Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
PIONEERING PRACTICES OF SOCIAL REPORT IN UNIVERSITIES: THE ITALIAN CASE
del Sordo Carlotta1, Siboni Benedetta1, Pazzi Silvia2 1University of Bologna, Department of Management (Italy)
2University of Pisa, Department of Business Economics (Italy) [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
Context and Purpose: Recent years in Italy have witnessed an emerging interest under scholars on
public sector’s social report, with particular reference to local governments. This document is used as
a tool for external accountability’s purposes, as well as for management control system’s purposes.
Over last years this phenomenon has extended also to the university sector, with 9 pioneering
experiences. Despite this practice is not mandatory required, two Italian guidelines have been issued
to promote it over universities (Directive, 2006; GBS, 2008). However, just a few studies have been
published on this topic. Particularly, little research has been carried out in relation to the analysis of
the practices. To bridge this gap, the current study is aimed to provide a comparative analysis of the
pioneering social reports in order to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the phenomenon, and
contribute to the debate about its development.
Design/methodology/approach: The research was conducted through a documentary analysis applied
to the social reports published by the Italian universities until 2009. The analysis investigates the
following aspects: (1) the institutional framework under which the initiative was developed, (2) the
process of reporting, (3) the content and structure of the document, as well as the guidelines followed
(4) the link between social reporting and planning, and the intention to replicate the initiative.
Findings: The paper founds that: (1) the institutional framework for the social report’s adoption is
motivated by an increasing attention of stakeholder and funders on the results assessment; (2) the
process of reporting is hardly illustrated, it involves mainly internal employees, and generally it does
not engage stakeholders; (3) there is a wide diversity in structure and contents, and an
incompleteness of the areas reported. Moreover, in most cases one or more guidelines for social
reporting are taken into consideration; however, the Italian Directive (2006) is the most considered; (4)
social reports are often declared to be linked with the planning process, and all universities stated their
intention to replicate the initiative.
Practical implications: Given the newness of the two Italian guidelines for social reporting, and the lack
of studies on reporting practices the current study identifying strengths and weaknesses of current
practices can contribute to: on one hand, the dissemination of social reporting practices in universities,
on the other hand, the improvement of the next editions.
Originality: The national and international literature has paid little attention to the social report in
universities, and the studies carried out were mainly normative in nature. This research analyses what
Italian universities actually report in their social reports, and establishes what the open issues are and
highlights further areas of research.
Keywords: Social report, Accountability, Universities, Stakeholder, Guidelines
2
1 INTRODUCTION Universities have two institutional goals: education through teaching activities, and knowledge development via research activities [1];[2]. Therefore, they play a central role in the economic and social development process of the country [3]. Over the past three decades, the higher education system of most OECD countries has been involved in significant changes that have increased the demand for more accountability and for greater attention to performance [4]. In Italy, the reforming process has highlighted the need to adopt some practices of social reporting in order to promote greater accountability and transparency of activities and results which the funding system is now linked to. International and national literature has paid a greater attention to the theme of social reporting in corporate and in public sector organizations [5]; [6]. In the university context, however, social reporting is still little explored both by literature and by practice. In fact, there are few studies on this theme [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12] and most of them are normative and mainly refer to the public sector literature [13]. According to this literature, social reports are conceived as a tool for external accountability purposes, as well as for the management control system [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [8]. These researches highlight that the practice of social reporting in the university context is not widespread and the social reports issued are mainly pivotal versions [11]. Moreover they find a lack of quantitative information [9] and little attention on the disclosure of environmental aspects [13]. Before 2008, the absence of a guideline for university social reports could be the reason for the limited diffusion of these techniques as well as for the great diversity among the social reports issued. The study Meneguzzo and Fiorani (2009)’s study underlines that the growth in financial autonomy has emphasized the need to demonstrate the universities’ results in order to obtain more funds both from the Government and the private sector. In such a context, the practice of social reporting should spread among universities in the near future. Moreover, social reporting could be used to benchmark universities on the basis of their ability to manage resources and to achieve results. Currently, nine pioneering universities have issued at least one edition of the social report [18]. The present study analyzes some social reports in order to underline their main characteristics, to identify the strengths and the weaknesses of the documents and to underline future developments. The paper unfolds as follows. The next section describes the reforming process that has involved the university system and the Italian guidelines for social reporting in universities. The research method is presented in the third section and the main findings in the fourth. The last section discusses the weaknesses and the strengths of the documents and underlines the future research agenda.
