including relational or organisational systems and brand elements such
as image, reputation and trust.
In this sense, the achievement of social balance requires an organisation to expose data and
information of relevance to strategic drivers of public value. These intangible assets can only be
measured by performance indicators.
Because there is no clear distinction between social balance and intellectual balance (one
includes the other), social-economic guidelines (Reynolds, Yuthas, 2008) have been issued by
various organisations: the International Federation of Accountants (Ifac, 1998), standard
AccountAbility 1000 (AA 1000); the Danish Agency for Trade and Industry (Dati, 2000); the
Nordic Industrial Fund; Meritum Project Guidelines (Meritum, 2002); Australian IC Guidelines;
the Intellectual Capital Report for Austrian Universities; Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines
(Gri, 2002); Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research, Development and Innovation
in SMEs; the Japanese Ministry of Economy (METI); Putting IC into Practice Guidelines;
guidelines from the Italian Public Function Ministry through Formez; and the guidelines outlined
in Gruppo di Studio per la Statuizione dei Principi di Redazione del Bilancio Sociale (GBS).
In general, the Austrian guidelines appear to meet the objective of both social and intellectual
capital reporting (Leitner, Warden, 2004).
40
IJMRT
In 1999, the Austrian Research Centre (ARC) designed a model to address universities’
human capital, structural capital and relational capital. It allows one to identify fundamental
performance processes in the areas of teaching, research and knowledge transfer within a given
area.
ARC or ICR models are characterised by the following factors: the institution’s objectives,
intellectual capital, performance processes, and impact in a given area. The Austrian model
focuses on an analysis and representation of intangible assets and six performance processes
(teaching, research, education, commercialisation of research, transfer of knowledge to the public,
infrastructure), and it concludes by assessing the university’s impact on the community.
Under the Austrian model, intangible and performance metrics are evaluated through financial
and non-financial indicators consistent with those proposed by the literature with the intent of
measuring intellectual capital.
The number of indicators that should be included in the report is between 50 and 100. The
Austrian Ministry defined these metrics in 2002 after the law was passed. Moreover, the model
is flexible and can include additional indicators.
This kind of reporting allows universities to optimise their internal management of intangible
resources. Such a tool satisfies the requirements of social responsibility (Chiesi, Martinelli,
Pellegatta, 2000; Gallino, 2005; Lacchini, Trequattrini, 2004) with respect to stakeholders
(Freeman, 1984) and promotes university-wide reform.
SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CASSINO:
THE IES UNICAS MODEL AND ITS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
In accordance with the reforms carried out in recent years, the University of Cassino has undergone
significant change. Social reporting now includes intellectual capital assessments (Bruni, 1997;
Catturi, 2000; Fabbrini, Ricciardi, 2007; Formez, 2006; Frey, 1997; Gabrovec Mei, 1993; Hinna,
2002; Holmen, 2005; Manni, 1994; Matacena, 1984; Miolo Vitali, 1987; Paris, 2003; Rusconi,
1988; Vermiglio, 2000; Viviani, 1999).
The introduction of an innovative form of voluntary reporting has allowed us to propose the
IES UNICAS model (Economic Social Impact of the University of Cassino) within the university.
Our model follows that of the Austrian Research Centre and is based on the Intellectual Capital
Report for Austrian Universities.
There are at least three advantages to creating a unique model that is tuned to the needs of
the University of Cassino:
1. It supports complete transparency for both internal and external stakeholders (Donaldson,
Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Freeman, Rusconi, Dorigatti, 2007; Trequattrini, 1999);
2. It complements existing economic/financial reporting;
3. It promotes rigorous and efficient activity planning and controls.
IE UNICAS was created through seven phases:
1. ODG designation – The first phase required the designation of a governing organisation,
consistent with the principles of social public responsibility. In the case of the University
of Cassino, social-economic reporting started in 2009 with the appointment of a new
The ICR in University: A Case Study
2.
3.
4.
5.
