Intellectual capital disclosure and its determinants in healthcare organisations – Evidence from Italy

Abstract

PurposeThe present study aims to extend the knowledge of intellectual capital disclosure (ICD) disclosure practices in the Italian Healthcare Organisations (HCOs) context. The ultimate goal of the study is to provide fresh insight into the possible explanatory factors that may drive the extent of ICD provided by Italian HCOs via the web.Design/methodology/approachThe present study applies a manual content analysis on the websites of a sample of 158 HCOs to determine the level of voluntary ICD. A multivariate regression model is estimated to test the association between different variables – size, gender diversity in top governance positions, financial performance and indebtedness – and the level of ICD provided by sampled HCOs through their official websites.FindingsContent analysis results reveal that – in the absence of mandatory requirements – Italian HCOs tend to use websites to disclose information about IC. Particular attention is devoted to Structural and Relational Capital. The statistical analysis pinpoints that size and indebtedness negatively influence the level of ICD. In contrast, the presence of a female General Manager (GM) positively drives ICD. Also, it is observed that Research and University HCOs and those located in the Italian Northern Regions are particularly prone to discharge accountability on IC through websites.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that examines voluntary ICD practices through websites in the Italian HCOs' context. Also, since prior studies on IC in the healthcare context are mainly descriptive or normative, this is the first study examining the potential determinants of ICD provided by HCOs in terms of size, gender diversity in top governance positions, financial performance and indebtedness.

Exploring intellectual capital disclosure and its determinants in knowledge-based institutions: empirical evidence from international universities

“…This should reduce the misleading consequences of “accountingisation” (Dumay, 2009, p. 205) – i.e. the constraint of IC value within the rigid prescription of accounting standards – which might compromise the reliability and usefulness of IC information (Habersam et al , 2013; Ramírez and Gordillo, 2014; Nicolò, 2020).…”

“…In particular, universities are considered part of a social contract with the myriad of stakeholders who are involved or interested in their activities, including the state, local governments, students, citizens, employees, research centres, businesses, donors and society as a whole (Jongbloed et al , 2008; Ntim et al , 2017; Nicolò, 2020). According to this contract, universities are expected to provide excellent research and education and contribute to the socio-economic development consistent with stakeholders’ expectations (Jongbloed et al , 2008; Ntim et al , 2017; Nicolò, 2020). In doing so, they make intensive use of IC, which constitutes at the same time the main “output and input” (Ramírez and Gordillo, 2014, p. 173) of their value creation processes.…”

“…In doing so, they make intensive use of IC, which constitutes at the same time the main “output and input” (Ramírez and Gordillo, 2014, p. 173) of their value creation processes. This implies comprehensive accountability duties towards their different stakeholders’ groups to demonstrate that they correctly allocate public funds to use and generate IC resources to their benefit and the regional and national socio-economic growth (Schneider and Samkin, 2008; Nicolò, 2020; Nicolò et al , 2021a). According to Low et al (2015, p. 783), given their broader mandate to create public value, information on IC is crucial for universities to “maximise their return on social investment”.…”

“…According to the stakeholder theory, size is a common variable that is likely to affect the disclosure practices of each type of organisation (Roberts, 1992; Gray et al , 1995; Guthrie et al , 2006; Nicolò, 2020). In particular, larger universities are subject to more public scrutiny and are subject to more social and political pressures exerted by a vast array of stakeholders than smaller ones (Manes-Rossi et al , 2018; Sassen et al , 2018; Vitolla et al , 2019; Nicolò et al , 2020).…”

“…As well, the Bologna process aimed at establishing a unified European Higher Education Area has stressed the need to improve the quality and comparability of educational and research processes, stimulating the competitiveness between universities (Sánchez and Elena, 2006; Ramírez et al , 2016; Nicolò et al , 2021a). The combined effect of these events resulted in a scenario where public universities compete to attract the best IC resources in the forms of students and researchers to attain high-quality IC-based output and outcomes and – in turn – grant more funds from governments and industries (Sangiorgi and Siboni, 2017; Brusca et al , 2020; Nicolò, 2020).…”