2 HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM AND SOCIAL REPORTING IN ITALY The Italian Constitution states that education is a public good and a public responsibility. Consequently universities must remain organisations aimed at holding and developing a public function serving the community. Currently, the Italian university sector consists of 95 universities [19], which are classified in state (65) and non-state (30). State universities are mostly funded by the national Government and, traditionally, the Government also plays a central role in regulating teaching and research activities. On the contrary, non-state universities receive little funding from the national Government (about 10% of their total needs) and they have a much higher degree of autonomy [20]. Over the past three decades the institutional context of Italian universities has significantly changed, and there are new challenges to be faced. On one hand, the growing number of students and the increasing demand for high quality training have forced universities to reshape their educational activities. This phenomenon is common to other OECD countries and is known as the “massification” of higher education [4]; it implies a rising organizational complexity and a need for the creation of new curricula and the recruitment of new staff members. On the other hand, the Italian reforming process has moved higher education from a centralised system towards a decentralised and more competitive one [21], in order to improve its quality and cost effectiveness, and increase the autonomy [1]. In particular, in 1989 Law n. 168 stated the five dimensions of the autonomy of Italian universities: educational, scientific, organisational, financial and accounting. With reference to the accounting autonomy, universities are allowed to create their own autonomous accounting systems with articles of associations and rules. Moreover, since the 1990s, the rise of public debt and a general decrease in public financial resources has contributed to accelerate the implementation of the financial autonomy. Law no. 537/1993 introduced a new funding allocation system, in accordance to which each university
3
receives a global lump-sum fund (called Fondo di Finanziamento Ordinario, hereafter FFO) from the national Government partially shaped on the basis of the results achieved. In fact, the funding formula is linked to both educational results (number of students and numbers of graduates) and research performance (“success rate” in obtaining research grants). Furthermore, the reform process encourages universities to create networks [22] and to establish relationships with a wider number of stakeholders. As a result of these changes, universities are encouraged to produce performance measurement systems [1]; [2] and a greater level of accountability toward a greater number of stakeholders [21]; [11]; [12]. Nowadays, Italian universities have a legal requirement to disclosure only on financial matters [23]; [20]; [24]; [25]. However, since the early 2000s, attention to social reporting has increased. Some pioneering universities have published a social report, and two guidelines have been issued to support this practice in higher education. The first guideline is the Directive on Social Reporting in the Public Sector, of the Italian Minister of Public Affairs [26]. It encourages voluntary social reporting practices among public organisations, in order to increase accountability and support dialogue with their stakeholders. Moreover, it indicates principles, structure and contents for the social report, and gives insight into the reporting process, in order to increase its reliability. Briefly, the Directive suggests the following structure for social reports: Values, vision and programs, Policies and services provided, and Resources available and used. The second guideline is the Document on the Social Reporting in Universities, issued by the National Study Group on Social Reporting [27]. It is specifically addressed to supporting voluntary social report practices in universities, in order to allow a greater accountability towards their stakeholders. In brief, the structure suggested for the social report includes five sections: Introduction and methodological note, University identity, Reclassification of financial data, Social relation, and Future goals. The main merit of these guidelines is that they promote university social reporting and the comparison of their performance through the defining of common information. On the contrary, a drawback is that they are still generic in nature [28]; [9], and do not provide a comprehensive list of specific indicators to be reported.