41
university president. He announced a governance reform programme with social
reporting tools.
Commitment manifest – In the second phase, the new president proposed adopting
voluntary reporting tools both to support economic/financial reporting and to plan the
university’s future activities in an efficient and effective way.
Training - The third phase consisted of forming a research team to write the intellectual
capital report. After the administrative manager’s appointment in June 2010, a study
group was formed to plan all activities. The six-member committee included an
economics professor with expertise in policy, three technical/administrative experts
(services manager, teaching staff manager, head of university administration) and two
junior researchers who were PhD students in economics with an interest in management.
The group therefore included academic, professional and technical skillsets.
In this specific case, the coordinator was someone who had significant knowledge of
economics and business and was very experienced with enterprise social responsibility.
The presence of a professor, two managers, and an administrative manager made it
easier to find the information and data necessary to write up the document. The inclusion
of a lead administrator guaranteed that we could secure the cooperation of other university
administrators. The junior researchers worked on data collection and processing.
Writing up this report was delegated by the head of administration to other managers in
order to evaluate their work.
Defining the reporting system– In the fourth phase, the team outlined the structure of
the reporting programme. We specified the governance tools to be used, set the objectives
and chose guidelines for the document. In the case of the University of Cassino, the
next step after creating the work plan was to identify the best analysis tool to fill
information gaps and simultaneously boost stakeholder trust. In general, at the
international level, the Austrian approach is impressive because it regulates university
best practices. The two guidelines that were deemed to be the most effective in terms of
social reporting for universities were the Austrian framework (Leitner, Warden, 2004)
and the Italian approach (GBS). Our choice of the Austrian ICR model instead of the
social GBS reporting model was based on the fact that the Italian framework largely
ignores knowledge transfer. In contrast, the GBS guidelines include a full description
of the enterprise’s identity, including a reclassification of all accountancy data and social
relationships to assess stakeholder benefits. However, the Austrian ICR model’s strength
lies in representing a university’s intellectual capital and its performance processes in a
manner that appears to be coherent with the notion that the added value produced by the
university is due to the creation and dissemination of knowledge. In this way, intangible
assets create value (Turco, 2004) for both the community, through education and research,
and for the economy, through the transfer of knowledge and innovation.
Data acquisition – After the methodology was defined, we contacted our accounting
departments to request documents and contextual explanations. We also requested data
from the following departments: general administration, research, public affairs,
planning, real estate development, statistics, legal, teaching, pensions, technical and
42
IJMRT
administrative HR. We asked for information from the secretary of the evaluation
committee, the offices of deans of different faculties, administrative secretaries from
different faculties, technical offices, and several different service university centres. To
assess the social-economic impact of the university, further information was collected
from outside entities such as local businesses (bookshops, photocopy shops, hotels, the
chamber of commerce, etc.). Information was classified according to its source: primary
(deans’ offices, faculties, departments) and secondary (outside entities).
Although our team included managers, our data were not always current. Certain
departments also failed to provide us with the needed information.
6. Document structuring – The IES UNICAS model generated a report that includes three
sections:
- The first section identified the university’s distinguishing characteristics, objectives
and values. We highlighted activities carried out during the reference year, the governance
system and the university’s organisational structure.
- The second section analysed the university’s intellectual capital. The analysis included
human capital, structural capital, relational capital and performance processes involving
teaching, research and knowledge transfer using indicators chosen in the course of the
research.
- The third section identified sources of the university’s financing and investments as
well as the university’s social-economic (direct and indirect) impact.
In our model, human capital (Epifani, 2003; Flamholtz, 1989; Fontana, 1986; Scifo,
1974; Zanda, Lacchini, Oricchio, 1993) was defined to include personnel such as teaching
staff, technical-administrative staff, postdoctoral researchers, contractors, PhD students,
and PhD graduates. Our approach includes demographic data for all groups.