3 METHOD Given the growing interest on social reporting, both at the international and national level, the current research is aimed to analyze the Italian universities’ social reports, in order to underline their characteristics and to identify strengths and weaknesses. The research was conducted through a documentary analysis that is a “qualitative analysis of documents” [29], and was structured in three phases: 1. collecting of documents; 2. development of a research framework; 3. examination of the documents. Nine universities that had issued a social report up to 31 December 2009 had been identified from a previous research conducted by some of the authors [18]. Their social reports were downloaded from the universities’ web sites
1.
Table 1 lists the nine universities as well as their features: the nature (state or non state), the geographical area (North, Centre, South), and the size (number of students and teachers, and amount of public funding received – FFO). Moreover, the table shows the characteristics of the social report: year of publication and reporting period. All the universities that report are state institutions, and most of them are located in Central and Southern Italy. The size of the university appears not to be a factor that affects the decision to report. In fact, both small organisations (with just 7,000 students and FFO for 21 million euro) and large ones (with more than 55,000 students, and FFO for 200 million euro) published a social report. Not surprisingly, big universities, where more funds are available, adopted social reporting. However, also small universities adopted it, probably for fund-raising purposes. The research framework identifies a list of aspects to be investigated in each document, in order to ensure a homogeneous analysis. The framework has been developed on the basis of a previous research that explored the emerging practices of social reporting in Italian local governments [30]. Table 2 shows the documentary analysis framework applied in examining each document, made up by four aspects. The first aspect investigates the extent to which the institutional context has fostered the practice of social reporting. The second aspect enquires into the reporting process followed by each organisation (such as phases, composition of working team, stakeholder engagement), since the voluntary basis on which it is drawn could bring to different paths. The third aspect refers to the content and the structure of the document focusing on elements such as length of the social report,
4
reporting period and areas, and guidelines followed. The fourth aspect investigates if the social reporting process is linked to the planning system and if the institution intends to replicate the initiative. Table 1 - The pioneering universities
Universities
Universities’ Features Social Report
(1st edition)
Social Report
(2nd edition)
Nature
Geographical
Area
Students
(No.)
Teachers
(No.)
FFO
(€ in m
il.)
Publication
Year
Reporting
Period
Publication
Year
Reporting
Period
Year 08/09
Scuola Superiore
Sant’Anna of Pisa State Centre Missing 67 3.200 2004 2002-2003 2005*
2003-
2004
Scuola Normale
Superiore of Pisa State Centre Missing 95 3.200 2007* 2004-2006
University of Bari State South 56.032 1.861 216.837 2006* 2002-2004
University of Cagliari State Centre 35.298 1.184 139.654 2007* 2006
University of Firenze State Centre 57.929 2.179 258.159 2007* 2006
University of Insubria State North 9.546 391 39.798 2009* 1998-2007
University of Ferrara State North 17.403 677 78.133 2007 2006 2008* 2007
University of Macerata State Centre 11.240 311 38.058 2008* 2007
University of Sannio State South 7.430 193 21.269 2008 2007 2009* 2008
* In case of more than one edition found, the study analyzed the latest version.
Table 2 – Documentary analysis framework
Aspect 1: Institutional framework
Aspect 2: Reporting process
1. phases
2 composition of working team
3. stakeholder engagement
Aspect 3: Report content and structure
1. length, structure, and reporting period
2. reporting areas
3. stakeholders
4. guidelines followed
Aspect 4: Social reporting and planning
1. links between social reports and plans
2. intention to replicate the initiative
The research framework described has been applied to the nine social reports by one of the authors that is an expert on the method, and the results are presented in the next section as a cross comparison.
4 FINDINGS
The present section compares the universities’ social reports focusing on the four aspects investigated in order find out strengths and weaknesses of the Italian case.
4.1 Institutional framework All the universities mention the institutional changes as a factor that has led them to develop social report practices. In particular, they mainly refer to two aspects (table 3). Firstly, the reduction of public financial resources together with financial autonomy encourages a greater disclosure in order to obtain more funds. Secondly, the stakeholders’ expectations for research and teaching quality services have been increasing; as a consequence, universities have to measure and report their achievements in order to get a higher legitimation for their activities.
5
Table 3 - Institutional factors that affect the adoption of social reports
Universities Reduction in Financial
Resources’
Increase in Stakeholders’
Expectations
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa �
Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa �
University of Bari � �
University of Cagliari � �
University of Firenze �
University of Insubria �
University of Ferrara � �
University of Macerata �
University of Sannio �
4.2 Reporting process Phases The description of the process phases and their contents is an essential part of the social report as the two Italian guidelines require. A comprehensive explanation of this information contributes to the reliability of the document; therefore universities should describe governance bodies involved in the process, as well as the methodological choices undertaken regarding it [26]. Nevertheless, the Italian universities analysed have paid little attention to this element, since generally it is only partially described (No. 6). Only three universities describe the process. For example, the University of Bari [31] emphasizes the role played by the university’s governance bodies in drafting and approving the document, but does not show the steps implemented. Conversely, the University of Ferrara [32] shows the features of the process (such as the choice of the reporting areas, the identification of stakeholders, the selection of the performance indicators and the gathering of information), but does not mention the governance bodies involved. Composition of the working team Generally the working team is composed of internal employees (No. 6), both administrative staff and academics; only two universities mentioned the working team being made up of both internal employees and external consultants; one university does not show the composition of the working team at all; at the same time, none of the universities have assigned the social reports only to external consultants. As it appears from these findings, universities generally involve internal members in the reporting process, in order to improve the quality of the experience, given the great knowledge they have about the organization and their activities. Stakeholder engagement The analysis shows that four universities have engaged their stakeholders, in different ways. Table 4 shows the methods adopted by the universities in a progressive order of stakeholder involvement, whereas, five universities, generally the ones which issued social reports first (Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa [33], Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa [34], University of Bari [31], University of Cagliari [35], University of Firenze [36]), do not describe this element at all. Table 4 – Methods and levels of stakeholder engagement
The University of Sannio [37] before publishing the social report submitted a customer satisfaction survey to students, teachers, administrative staff, firms, secondary schools and suppliers, to assess the perception about the university’s ability in achieving objectives and meeting needs. The results are displayed in the social report and used for the future decision-making process. Instead, the universities of Ferrara [32] and Insubria [38] enclosed a questionnaire addressed to the readers of
University of Sannio University of Ferrara, University of Insubria
University of Insubria University of Ferrara, University of Macerata
Opinion on the university’s activities
and results
Survey on the clarity of the social report
Evaluation of the draft of the social report
Focus group
- +
6
social reports, aimed at collecting an assessment about the clarity of the document and suggestions for future improvements. Moreover, the University of Insubria [38], even before issuing the social report, asked some institutional stakeholders (e.g. the Italian Minister of Education and a member of the National Study Group on Social Reporting) to evaluate the draft of the document in order to assess its usefulness and clarity. However, the stakeholders’ opinions are only disclosed in the social report, without any effect on future editions. Finally, the University of Ferrara [32] organized a focus group on environmental issues, to agree on a set of indicators for reporting, and foster the stakeholder’s cooperation on environmental protection. In addition, a further focus group was organized in order to involve the local firms in explaining their needs and expectations. The University of Macerata [39] organized meetings with some stakeholder groups (e.g. students, local authorities, financial institutions etc.) in order to explain the reporting process and ask for suggestions to improve its future activities.