The structural capital section (Bonani, 2000; Lizza, 2005) focuses on patents granted to
the university, libraries, information technology, regulatory reform, outside suppliers
and our fibre optic intranet.
Relational capital focuses on any agreements reached by the central administration and
by individual departments with European and non-European mobility programmes,
book loans and consulting services, visits to the website by stakeholders, the number of
mentions in the local press, social assistance projects, and recreation or cultural activities.
In terms of teaching practices, we assessed the connection between students and
professors, space available for students, active teaching hours, study hours, and other
metrics of teaching quality.
We also identified MIUR projects (PRIN and FIRB), EU programmes, other research
programmes, academic spin-off companies, faculty publications, and the number of
PhD students.
In total, we examined 282 key indicators: indicators 1 to 70 reflected human capital; 71
to 90 were indicators of structural capital; and 91 to 135 specified relational capital.
Indicators 136 to 184 were related to teaching; 185 to 268 were related to research; and
269 to 282 focused on knowledge/technology transfer.
The ICR in University: A Case Study
43
We note that the model includes both indicators from Austria and new metrics devised
by the Cassino team. The Austrian indicators alone were inadequate to represent the
university’s intellectual capital and performance processes.
Our new indicators reflected the university’s library systems (indicator 75), increases
in technical and computer proficiency (indicator 81), new regulatory frameworks
(indicator 84), the number of loans and growth of library services (indicator 119), library
resource usage (indicator 124), visits to the university’s website (indicator 129); the
number of times the university was mentioned in the local press (indicator 130), the
number of academic credits offered by the university (indicator 168), and the number
of study hours (indicator 162).
Table 1 lists some of the indicators for intangible assets and processes in our social
reporting model for the University of Cassino.
The last part of the document analyses the sources of funding and investments,
reclassifying them in a manner consistent with intellectual capital impact. This shows
the university’s economic-social impact in its region, and it differentiates between direct
and indirect impacts.
The direct impact of the university was evaluated in terms of the number of staff living
in the Province of Frosinone and Latina and the relative costs borne by the administration
in 2009.
The indirect impact of the university is represented through our analysis of five local
markets: restaurants and bars (I.I.M.R.B.), accommodation (I.I.M.A.), office supply
and copy/print shops (I.I.M.C.), bookshops (I.I.M.L.) and computer merchants
(I.I.M.P.I.).
7. Calculating the social balance, and fine-tuning the programme and its control systems–
The last phase of the process required us to secure approval for the document from the
university. The University of Cassino required the administrative council to approve
the document. At this time, we also submitted our final report. In order to communicate
the value of the IES UNICAS approach, we held a conference for employees, students,
community and the local press. The indicators derived from our research can be used to
assign budgets for future fiscal years. All outcomes should be evaluated according to
objective criteria, synthesised according to key social reporting indicators. At this point,
the University of Cassino’s reporting model does not allow us to compare current data
with historic metrics. In the future, we will leverage our experience gained through this
project to improve the overall process. We hope that other Italian universities will adopt
guidelines similar to the Austrian framework so that we may conduct inter-university
comparisons at a national level.
CONCLUSION
The growing interest in social reporting is evident for both public and private organisations.
Universities are responsible for producing and diffusing knowledge – and in this context, they
have two primary objectives. On one hand, they must communicate the importance of their
efforts, and on the other hand they must optimise their management of intellectual assets in
order to create and control value in the long term.
44
IJMRT
We note that not all national/international best practices are entirely compatible with these
requirements. The Austrian model of ICR reporting that has been adopted by the University of
Cassino (IES UNICAS) can be considered a ‘second generation’ approach because it combines
the socio-economic impact of the organisation with an assessment of intangible assets.
The latter represents the best management planning and control tool to measure the results
of activities carried out by the university, namely, by its decentralised administrative structures.
Our indicators can help determine budgets given investment costs and benefits. It can also
promote merit-based competition within the institution and minimise the impact of interdepartmental politics.