4.3 Report content and structure Length, structure and reporting period With reference to the length of the document, table 5 shows that it varies from 41 pages (Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa [34]) to 294 pages (University of Ferrara [32]). Similarly, the number of sections varies from three sections (University of Sannio [37]), to fourteen (University of Ferrara [32]). However, there are generally less than eight sections. The reporting period is generally one year (academic or civil year). Only the University of Insubria [38] discloses ten years, celebrating its first decade of activity. Tav. 5 - Length, structure and reporting period
Universities Length
(No. of pages)
Structure
(No. of sections)
Reporting Period
(No. of years)
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa 180 6 1
Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa 41 5 2
University of Bari 125 7 2
University of Cagliari 66 4 1
University of Firenze 61 4 1
University of Insubria 136 7 10
University of Ferrara 294 14 1
University of Macerata 117 4 1
University of Sannio 77 3 1
Reporting areas Universities tend to focus on managerial issues linked to their traditional missions (research and teaching), as well as human resources (Table 6). Table 6 - Reporting areas
Universities Reporting Areas
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa Education; Protection of Human Rights; Innovation and Research; Relationships with Local Context; Environment; International Cooperation; Health; Human Capital.
Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa Counselling
University of Bari Education; Research; Local Relationships
University of Cagliari Education; Students’ Services (e.g. library service)
University of Firenze Research; Education; Health; Human capital.
University of Insubria Education; Students’ Services; Research; Relationships with Local Context
University of Ferrara Intellectual capital; Education; Research and Innovation; Relationships with Local Context; International Cooperation; Environment; Culture and Society; Health; Human capital.
University of Macerata Research
University of Sannio Education and Students’ Services; Research; Human Capital.
This result aligns to prior studies on Italian local governments [40] and Italian universities [11]. Also, it confirms Del Sordo et al. (2010c)’s finding, about the little attention paid to environmental aspects. When environmental issues are reported, they refer to financial expenditure, and research and education activities devoted to the environment. Conversely, the University of Ferrara [32] reports
7
information about waste management and some indicators suggested by international guidelines (e.g. the total weight of waste by type). Furthermore, the social report of the University of Macerata [39] has just one reporting area (research), since it is a pilot version. However, the University promises to enlarge the number of areas in future editions. Similarly, the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa [34] discloses only one reporting area (counseling), with the purpose of informing potential students about a didactical project; it therefore appears as an ad hoc document to disclose specific activities. Stakeholders The stakeholder groups to report to depend on the size of the university. Large universities are supposed to be connected to a greater number of stakeholders, rather than to small ones. However, the increasing level of autonomy has encouraged universities to develop relationships with a wider number of stakeholders [22]. Table 7 shows that, as Frey et al. (2010)’s study reveals, local authorities, financial institutions, suppliers and firms have become as relevant as the traditional university stakeholder groups (such as students and their families, academic members and administrative staff). Moreover, interestingly, the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa [34] identified also alumni as a stakeholder group to report to, with the intention of encouraging relationships among people with the same background. Finally, the call for internationalization of Italian Universities has encouraged the University of Insubria [38] to identify the International Academic Members as a stakeholder group to report to, in order to foster the connection with the international scientific community. Tav. 7 - Stakeholders to report to
Guidelines followed The social reports examined claim to follow at least one guideline, except for the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna [33] and the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa [34] which do not mention any standard. As a result, a variety of guidelines were followed, both national and international (Table 8): GRI (2006) [41], ISEA (1999) [42], GBS (2001) [43], GBS (2005) [44], GBS (2008) [27], and the Directive (2006)
[26]2. However, the Directive (2006) is the most followed national guideline (No. 5) and the GRI the
most followed international one (No. 4). Table 8 - Guidelines
Universities GRI (2006)
ISEA (1999)
GBS (2001)
GBS (2005)
GBS (2008)
Directive (2006)
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa
Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa
University of Bari ���� ����
University of Cagliari ����
University of Firenze ���� ���� ����
University of Insubria ���� ���� ����
University of Ferrara ���� ����
University of Macerata ���� ���� ���� ����
University of Sannio ����
Traditional Stakeholder Groups
New Stakeholder Groups
Universities
Students and
their Families
Academic
Members
Administrative
Staff
Local
Authorities
Suppliers
Sponsor
Firms
Intern
ational
Academic
Members
Alumni
Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna of Pisa � � � �
Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa � � �
University of Bari � � � � �
University of Cagliari � � � �
University of Firenze � �
University of Insubria � � � � � �
University of Ferrara � � � �
University of Macerata � � � � �
University of Sannio � � � � � �
8
Interestingly, the universities of Ferrara [32] and Insubria [38] have dedicated a part of their social report to explaining which guidelines affected each section and data of the document. For example, the University of Insubria [38] declares that the total number of employees by gender is an indicator suggested by both the GRI and GBS guidelines.
4.4 Social reporting and planning Links between social reports and plans All the social reports studied declared that there is a link between the social reporting and planning processes, but only four universities (Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa [34], University of Insubria [38], University of Macerata [39], University of Sannio [37]) explain how it works. For example, the University of Sannio [37] conducts a survey addressed to stakeholders in order to understand how the university could improve future activities to meet its stakeholders’ needs.
Intention of replicating the initiative
In their reports, the nine universities stated their intention of replicating the initiative. Nevertheless, not all of them have followed this intention.
5 CONCLUSION Although there is no mandatory requirement to account beyond traditional financial reporting, some Italian universities have started to issue social reports since 2004. These practices have been conceived in a context of significant changes, both in the external environment and the universities’ governance. The reforms have largely decreased public resources and linked the fund allocation system to performance measurement. Moreover, two recent social report guidelines have been issued to encourage public organizations and universities to undertake a conscious path towards disclosure to stakeholders. The current study has examined the pioneering social reports in order to highlight the main strengths and weaknesses of the Italian case, and contribute to its development. It has emerged that have published social reports both, large universities (where more funds are available) and small institutions (probably for fund-raising purposes). Also, there is no single guideline followed for reporting. Universities both refer to national (GBS, 2001 [43], 2005 [44], 2008 [27]; Directive, 2006 [26]) and international guidelines (GRI, 2006 [41]; ISEA, 1999 [42]). However, the national Directive (2006) is the most followed. Consequently, we found a large diversity in structure and contents among social reports. This diversity, on one hand, makes it difficult to compare performances among universities, on the other hand, allows them to learn from the other practices. Moreover, we found incompleteness in the areas reported; these mainly referred to the managerial aspects (research and teaching) and human resources. On the contrary, universities are multi-product organizations [45] and their activities affect the growth of society [3]; therefore, they should describe all the activities carried out. Furthermore, Italian universities have paid little attention on the reporting process that is often hardly disclosed, and occasionally presents high level of stakeholder engagement (except for internal employees). However, new stakeholder groups to report to have been identified (such as local authorities, sponsors, firms, etc.). Furthermore, there is a declared link between the social reporting and planning processes, but there is no explanation on how it works. Since social reporting is a tool not only for external accountability purposes but also for management control system purposes, the comparison between program and results and the stakeholders’ suggestions can contribute to improving the planning of future activities. Finally, although all universities declared the intention to replicate the initiative of reporting, this initiative is not always fulfilled. Considering the drawback we highlighted about the Italian case, some challenges have emerged. First of all, in view of the novelty of the guidelines, there is a need for more studies to verify the actual application of the guidelines and to assess their suitability and the ways for improvement. Secondly, a common set of performance indicators to be used in the social reports should be identified in order to allow comparison of the universities’ performance. Finally, in light of the greater attention to multi-dimensional performance measurement [5]; [6], it would be useful to develop cross-country comparison.
9
FOOTHNOTES 1 Additionally, an email was sent to all the administrative managers to verify if hard copies were available. 1 The GRI (2006) is an international guideline issued by the Global Reporting Initiative in order to encourage all types of organisations to fulfil the stakeholders’ needs related to information, by providing a reliable framework for sustainability reporting. The ISEA (1999) is an international guideline issued by The Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability in order to offer common principles and processes for the reporting and assurance, focused on stakeholder engagement. The GBS (2001) and GBS (2005) are guidelines issued by the Italian Study Group on Social Reporting in order to allow a greater accountability towards stakeholders. The first is a foundation guideline addressed to all organizations that establish general principles of reporting. The second is a specific guideline addressed to public sector organizations. For the GBS (2008) and the Directive (2006) see paragraph 2.