Our work highlights the importance of universities’ intellectual capital in terms of producing
and disseminating knowledge. We believe that university governance should be increasingly
tied to social accountability.
The recent Italian university reform act (Legge Gelmini, Gelmini Law) was approved by
the Senate on 23 December 2010 (bill 1095-B). It specifies “standards for managing universities,
academic personnel and recruitment, together with incentive-driven quality and efficiency
drivers.”
The final text of the legislation approved by the Italian Parliament reiterates the social role
of universities. Under this law, social reporting must be an integral part of the governance systems
of Italian universities. University administrative councils must include eleven members, of which
a maximum of three members (or 40% of the council) must come from non-academic circles.
These members must be selected on the basis of their managerial and professional experience.
We believe that the administrative council is the most important part of a university’s governance
system: it is recognised as a critical administrative and planning body. The new law in Italy
requires that these councils include people who are “highly qualified in management or highly
experienced Italian or foreign persons who have significant scientific and cultural qualifications.”
This requirement should lead to a university governance system in Italy that is strongly focused
on social public responsibility.
References
Ackoff, R.L. (1961), Systems, Organizations and Interdisciplinary Research. In D.P. ECKMAN (ed).
Systems: research and design. New York: J. Wiley & Sons Inc..
Airoldi, G., Forestieri, G. (1998), Corporate governance. Analisi e prospettive del caso italiano. Milano:
Etas.
Ansoff, H., Pastore, R. Piantoni, G. (1984), La strategia sociale dell’impresa. Milano: Etas.
Arduini, S. (2001), La valutazione del capitale umano ed il bilancio ordinario d’esercizio. In G. Zanda,
M. Lacchini, T. Onesti. La valutazione delle aziende. Torino: Giappichelli.
Bang, A., Cleemann, C., Bramming, P. (2010), How to Create Business Value in the Knowledge Economy:
Accelerating Thoughts of Peter F. Drucker. Management Decision, 48(4), 616-627.
Benz, M., Frey, B. (2007), Corporate Governance: What can We Learn from Public Governance?. Academy
of Management Review, 32(1), pp. 92-104.
Bertini, U. (1990), Il sistema d’azienda. Schema d’analisi. Torino: Giappichelli.
The ICR in University: A Case Study
45
Bianchi, A. (1996), Corporate Governance. Considerazioni introduttive. Rivista delle Società, 2.
Bonani, G.P. (2000), La sfida del capitale intellettuale. Principi e strumenti di knowledge management per
organizzazioni intelligenti. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Borgonovi, E. (2005), Principi e sistemi aziendali per le amministrazioni pubbliche. Milano: Egea.
Bornemann, M., Leitner, K. (2002), Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital: The Case of a Research
Technology Organisation. Singapore Management Review, 24(3), 7-19.
Brugger, G. (1989), La valutazione dei beni immateriali legati al marketing e alla tecnologia. Finanza,
Marketing e Produzione, 1.
Bruni, G. (1997), Il bilancio di missione delle aziende non profit. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia
Aziendale, may-june.
Carnegie, G., Tuck, J. (2010), Understanding the ABC of University Governance. Australian Journal of
Public Administration, 69 (4), 431-441.
Cassone, A., Zaccardella, P. (2009), Il bilancio sociale delle università. Inventario dei problemi e analisi
comparata delle esperienze italiane. Working Paper no.130, Università del Piemonte Orientale,
Alessandria, Italia.
Catalano, G., (ed.), (2004), Valutare le attività amministrative delle università. Aspetti metodologici e
buone pratiche. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Catalano, G., (ed.), (2009), La contabilità economico-patrimoniale nelle università. Aspetti metodologici
e principi contabili. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Catturi, G., (1972), Il valore aggiunto come grandezza tipica della impresa contemporanea: sue
caratteristiche economiche e contabili. Estratto dagli Studi Senesi, III (XXI), 351-352.
Catturi, G., (2000), Bilancio sociale e cultura aziendale. Premesse e sviluppi. Quaderni Senesi di Economia
Aziendale e di Ragioneria. Serie interventi, 61.
Cavalieri, E., (2010), Le nuove dimensioni dell’equilibrio aziendale. Contributo alla rivisitazione della
teoria. Torino: Giappichelli.
Cerchione, E., (2000), Sistemi informativo-contabili nella pubblica amministrazione. Milano: Egea.
Cima, S., Bruno, I., (2002), La stima del valore aggiunto sociale. In AA.VV., Quanto vale il non profit
italiano. Milano: Franco Angeli, 42-54.
Chiesi, A., Martinelli, A., Pellegatta, M. (2000), Il bilancio sociale, stakeholder e responsabilità sociale di
impresa. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.
Chiucchi, M.S., (2004), Sistemi di misurazione e di reporting del capitale intellettuale: criticità e prospettive.
Torino: Giappichelli.
Cipollone, P., Sestito, P. (2010), Il capitale umano. Come far fruttare i talenti. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Colley Jr, J.L., Doyle, G.L., Logan, G.W., Stettinius, W. (2005), What is Corporate Governance?. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Comuzzi, E., Marasca, S., Olivotto, L. (2009), Intangibles. Profili di gestione e di misurazione. Milano:
Franco Angeli.
Costabile, M. (2001), Il Capitale Relazionale: gestione delle relazioni e della custode loyalty. Milano: Mc
Graw-Hill.
46
IJMRT
Cravera, A., Maglione, M., Ruggieri, R. (2001), La valutazione del capitale intellettuale: creare valore
attraverso la misurazione e la gestione degli assets intangibili. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.
Cugini, A., (ed.), (2007), La misurazione delle performance negli atenei. Logiche, metodi, esperienze.
Milano: Franco Angeli.
DAHLSRUD, A. (2007), How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37 Definitions.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15 (1), 1-13.
Danish Agency for Trade and Industry, (2000), A Guidelines for Intellectual Capital Statement. Danimarca,
Copenhagen.
Dipartimento della Funzione Pubblica, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, (2006), Misurare per decidere.
La misurazione delle perfomance per migliorare le politiche pubbliche e i servizi. Soveria Mannelli:
Rubettino.
D’Alessio, L. (2008), Le aziende pubbliche. Management Programmazione Controllo. Volume I: Stato,
Regioni, Enti Locali, Enti Previdenziali. Napoli: Liguori Editore.
D’Egidio, F. (2001), Il bilancio dell’intangibile. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E. (1995), The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and
Implications. Academy of Management Review, 20.
Donna, G. (2001), Soggetto economico e modelli di governance. In G. Favotto, Economia Aziendale,
Milano: McGraw-Hill.
Edvinsson, L., Malone, M. (1997), Intellectual Capital, London: Piatkus.
Epifani, S., (2003). Business community: Gestire il Capitale Intellettuale nella net economy. Milano:
Franco Angeli.
Fabbrini, G., Ricciardi, A., (eds.), (2007). Intangibles assets. Principi contabili, modalità di reporting e
tecniche di valutazione. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Farneti, G. (1993), Il bilancio dell’ente locale. Determinazioni preventive e consuntive. Torino: Giappichelli.
Ferrero, G. (1980), Impresa e management. Milano: Giuffré.
Flamholtz, E.G. (1989), Human Resource Accounting. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fogheri, P., Bondanelli, L., (eds.), (2009), Il bilancio dell’intangibile: quando in azienda i conti non
contano abbastanza. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Fontana, F. (1986), Gli investimenti in capitale umano. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia
Aziendale, n. 3-4.
Foray, D. (2006), L’economia della conoscenza, Bologna: Il Mulino.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R.E., Rusconi, G., Dorigatti, M., (eds.), (2007), Teoria degli stakeholder. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Frey, M., (1997), Lo sviluppo dei bilanci e dei rapporti ambientali in Italia. Summa, june.