REFERENCES
[1] Arnaboldi, M. And Azzone, G. (2004) Benchmarking university activities: an Italian case study. Financial Accountability & Management, 20:2 pp205-20.
[2] Lapsley, I. And Miller, P. (2004) Transforming universities: the uncertain, erratic path. Financial Accountability & Management, 20:2 pp103-06.
[3] Rebora, G. (1999) Un decennio di riforme: nuovi modelli organizzativi e processi di cambiamento delle amministrazioni pubbliche (1990-1999), Milano: Guerini.
[4] Alexander, F. K. (2000) The changing face of accountability. The Journal of High Education, 71:4 pp411-31.
[5] Thomson, I. (2007) Mapping the terrain of sustainability accounting in J. Unerman, J. Bebbington and B. O’Dwyer (eds) Sustainability Accounting and Accountability. Oxford: Routledge.
[6] Mathews, M. R. (1997) Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10: 4 pp481-531.
[7] Carrassi, M. And Romanazzi, S. (2007) La rendicontazione sociale nell’università: l’esperienza dell’Università di Bari in P. Ricci (ed) Lo standard G.B.S. per la rendicontazione sociale nella pubblica amministrazione. Riflessioni a confronto. Milano: Franco Angeli.
[8] Speziale, M.T. And Zanigni, M. (2007) Il bilancio sociale dell’Università nel paradigma del network Management in A. Paletta, M. Tieghi, (eds) Il bilancio sociale su base territoriale. Dalla comunicazione istituzionale alla Public Governance. Milano: Isedi.
[9] Cassone, A. And Zaccarella, P. (2009) Il bilancio sociale delle università: inventario dei problemi e analisi comparata delle esperienze italiane. Working Papers n. 130, Alessandria: Università del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”.
[10] Frey, M. (2009) Il bilancio sociale delle Università. Progetto Impresa, Rivista on line del Ditea, available online: http://www.impresaprogetto.it.
[11] Frey, M., Melis, M., And Vagnoni, E. (2010) Recent Developments in Social and Environmental Reporting among Italian Universities: A Critical Evaluation of Leading-edge Practices in M.G. Baldarelli (ed) Civil Economy, Democracy, Transparency and Social and Environmental Accounting Research Role, Milano:McGraw-Hill.
[12] Meneguzzo, M. And Fiorani, G. (2009) Scelte di sviluppo, innovazione organizzativa e rendicontazione sociale: il bilancio di mandato dell’Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor Vergata”. Rivista italiana di ragioneria e di economia aziendale, 109: 5/6 pp347-59.
[13] Del Sordo, C., Farneti, F., Pazzi, S., Siboni, B. (2010a) Voluntary Reporting in Italian Universities: what do they report?, paper presented at The Fourth New Zealand Management Accounting Forum, Hamilton, New Zealand, 18-19 November.
10
[14] Steccolini, I. (2004) Accountability e sistemi informativi negli enti locali. Dal rendiconto al bilancio sociale, Torino: Giappichelli.
[15] Farneti, G., And Pozzoli, S. eds. (2005) Bilancio sociale di mandato. Il ciclo integrato di strategia e controllo sociale, Milano: Ipsoa.
[16] Ecchia, G., Marangoni, G., Zarri, L. eds. (2005) Il bilancio sociale e di missione per le organizzazioni non profit. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
[17] Siboni, B. (2007) La rendicontazione sociale negli enti locali. Analisi dello stato dell’arte. Milano: Franco Angeli.
[18] Del Sordo, C., Pazzi, S., Siboni, B. (2010c) Il bilancio sociale nelle università: analisi delle prime esperienze. Non profit, n. 16:4.