Frey, M., (2009), Il bilancio sociale nelle università. Impresa Progetto; Rivista on line del DITEA, 1.
Gabrovec Mei, O., (1993), Il bilancio sociale. Amministrazione & Finanza, 6.
Gallino, L., (2005), L’impresa irresponsabile. Torino: Einaudi.
Gruppo Bilancio Sociale (2008), La rendicontazione sociale nelle università. Milano: Giuffrè.
The ICR in University: A Case Study
47
Global Reporting Initiative, (2002), Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Boston.
Hall, R. (1992), The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 135144.
Hess, D. (2007), Social Reporting and New Governance Regulation: The Prospects of Achieving Corporate
Accountability through Trasparency. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(3), 453-476.
Hinna, L., (ed.), (2002), Il bilancio sociale. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.
Hinna, L., (2004), Il bilancio sociale nelle amministrazioni pubbliche. Processi, strumenti, strutture e
valenze. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Hinna, L., Monteduro, F. (2003), Trust in Local Authorities: The Role of Social Reporting to Citizens. Atti
del convegno dell’European Group of Public Administration, 3-6 september, Oeiras, Portogallo.
Holmen, J. (2005), Intellectual Capital Reporting. Management Accounting Quarterly, 6(4), 1-9.
Ifac, (1998), The Measurement and Management of Intellectual Capital: an Introduction. International
management Accounting Study N.7, October, New York.
Itami, H., (1988), Le risorse invisibili. Torino: Isedi.
Kanji, G., Chopra, P. (2010), Corporate Social Responsibility in a Global Economy. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 21(2), 119-143.
Kaptein, M. (2007), Ethical Guidelines for Compiling Corporate Social Reports. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, 27, 71-90.
Lacchini, L. (1994), Modelli teorico contabili e principi di redazione del bilancio. Riflessioni economicoaziendali sull’innovato codice civile. Torino: Giappichelli.
Lacchini, M. (2002), Corporate governance e bilanci d’impresa nella prospettiva della riforma. Torino:
Giappichelli.
Lacchini, M., Trequattrini, R. (2004), Responsabilità amministrativa delle imprese e bilancio sociale.
Prospettive ed esperienze economico aziendali. Roma: Aracne.
Lattanzi, N. (2000), Il sistema delle relazioni aziendali. Pisa: Il Borghetto.
Leitner, K.H., Warden, C. (2004), Managing and reporting knowledge-based resouces and process. Research
Organitations. Management Accounting Research, 15, 33-51.
Lev, B., Schwartz, A. (1971), L’applicazione del concetto di “capitale umano” nelle situazioni di bilancio.
Sviluppo e Organizzazione, 8.
Lev, B. (2003), Intangibles: gestione, valutazione e reporting delle risorse intangibili delle aziende. Milano:
Etas Libri.
Lipparini, A. (2003), La gestione strategica del capitale intellettuale e del capitale sociale. Bologna: Il
Mulino.
Lizza, P. (2005), Il Capitale Intellettuale: profili di gestione e di valutazione. Milano: Giuffrè.
Manni, F. (1994), Responsabilità sociale ed informazione esterna d’impresa. Problemi, esperienze e
prospettive del bilancio sociale. Torino: Giappichelli.
Marchi, L., Marasca, S. (2010), Le risorse immateriali nell’economia delle aziende. Profili di misurazione
e di comunicazione. Bologna: Il Mulino.
48
IJMRT
Martín-de-Castro, G., Delgado-Verde, M., López-Sáez, P., Navas-López, J. (2011), Towards. An Intellectual
Capital-Based View of the Firm: Origins and Nature. Journal of Business Ethics, 98 (4), 649-662.
Masini, C. (1970), Lavoro e risparmio. Torino: Utet, 18-19.
Matacena, A. (1984), Impresa e ambiente: il bilancio sociale. Bologna: Clueb.