[19] Ministry of Higher Education (2009) Tenth report on Italian university system.
[20] Del Sordo, C. (2005) Il controllo direzionale nelle università. Dal sistema di bilancio alla balanced score card, Milano:FrancoAngeli.
[21] Agasisti, T. (2009) Market forces and competition in university systems: theoretical reflections and empirical evidence from Italy. International Review of applied economics, 23:4 pp463-83.
[22] Rebora, G. And Turri, M. (2009) La governance del sistema universitario in Italia: 1989-2008. Azienda Pubblica, 22:2 pp 259-84.
[23] Cinquini, L. (2001) Quale ruolo per la contabilità direzionale nelle università? in P. Miolo Vitali (ed) I sistemi di misurazione economico-finanziaria nelle università italiane: problemi e prospettive. Padova: Cedam.
[24] Garlatti, A. (1996) Bilancio e controllo economico nelle università degli studi, Milano: Egea.
[25] Miolo Vitali, P. ed. (2001) I sistemi di misurazione economico-finanziaria nelle università italiane: problemi e prospettive, Padova: Cedam.
[26] Directive - Dipartimento della Funzione pubblica (2006) Direttiva del Ministro della Funzione pubblica sulla rendicontazione sociale nelle amministrazioni pubbliche, available online: http://www.funzionepubblica.it/docs_html/Direttiva__BS.htm.
[27] GBS - Gruppo di studio per la statuizione dei principi per la redazione del bilancio sociale (2008) Il bilancio sociale. La rendicontazione sociale nelle università. Documento di ricerca n. 7. Milano: Giuffrè
[28] Del Sordo, C., Pazzi, S., Siboni, B. (2010b) Il bilancio sociale nelle università: analisi del contesto di riferimento. Non profit, 16:3 pp69-101.
[29] Bailey, K. D. (2007) Method of Social Research Fourth Edition. New York: Simon & Schuster.
[30] De Magistris, V., Gioioso, G. eds. (2005) Nuovi profili di accountability nelle P.A., Analisi di Casi, Roma: Formez.
[31] Università di Bari (2006) Bilancio Sociale 2002-2004.
[32] Università di Ferrara (2008) Bilancio Sociale 2007.
[33] Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna (2005) Bilancio Sociale A.A. 2003-2004.
[34] Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (2007) Bilancio Sociale 2004-2006.
11
[35] Università di Cagliari(2006) Bilancio Sociale 2006.
[36] Università di Firenze (2007) Bilancio Sociale 2006.
[37] Università del Sannio (2009) Bilancio Sociale 2008.
[38] Università dell’Insubria (2009) Bilancio Sociale 2007.
[39] Università di Macerata (2008) Bilancio Sociale dell’esercizio 2007.
[40] Farneti, F., Guthrie, J., Siboni, B. (2010) Social and sustainability reporting in Italian local governments: what is not reported?, in S. P. Osborne And A. Ball (eds) Social accounting and Public Management. Oxford: Routledge.
[41] GRI - Global Reporting Initiative (2006) G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, online resource: http://www.globalreporting.org
[42] ISEA - Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability (1999) AccountAbility 1000 (AA1000) framework Standards, guidelines and professional qualification, online resource: http://www.accountability.org/
[43] GBS - Gruppo di studio per la statuizione dei principi per la redazione del bilancio sociale (2001) Principi di redazione del Bilancio Sociale, online resource: http://www.gruppobilanciosociale.org/rendicontazione.asp.
[44] GBS - Gruppo di studio per la statuizione dei principi per la redazione del bilancio sociale (2005) La rendicontazione sociale nel settore pubblico, online resource: http://www.gruppobilanciosociale.org/rendicontazione.asp.
[45] Cohn, E., Rhine S.L., And Santos M. (1989) Institutions of higher education as multi-product firms: Economies of scale and scope. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 71:2 pp284-90.