Meneguzzo, M. (2006), Le prospettive future. Verso un equilibrio tra valore pubblico, competitività e
capitale sociale, valutazione multidimensionale delle performance e performance management. In
Dipartimento della Funzione Pubblica, Misurare per decidere. La misurazione delle performance per
migliorare le politiche pubbliche e i servizi, Soveria Mannelli: Rubettino.
Meritum, (2002), Guidelines for Managing and Reporting on Intangibles. Progetto Meritum, Programma
TSER, Madrid.
Miolo Vitali, P. (1987), Considerazioni in merito all’inserimento di costi ecologici nel bilancio d’esercizio.
Scritti in onore di Domenico Amodeo, Padova: Cedam.
Miolo Vitali, P., (ed.), (2001), I sistemi di misurazione economico-finanziaria nelle università italiane:
problemi e prospettive. Padova: Cedam.
Miolo Vitali, P., Marelli, A. (2000), Le informazioni economico-finanziarie nel nuovo contesto universitario
italiano: i risultati di una ricerca sulla potenzialità informativa dei consuntivi. Azienda Pubblica,
13(6), 673-688.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J. (1997), Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience:
defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4).
Molteni, M., (ed.), (1997), I sistemi di Corporate Governance nelle grandi imprese italiane. Milano:
Egea.
Moore, M.H. (1995), Creating Public Value. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Mouritsen, J., Larsen, H.T., Bukh, P.N., Johansen, M.R. (2002), Developing and Managing Knowledge
through Intellectual Capital Statements. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3 (1), 10-19.
Mussari, R., Monfardini, P. (2010), Practices of Social Reporting in Public Sector and Non-profit
Organizations. Public Management Review, 12(4), 487-492.
Nardo, M.T., Veltri, S. (2007), Una proposta di reportistica integrata degli intangibili d’impresa:
l’Intangibles Global Report. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, novemberdecember, 667-677.
Paris, A. (2003), Il ruolo del “rendiconto etico-ambientale” nel sistema della comunicazione aziendale.
Padova: Cedam.
Pezzani, F. (ed.), (2003), L’accountability delle amministrazioni pubbliche. Milano: Egea.
Pirovano, M., Gilodi, C. (2003), Il Capitale Relazionale delle Associazioni di Impresa. Milano: Guerini e
associati.
Puddu, L. (2001), Ragioneria pubblica. Il bilancio degli enti locali. Milano: Giuffrè.
Putnam, R.D. (2000), Capitale sociale e individualismo. Crisi e rinascita della cultura civica in America.
Bologna: Il Mulino.
Rebora, G. (1999), La valutazione dei risultati nelle amministrazioni pubbliche. Proposte operative e di
metodo. Milano: Guerini.
The ICR in University: A Case Study
49
Reynolds, M., Yuthas, K. (2008), Moral Discourse and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Journal
of Business Ethics, 78(1/2), 47-64.
Rifkin, J. (2001), L’era dell’accesso. La rivoluzione della new economy. Milano: Mondadori.
Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N.C., Edvinsson, L. (1997), Intellectual capital. Navigating the new business
landscape, London: MacMillan Business.
Romolini, A. (2007), Accountability e bilancio sociale negli enti locali. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Rullani, E. (2004), Economia della conoscenza. Creatività e valore nel capitalismo delle reti. Roma:
Carocci.
Rusconi, G. (1988), Il bilancio sociale d’impresa: problemi e prospettive. Milano: Giuffrè.
Sciarelli, S. (1985), Il sistema d’impresa. Padova: Cedam.
Sciarelli, S. (2007), Etica e responsabilità sociale nell’impresa. Milano: Giuffrè.
Scifo, G. (1974), Il capitale umano dell’impresa. Milano: Isedi.
Solomon, J. (2010), Corporate governance and accountability. Wiley & Sons Ltd, UK.
Steccolini, I. (2004), Accountability e sistemi informativi negli enti locali: dal rendiconto al bilancio
sociale. Torino: Giappichelli.
Stewart, T.A. (1999), Il capitale intellettuale. La nuova ricchezza. Milano: Ponte alle Grazie.
Stewart, T.A. (2002), La ricchezza del sapere. Milano: Ponte alle Grazie.
Sveiby, K. (1997), The New Organizational Wealth. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Trequattrini, R. (1999), Economia aziendale e nuovi modelli di corporate governance: esperienze a
confronto. Torino: Giappichelli.
Trequattrini, R. (2008), Conoscenza ed economia aziendale. Elementi di teoria. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche
Italiane.
Turco, M. (2004), L’incidenza del patrimonio intellettuale sullo sviluppo aziendale. Modelli di analisi.
Bari: Cacucci Editore.
Vicari, S. (1992), Risorse aziendali e funzionamento d’impresa. Finanza Marketing e Produzione, 3.
Vermiglio, F. (2000), Nuovi strumenti di comunicazione aziendale. Confronto di esperienza in tema di
bilancio sociale. Torino: Giappichelli.
Vicari, S. (1992), Risorse aziendali e funzionamento d’impresa. Finanza Marketing e Produzione, 3.
Viviani, M. (1999), Specchio magico. Il bilancio sociale e l’evoluzione delle imprese. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Zambon, S., & Marzo, G. (2007), Visualising intangibles: measuring and reporting in the knowledge
economy. Ashgate: Aldershot.
Zanelli, E. (1997), Corporate Governance: ricerche e spunti per il confronto. Rivista dell’Ordine dei
Dottori Commercialisti di Roma, 47.
Zanda, G. (1974), La grande impresa. Caratteristiche strutturali e di comportamento. Torino: Giuffré.
Zanda, G. (2009), Il governo della grande impresa nella società della conoscenza. Torino: Giappichelli.
Zanda, G., Lacchini, M. (1991), La valutazione dei marchi d’impresa. Padova: Cedam.
Zanda, G., Lacchini, M., Oricchio, G. (1993), La valutazione del capitale umano dell’impresa. Modelli
qualitativi e quantitativi di logica economico-aziendale. Torino: Giappichelli.
50
IJMRT
Tables
Table 1
Indicators in the University of Cassino’s Reporting Model
Intellectual Capital Indicators
Human
Capital
Structural
Capital
Relational
Capital
Indicator 1:
Total number
of employees
Indicator 75:
Indicator 119:
University library Number of
networks
books borrowed
Performance Process Indicators
Teaching
Research
Knowledge
Transfer
Indicator 147:
Students using
the library
Indicator 185:
Patent
applications
Indicator 269:
Technology
transfer
Indicator 2:
Indicator 76:
Number of male Growth in
employees
number of titles
within libraries
Indicator 124:
Number of
book references
Indicator 162:
Study hours
Indicator 256:
Indicator 272:
Number of EU
Patent
research programs applications
Indicator 3:
Number of
female
employees
Indicator 81:
Increase in
computer usage
Indicator 129:
Visitors to the
university
website
Indicator 168:
Number of
academic
classes
offered
Indicator 259:
Number of
academic
spin-off
companies
Indicator 4:
Employee ages
Indicator 83:
Changes in
regulations
Indicator 130:
Indicators 174Number of
178: Number of
times the university academic credits
is mentioned in the offered by
local press
different
departments
Indicator 262:
Average
productivity
of teaching
staff
Indicator 5:
Number of
teaching staff
Indicator 84:
Issuance of
new regulations
Indicator 132:
Number of
socially motivated
activities
Indicator 268:
An overall
indicator for
research quality
Indicator 184:
An overall
indicator for
teaching quality
Indicator 276:
Value of the
University’s
Fund for
Scientific
Research
(Euros)
Indicator 280:
FIRB (Euros)
Indicator 282:
Value of EUsponsored
projects (Euros)
The table is divided into two sections. The left side (the first three columns) lists intellectual
capital indicators, while the right side identifies certain performance process indicators related
to research and technology transfer.